{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-06-15", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY-JUNE - 15, 2010- 7:00 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the meeting at 7:37 p.m. Councilmember Matarrese led the\nPledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam\nand Mayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\nNone.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY & ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(10-276) Proclamation Recognizing Contributions to the City by Gay and Lesbian\nResidents and Encouraging the Community to Recognize These Contributions,\nParticularly During the Month of June, Gay Pride Month.\nMayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Debra Arbuckle.\nMs. Arbuckle thanked Council for the recognition.\nTracy Zellenger, Alameda, stated that she has lived in Alameda with her family for\nalmost ten years and has been with her partner for thirteen years; she enjoys the\ndiversity in Alameda and appreciates the City's acceptance of the gay community.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor Johnson announced that the Ordinance Approving Amendment to Master Plan\nMP05-01 [paragraph number 10-288 was removed from the Consent Calendar for\ndiscussion.\nCouncilmember Tam moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the\nparagraph number.]\n(*10-277 ) Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting held on June 1, 2010. Approved.\n(*10-278) Ratified bills in the amount of $2,874,733.\n(*10-279) Recommendation to Approve an Agreement with Holland + Knight, LLP, in the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJune 15, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-06-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-06-15", "page": 2, "text": "Amount of $96,000 for Federal Legislative Advocacy Services. Accepted.\n(*10-280) Recommendation to Accept the Boys & Girls Club Joint Use Agreement.\nAccepted.\n(*10-281) Recommendation to Award a Contract in the Amount of $95,110, Including\nContingencies, to PSOMAS Consulting Civil Engineers for an Assessment of Existing\nStorm Drain Pump Stations, No. P.W. 05-10-13. Accepted.\n(*10-282) Recommendation to Award a Contract in the Amount of $93,380, Including\nContingencies, to Fehr Engineering for Design Services for the Sewer Pump Station\nBackup Generator Project, No. P.W. 04-10-10. Accepted.\n(*10-283) Recommendation to Award a Contract in the Amount of $147,552, Including\nSales Tax and Contingencies, to Resource and Design, Inc. for Furnishings for the\nNeighborhood Library Improvement Project, No. P.W. 10-09-29. Accepted.\n(*10-284) Recommendation to Award a Contract in the amount of $227,853, Including\nContingencies, to Golden Bay Construction, Inc. for Culvert Reconstruction at Various\nLocations, No. P.W. 02-10-04. Accepted.\n(*10-285) Recommendation to Appropriate $300,000 in Community Development Block\nGrant Funds and Award a Contract in the Amount of $2,731,365, Including\nContingencies, to Gallagher & Burk, Inc. for the Repair and Resurfacing of Certain\nStreets, Phase 29, No. P.W. 02-09-06. Accepted.\n(*10-286) Resolution No. 14449, \"Authorizing the Interim City Manager to Implement a\nCity Wide Policy on Integrated Pest Management.\" Adopted.\n(*10-287) Resolution No. 14450, \"Authorizing the Interim City Manager to Submit a\nGrant Application to Caltrans for the Safe Routes to School Program for the Fiscal Year\n2010/2011 Grant Funding Cycle, Use $40,860 in Transportation Development Act,\nArticle 3 Funds for the Local Match, and Execute All Necessary Documents.' Adopted.\n(*10-288) Resolution No. 14451, \"Authorizing the City of Alameda Fire Department to\nAccess Federal Level Summary Criminal History for Emergency Medical Technicians.\"\nAdopted.\n(*10-289) Resolution No. 14452, \"Authorizing Examination of Sales, Use and\nTransactions Tax Records.' Adopted.\n(10-290) Introduction of an Ordinance Approving Amendment to Master Plan MP05-01\nfor Grand Marina Village to Reduce the Number of Required Affordable Housing Units.\nIntroduced.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether the City has financial analysis to show that\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJune 15, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-06-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-06-15", "page": 3, "text": "building ten out of forty units would not be economically feasible because there would\nbe no tax increment funding.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded Warmington Homes is\nnot required to provide an economic analysis; stated the 2004 inclusionary housing\nrequirement was reduced to 15% in 2009; staff is recommending the reduction for the\nGrand Marina project because of parity; the Grand Marina project is the only project in\nthe City required to provide the 25% without any subsidy from the City; the priority is to\nget the project underway as quickly as possible as well improving the surrounding area.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether the parity would be within the Master Plan area\nand not Citywide, to which the Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded\nthe parity would be Citywide.\nCouncilmember Tam stated Alameda Point requires a 25% inclusionary housing as a\nresult of a settlement agreement; parity will never happen at Alameda Point.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated Alameda Point is different\nbecause of the settlement agreement.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether funding was available when Grand Marina\nconsidered relocating to Island High School.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded the City did not provide\nfinancial assistance to help with the relocation.\nSpeakers: Lois Pryor, Alameda; and William Smith, Renewed Hope Housing Advocates.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the City reduced the inclusionary housing percentage so\nthat developers would not be automatically entitled to incentives; inquired how staying\nwith ten affordable units would impact the developer's use of the density bonus.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded Warmington Homes has\nnot submitted a density bonus application as part of the project.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the Planning Board provided a recommendation,\nto which the Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the City's requirement is 15% by State\nredevelopment law, to which the Deputy City Manager - Development Services\nresponded in the affirmative.\nThe City Attorney stated staff's thoughts for changing the inclusionary requirement from\n25% to 15% is based on the way that the density bonus ordinance counts existing units\nwithin a development; the ordinance counts all units, including ones that the City\nrequires under the inclusionary requirements, and if a developer could count 25%\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJune 15, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-06-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-06-15", "page": 4, "text": "affordable units towards entitlement, a density bonus option would be granted every\ntime; the City could have chosen not to permit counting inclusionary units to get a\ndensity bonus or go with the Planning Board recommendation to count all units, which\nincluded rolling back the inclusionary requirement from 25% to 15% in order to avoid an\nautomatic density bonus for every project.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated Grand Marina would be\nsubject to the 15% requirement if an application were submitted today.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether any other developments are requesting an\nexclusion.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded an Alameda Landing\nproject has a 25% requirement, but the project has a lot of public assistance.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the City has money to build affordable units\nin\na development that would make up for going from 25% to 15%, to which the Interim\nCity Manager responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether said scenario has been reviewed.\nThe Interim City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated upcoming projects would\naddress affordable housing issues; reducing the number of affordable housing units to\nsix seems like a reasonable recommendation knowing that the City has several projects\nwhich would require subsidies.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether construction would be delayed by the 25%\nrequirement because financing would not be feasible.\nThe Interim City Manager responded the project would be able to go forward without a\nsubsidy if four units were removed; stated the project has some failsafe mechanisms;\ncontributions would need to be made to the housing in-lieu fund if deadlines are not\nmet; the decision was not made in a vacuum.\nCouncilmember Tam requested confirmation on whether public subsidy would be\nneeded to build four additional units.\nLincoln Leaman, Warmington Residential, stated financing does not cover affordable\nhousing; cash flow is pretty limited; the project would be the only one that would not\nreceive funding and would provide significant public infrastructure improvements.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the issue is broader than just the four homes out of forty\nunits; others might want to seek similar arrangements.\nMr. Leaman stated building at 25% would make Warmington Homes eligible for a\ndensity bonus by building at 25%; Warmington Homes would not gain the benefit of a\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJune 15, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-06-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-06-15", "page": 5, "text": "density bonus; Warmington Homes was able to receive financing because of the\nordinance change.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired what would be the delta between 25% and 15% as\nfar as the project needing subsidy.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded a very low income unit\ncould have a $250,000 subsidy.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether or not staff knew the amount with\nentitlement of ten affordable units.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded staff did not require\nWarmington Homes to provide an economic analysis.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the 2004 resolution requiring the 25% inclusionary housing\nrequirement was the basis for which calculations were performed; in 2009, the\nrequirement dropped to 15% because of the density bonus ordinance.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated the Warmington Homes\nproject would be the only project that would be subject to the 25% requirement; staff is\nmore concerned with starting the project, creating jobs, and getting assessed value for\nthe City.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the matter is a tough balancing act in terms of job\ncreation versus affordable housing; the can keeps getting kicked down the road; that\nshe is concerned that the last piece of property developed in Alameda would have to\nhave all of the unbuilt affordable housing.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated the concern is valid; another\nconcern is that units might not be built if the requirement is not changed.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired what is the incentive for building the houses.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded Warmington Homes\nwould be required to pay a $31,000 affordable housing in-lieu fee for each uncompleted\nphase; stated the money would go into the affordable housing fund; the incentive is in\nthe Agreement in order to ensure that the project would be built and the City would see\nresults and performance.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the incentive would be difficult to meet, to which\nthe Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded the incentive is\nreasonable.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether Warmington Homes has financing now, to which the\nDeputy City Manager - Development Services responded Warmington Homes has\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJune 15, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-06-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-06-15", "page": 6, "text": "financing for the first phase.\nMr. Leaman stated Warmington Homes has financing for the project; affordable units\ncome out of pocket; financing is based upon financials; Warmington Home's financial\nrecords would be impacted by paying out of pocket for more than six units; financing is\npredicated on following the business plan.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether Warmington Homes has financing for the entire\nproject, to which Mr. Leaman responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Johnson inquired what would be the timeframe for the build out, to which Mr.\nLeaman responded twenty-four months.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated Warmington Homes has\nthirty-six months in which to pull the final permit; the project might be completed sooner\nthan thirty-six months.\nMayor Johnson inquired how many phases there are, to which Mr. Leaman responded\nfour.\nMayor Johnson stated the timeframe is aggressive.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired what would happen if there is a no vote on the item.\nMr. Leaman responded a no vote would have a significant impact on Warmington\nHomes' financial status; stated Warmington Homes does not have out of pocket cash\nfor the project.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether no homes would be built other than the\nexisting models, to which Mr. Leaman responded possibly.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that she is weighing the need to get the project moving and\njob creation against creating a situation that pushes the affordable housing allocation to\nthe last unit which happens to be Alameda Point; the City is having difficulties\nnegotiating appropriate levels of public subsidies for affordable housing; that she would\nfeel more comfortable seeing a pro forma and understanding how Warmington Homes'\nbottom line would be affected; inquired when Warmington Homes would need a\ndecision.\nMr. Leaman responded time is of the essence.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether Alameda Point has any subsidy for affordable housing.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded SunCal's pro forma\nincludes 100% of the City's 20% set aside funds.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJune 15, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-06-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-06-15", "page": 7, "text": "The Interim City Manager stated the ordinance could be introduced and numbers could\nbe brought back for final adoption.\nMayor Johnson stated the idea sounds good.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he likes the approach; he is concerned that the\nCity could end up holding to the 25% requirement and not get any affordable units; the\nproject could build six affordable units without City subsidy; backfilling with City subsidy\nwould only deliver four more units; more than four units could be built by using the\nsubsidy somewhere else.\nThe Interim City Manager stated staff would come back to Council regarding a project\nthat is before the Planning Board next week, which deals with the kicking the can down\nthe road issue; numbers would be provided at the July 6th Council meeting.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved introduction of the ordinance with direction to have\nthe Interim City Manager bring back financial information balancing four units within the\nproject versus money that would go elsewhere to potentially build more than four units.\nVice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Vice Mayor deHaan stated that he is concerned about homes selling\nin today's market; inquired how many units have been sold, to which Mr. Leaman\nresponded three.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether two of the sales were to prior owners, to which Mr.\nLeaman responded one sale was to the prior property owner.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired when the next phase would be built, to which Mr. Leaman\nresponded second phase sales would be this weekend.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated that she reluctantly goes along with the motion for the\nmoment; she wants to see the concept of not kicking the can down the road; she would\nlike to get more than four units because a dent would be made in the overall\nrequirement.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:\nCouncilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 4. Noes:\nCouncilmember Tam - 1.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\n(10-291) PERS Actuarial Update - Bartel and Associates\nJohn Bartel, Bartel and Associates, gave a Power Point presentation.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJune 15, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-06-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-06-15", "page": 8, "text": "Mayor Johnson inquired whether projections to 2040 assume the current number of\nemployees and do not assume new employees hired between now and 2040.\nMr. Bartel responded projections assume that the work force would be constant and a\nretired person would be replaced with a new employee; continued the presentation.\nIn response to Mayor Johnson's inquiry, Mr. Bartel stated the 31% public safety rate\nrepresents base pay for public safety and does not include overtime; continued the\npresentation.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the PERS actuarial assumption numbers are overly\noptimistic.\nMr. Bartel responded in the affirmative; stated projections would have less impact on\nAlameda than other agencies; PERS has guessed low on non-safety enhanced\nformulas; continued the presentation.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the market value assets include all losses; stated\nPERS has millions of dollars in losses in Mountain House which has not been factored\ninto the portfolio; PERS has not written off the loss.\nMr. Bartel responded that he thinks the loss has been taken into account when\nprojecting to June 30, 2010 but would not know until final information has been\nprovided; stated some losses that happened before June 30, 2009 were not factored in;\nthat he believes the losses are factored into 2011; that he is cautious about information\nbeing released; continued the presentation.\nIn response to Councilmember Tam's inquiry, Mr. Bartel stated formulas are put in place\nby the State Legislature; labor groups pushed for a 3% formula as a cousin to the public\nsafety formula; the belief was that the benefit should not be higher than public safety;\nthe 2.7% at 55 formula is the exact same formula as the public safety 2% at 50.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether a two-tiered defined benefit does not have\nthat big of a financial impact, to which Mr. Bartel responded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired what Mr. Bartel is recommending if a two-tier system does\nnot work.\nMr. Bartel responded that the City should contribute more than PERS is recommending;\nstated a lot of his clients wished they were at Alameda's current non-safety benefit\nformula; the contribution rate is not high compared to most non-safety plans; the rate\nwould be going up but would not be as dramatic; that he is a fan of the 2% at 60 formula\nand 2% at 55 formula; that he would not recommend decreasing from 2% at 55 to 2% at\n60; the 2% at 50 formula gets to 2.7% at 55, which is approximately 10% lower for\npublic safety employees retiring at 55; that he does not know whether benefit level\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJune 15, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-06-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-06-15", "page": 9, "text": "would make the City less competitive.\nMayor Johnson inquired what would be the average public safety retirement benefit for\n2% at 50.\nMr. Bartel responded the benefit would depend upon retirement age; stated currently,\nthe average pension benefit is approximately $100,000 and would drop by\napproximately 10%; the benefit would be substantially less by retiring at 50; generally,\nfire fighters retire closer to 55; police retire between 53 to 54.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether any other municipalities are looking at different\nretirement plans other than PERS; further inquired what would happen to PERS [if cities\nwithdrew from PERS].\nMr. Bartel responded very few; stated the challenge of pulling out of PERS is that\nwithdrawal is very expensive; PERS has an efficient percentage of the City's assets\ngoing toward expenses; PERS administrative expenses are low; going to another plan\nwould be amazingly more expensive; withdrawal costs would depend upon the\nwithdrawal method; withdrawing and taking all asset liability would result in taking the\nCity's market value of assets, not actuarial value of assets; the City would be 65%\nfunded instead of 90%; PERS population is one-third State, one-third non-certificated\nschool employees, and one-third public agencies; schools would not have the ability to\npull out of PERS; the State would not pull out; one-third of assets would be pulled if all\npublic agencies pulled out and PERS would still do just fine; the City would have the\nresponsibility to provide the current benefit formula for current employees; withdrawal\nwould be expensive and painful; that he is not aware of an efficient way to withdraw.\nThe Interim City Manager gave a brief presentation.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(10-292) Public Hearing to Consider Resolution No. 14453, \"Authorizing Collection of\nDelinquent Integrated Waste Management Accounts by Means of the Property Tax\nBills.\" Adopted.\nThe Public Works Director provided handouts and gave a brief presentation.\nMayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.\nOpponent (Not in favor of resolution): Pom Il Song.\nThere being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public portion of the\nhearing.\nMayor Johnson stated what has been done in the past has worked.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJune 15, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-06-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-06-15", "page": 10, "text": "Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the City has collected on past liens, to which the\nPublic Works Director responded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired how much the City received last year, to which the Public\nWorks Director responded $21,715.\nIn response to Vice Mayor deHaan's inquiry, the Public Works Director stated money\nwas collected through property sales or refinancing.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation [adoption of\nthe resolution], including trying to resolve cases under dispute.\nCouncilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice\nvote: Ayes: Councilmembers Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam and Mayor Johnson - 4.\nAbstentions: Vice Mayor deHaan - 1.\n(10-293) Public Hearing to Consider Resolution No. 14454, \"Approving the Engineer's\nReport, Confirming Diagram and Assessment, and Ordering Levy of Assessments,\nIsland City Landscaping and Lighting District 84-2, All Zones.\" Adopted.\nThe Public Works Director gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Tam moved adoption of the resolution.\nVice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(10-294) Public Hearing to Consider Resolution No. 14455, \"Approving the Engineer's\nReport, Confirming Diagram and Assessment, and Ordering Levy of Assessments,\nMaintenance Assessment District 01-01 (Marina Cove).\" Adopted.\nThe Public Works Director gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Tam moved adoption of the resolution.\nVice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(10-295) Public Hearing to Consider Resolution No. 14456, \"Establishing Integrated\nWaste Collection Ceiling Rates and Service Fees for Alameda County Industries, Inc.,\nfor Rate Period 9 (July 2010 to June 2011); and Allocation of $210,000 from the\nIntegrated Waste Management Account.\" Adopted.\nProponents (In favor of Resolution): Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association\n(PSBA); and Jon Spangler, Alameda.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated the City has had the opportunity to extend the Contract to\n2022 and do some capital improvements; inquired whether said issues have been\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJune 15, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-06-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-06-15", "page": 11, "text": "factored in.\nThe Public Works Director responded part of the Contract extension would require that\n100% of the fleet be converted to alternative fuel; currently, 50% of the fleet uses\nalternative fuel; the requirement does not kick in for a couple of years.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether there would not be any rate increases in a couple\nof years because of the requirement.\nThe Public Works Director responded that he does not know whether or not there would\nbe any rate increases; stated Alameda County Industries (ACI) is contributing to reduce\nthe rate increase.\nVice Mayor deHaan moved adoption of the resolution.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Matarrese stated the solution is good for the rate\nperiod; revenue has decreased due to a decrease in commercial customers, which\nhopefully will increase once the economy comes back, in addition to a shift of residential\ncustomers from a 32-gallon service to a 20-gallon service; the City needs to start\npreparing for Rate Period 10; the City's reserve will go down and will not be able to\ncontribute another $210,000 to close the gap.\nThe Public works Director concurred with Councilmember Matarrese.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired how much would be left in the Integrated Waste\nManagement account after the $210,000 one-time contribution, to which the Public\nWorks Director responded $2 million.\nCouncilmember Tam stated at some point, she would like to understand if there would\nbe an option to include the School District in the system and whether there would be\nswings to AUSD from the economy of scales.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(10-296) Public Hearing Relating to Issuance of Bonds by the Alameda Public Financing\nAuthority and Considering Resolution No. 14457, \"Of Intention to Levy Reassessments\nand to Issue Refunding Bonds Upon the Security Thereof Relating to the City of\nAlameda Marina Village Assessment District 89-1. \"Adopted;\n(10-296 A) Resolution No. 14458, \"Reassessment Report for the City of Alameda\nMarina Village Reassessment District No. 10-1, Confirming and Ordering the\nReassessments and Directing Actions with Respect Thereto; and\n(10-296 B) Resolution No. 14459, \"Authorizing the Issuance of Two Series of Refunding\nBonds, Providing for Execution of Fiscal Agent Agreements and Other Matters with\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJune 15, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-06-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-06-15", "page": 12, "text": "Respect Thereto, and Making Findings with Respect to and Approving the Issuance of\nBonds by the Alameda Public Financing Authority.' Adopted.\nThe Interim City Manager gave a brief presentation and introduced Bill Reynolds,\nSequoia Financial Group; Mark Holmstedt, Westhoff, Cone & Holmstedt (WCH); and\nPaul Thimmig, Quint & Thimmig, LLP, to answer Council questions.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the project would not go forward if primary property\nowners do not pay property taxes.\nMr. Reynolds responded that he would still recommend going forward; stated financing\nneeds to be recognized on the tax rolls by August.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether there would be two financial advisors (Sequoia\nFinancial Group and WCH).\nMr. Reynolds responded in the affirmative; stated there is no time for an RFP process;\nthe best way is a competitive bid sale; his fee would be approximately 30% of the\nSources and Uses of Funds; the rest would be for specialized work, which WCH has\nalready performed on the project with the assumption that WCH would be the\nunderwriter; the City usually uses a negotiated sale method; an underwriter is\ncompensated through an underwriter's discount; in this situation, a normal underwriter's\ndiscount would be approximately $12.50 per $1,000 of bonds; one fee component is a\nmanagement fee in which the underwriter helps the financial advisor structure the deal;\nthe rest is used to sell the bonds; a portion of the fee listed under the Financial Advisor\ncolumn is what the management fee would be for an underwriter to put the deal\ntogether; that he estimates by bidding the project on a competitive basis, the bids would\nonly represent the take down portion which would be less than $5 or $6 per $1,000 of\nbonds; as proposed, the City would end up saving money on the underwriter's discount\noverall.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether the 70%/30% split between WCH and Sequoia\nFinancial Group would occur only if bids are accepted.\nMr. Reynolds responded in the affirmative; stated all fees are contingent.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether having two financial advisors is typical, to which\nMr. Reynolds responded having two financial advisors happens fairly often.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired how the WCH partnership was chosen.\nMr. Reynolds responded Finance Directors generally pick someone who they have\nworked with in the past; in the past, he has put out an RFP for underwriters; the Interim\nCity Manager has a long history of working with WCH.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether bids would be rejected if the City does not\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJune 15, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-06-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-06-15", "page": 13, "text": "like any of the bids.\nMr. Reynolds responded bonds are offered to anyone who wants to bid; stated that he\nwould not approve moving forward if a 3% target savings does not make sense; a\nminimum present value savings is at least 3%; current present value savings are 14%;\nthe deal is very difficult; a lot of time would be needed to call potential bidders; that he\nwould like to attract small companies; the cost for putting in a bid would be very low.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired what would happen if the City does not receive bids\nthat the City likes.\nMr. Thimmig responded the proposed resolutions authorize the Interim City Manager to\nnegotiate with one of the underwriters if all bids are rejected or another plan would be\npresented to Council.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether there would be enough time to renegotiate, to\nwhich Mr. Thimmig responded time is tight, but there is enough time.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether Council approval would be needed.\nMr. Thimmig responded the proposed resolutions authorize the Interim City Manager to\nreject all bids, negotiate with one of the underwriters, or not go through with the deal;\nstated a deal could be brought back in a different form; the delinquency in the\nassessment district versus a long history of timely payments has been the difficult part.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated timing is important in order to give the maximum amount\nof relief to homeowners and commercial property owners; inquired how the market\nwould play in terms of rates.\nMr. Thimmig responded rates would be whatever market rates are at the time; stated\nthe bonds would not have been sold a year ago; today, there is a market; municipal\ninterest rates are good and have been steady over the last couple of months; any\nunderwriter in the country could bid on the bonds; currently, municipal bonds are getting\na favorable reception.\nMayor Johnson inquired what is the interest rate, to which Mr. Holmstedt responded\n5%.\nMayor Johnson inquired what is the current interest rate for existing bonds.\nMr. Holmstedt responded the Marina Village interest rate is 7.65% and Harbor Bay is\nunder 6%.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether requiring a maximum interest rate and having the\nproperty owner pay property taxes within 48 hours would be a problem.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJune 15, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-06-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-06-15", "page": 14, "text": "Mr. Thimmig responded the proposed resolution has a minimum interest rate; holding\nthe deal hostage for one property owner would not be a good idea; the deal has\nprotections; any land secured financing is unique.\nMayor Johnson inquired what is the maximum interest rate in the resolution, to which\nMr. Thimmig responded 7%.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether going forward if the interest rate is 7% would make\nsense, to which Mr. Thimmig responded probably not.\nMayor Johnson stated that the maximum interest rate should be lower.\nMr. Thimmig stated parameters are usually given; typically, he does not micro manage;\nstaff would be delegated to ensure that bids are appropriate and at market rate.\nMayor Johnson stated ensuring that the issue makes financial sense is important\nbecause of the cost; inquired whether Mr. Reynolds has been under contract with the\nCity for twenty years.\nMr. Reynolds responded that there is no retainer; stated that he receives fees if\nfinancing closes; he has worked on the ARRA twelve-year plan and has been paid on\nan hourly basis with a cap.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired what was the original rating of the bonds, to which Mr.\nReynolds responded the bonds were unrated.\nSpeakers: Lonnie Odom, Stinson Securities LLC; and former Councilmember Tony\nDaysog, Alameda.\nFollowing Mr. Odom's comments, Councilmember Gilmore stated WCH is not\nmentioned in the APFA resolution, only Sequoia Financial Group; both firms have been\nmentioned in the staff report; inquired whether not mentioning WCH is an error.\nMr. Thimmig responded WCH is a co-financial advisor; State law will not allow WCH to\nbe an underwriter without the expressed permission of the APFA, which is not included\nin the resolution.\nFollowing former Councilmember Daysog's comments, Mr. Reynolds stated the\nunderwriter's discount is about $12.50 [per $1,000], which works out to be about\n$325,000; of that [$325,000], the portion that would normally be the management fee is\nabout $6.80 [per $1,000], which is the 70% of the financial advisor fee that WCH would\nget that would not be in the $325,000 making the figure not $12.50 [per $1,000]\nanymore, rather it would be more like $5.00 [per $1,000] and the total ends up slightly\nless.\nCouncilmember Gilmore requested that Mr. Reynolds clarify his explanation.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJune 15, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-06-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-06-15", "page": 15, "text": "Mr. Reynolds stated the deal is very complicated and the fee is a little higher than what\nwould normally be [the fee] on a certificate of participation where the total underwriter\ndiscount would be expected to be around $6.00 per $1,000 worth of bonds; on this type\nof transaction, where calls have to be made to try to get buyers, the fee that an\nunderwriter normally charges is around $12.50 [per $1,000]; the fee would normally\nhave two components: the management portion, which WCH has been doing, and the\ntake down, which is the portion that the buyer gets; the break down is usually around\n$6.00 or $7.00 per $1,000 for the management portion and $4.00 to $5.00 [per $1,000]\nfor the take down; that he does not expect the competitive bid to be $12.50 per [$1,000\nworth of] bond but should be around $5.00 per [$1,000 worth of] bond because the\nmanagement fee is being taken care of as part of the financial advisory fee.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated part of the team did not have to compete to be on the\nteam; a lower fee could have been passed down to Harbor Bay homeowners or Marina\nVillage commercial and industrial properties; rules seem to be loose around the rest of\nthe team; the City would be going on faith that $12.50 is the best it can do.\nMr. Reynolds stated some cities have underwriters under contract, but is very rare\nbecause different underwriting firms have different expertise; a city may put out an RFP\nif a city is doing a new type of transaction; in the past, the City's Finance Director and\nCity Manager have developed relationships with underwriters; the Interim City Manager\nhas a lot of experience working on Community Facilities District (CFD) land secured\nfinancing with WCH.\nMayor Johnson stated Council may want to consider a different approach going forward;\ninquired whether Mr. Reynolds' Contract is approved by Council, to which Mr. Reynolds\nresponded in the affirmative.\nMayor Johnson inquired how long is Mr. Reynolds' contract for, to which Mr. Reynolds\nresponded three years with two renewals; that he has worked for three different firms\nwhile working for the City.\nThe Interim City Manager stated the idea is to find a business that has people with the\nbest expertise in certain areas and try to negotiate the best arrangement possible; the\nteam is transaction driven and would not get paid unless there is an actual deal; finding\nthe best time to do the transaction in today's market is important; that she thinks\nSequoia Financial Group and WCH are the best team to do the transaction in today's\nmarket.\nCouncilmember Tam stated Sequoia Financial Group would get $58,000 and WCH\nwould get $137,235 which exceeds the $75,000 approval authorization; that she would\nlike to understand the past relationship and transaction that occurred between the\nInterim City Manager and Mr. Holmstedt.\nThe Interim City Manager stated that she has known Mr. Holmstedt since the 1980's;\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJune 15, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-06-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-06-15", "page": 16, "text": "that she has never worked with Mr. Reynolds or Mr. Thimmig before; both firms are\nhighly reputable; that she worked for Westhoff and Martin Financial Services Group in\n1993 and 1994; the innuendo that Mr. Holmstedt or Mr. Westhoff would get the deal\nbecause of some type of payback is professionally insulting and is not the case; Mr.\nHolmstedt and Mr. Westhoff would not get any compensation other than for work done;\nStone and Youngberg and WCH are the two strongest firms in the market for California\ndirt bonds; a good structure for a very difficult transaction has been proposed; in the\nfuture, staff could start an RFP process for financial advisors; an RFP could be done for\ninvestment bankers also; an RFP process would be difficult at this time because of the\nstringent timeframe.\nMayor Johnson stated the City wants to help property owners save money; the savings\nwould be significant for many; that she likes the idea of an RFP process for financial\nadvisors and creating a short list moving forward; the City could move forward with the\ntransaction with parameters.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated Council needs to have discussions going forward so\nthat everyone is clear; one member of the team got the position without having to\ncompete; everyone is scrambling around looking for jobs and opportunities in today's\neconomy; the appearance of how the City does things is just as important, if not more,\nthan how the City actually does things; the City should be very clear to ensure that\neveryone gets an opportunity to complete; in the past, opportunities for women and\nminorities have been based on who the person knew, not how good the person was at\nwhat they did; the appearance of the City being accused of not following procedures or\nnot going out for competitive bid is bothersome.\nThe Interim City Manager stated the issue needs to apply to everything across the\nboard and not just isolated cases regarding investment bankers or financial advisors;\nthe issue should be revisited and a menu of different categories should be created.\nMayor Johnson stated the City uses a similar process with attorneys.\nThe City Attorney stated Mr. Thimmig is on her list.\nMayor Johnson stated brining the matter back for further discussion is a good idea.\nThe Interim City Manager stated local preference was discussed at the last Council\nmeeting; the matter would affect the purchasing ordinance, signatory limits, and how\nfast things get done.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that she is very uneasy regarding the partnership; one of\nthe partners mentioned that the Interim City Manager worked for Mr. Holmstedt.\nThe Interim City Manager stated that she worked for Westhoff Martin Financial Services\nGroup which is not Westhoff Martin Banking Group.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJune 15, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-06-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-06-15", "page": 17, "text": "Councilmember Tam stated that she is focusing more on the comment that there was a\nbusiness partnership with Mr. Holmstedt and the Interim City Manager.\nThe Interim City Manager stated the companies are separate; that she did consulting\nwork for approximately ten to twelve months; she did not do banking work.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the City is dealing with appearances; clearly, one member\nof the team secured the position because of a relationship with the Interim City\nManager.\nThe Interim City Manager stated that there was no relationship because she worked for\na subsidiary in 1993 and 1994 which was fifteen years ago; she knew Mr. Holmstedt\nbefore when he was working for other firms; some firms will suggest debt issues that\nare risky and she does not believe WCH would.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether the partnership between the Interim City\nManager and Mr. Holmstedt still exists.\nThe Interim City Manager responded in the negative; stated that she is not a partner\nand does not know if the firm exists anymore; she does not receive any annuities; stock\noptions, and is not making any money on the transaction.\nMayor Johnson stated the City is under time constraints; property owners would get a\nsignificant savings.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that she does not understand the savings.\nMayor Johnson stated Exhibit 2 shows the estimated savings.\nMr. Reynolds stated the savings is assumed at 5%; 7% would be is used if the 5% does\nnot provide present value savings.\nIn response to Mayor Johnson's inquiry, Mr. Reynolds stated the annual estimated\nsavings would be based upon the property size.\nMayor Johnson stated the annual estimated savings for AD 89-1 would be $863,218.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether the estimated savings is based on 5%.\nMr. Holmstedt responded the issue is more complicated; stated the bond interest rate\naverage is about 5%; underlying assessment bonds that create revenue to pay the\nbonds would need to be set at a little higher rate to create the proper debt coverage that\ninvestors are looking for; said rate is approximately 6%; the typical standard for\nrefinancing the transaction or not is to have present value savings of 3% minimum; the\npresent value savings is well in excess of 3% for Harbor Bay and Marina Village; the\npresent value savings is projected at 14% for Harbor Bay and 10% for Marina Village;\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJune 15, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-06-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-06-15", "page": 18, "text": "picking the perfect rate is difficult because the transaction is complicated; a lot of factors\ngo into achieving a rate; that he would suggest having a present value savings of 5% to\n6%; all of the other numbers would wash out; Legacy Holdings went through an\nexhaustive analysis to see its actual savings would be; the City received an email\nstating that Legacy Holdings should be making a payment.\nMayor Johnson inquired what are Legacy Holdings property taxes, to which Mr.\nHolmstedt responded approximately $2 million.\n***\nCouncilmember Tam left the dais at 11:00 p.m. and returned at 11:04 p.m.\nThe Interim City Manager stated the $2 million is not delinquent.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the estimated savings would be more conservative\nthan expected.\nMr. Holmstedt responded in the affirmative; stated $9 million was set as the maximum\nfor the principal amount of the bonds for Marina Village; last time numbers were run, the\namount was approximately $8.5 million; Harbor Bay is at $10,780,000; the resolution\nstates not to exceed $11.5 million; the idea is to set parameters so that the market can\ndo its job; the bid process would be competitive; the City needs to ensure there is\nenough room because of the nature of public noticing; a bond sale is scheduled for\ncompetitive bids on June 23rd; the transaction is good; the total transaction cost,\nincluding financial advisory fees and what underwriters would be allowed to achieve,\nwould be less than what was estimated for doing it another way.\nIn response to Councilmember Gilmore's inquiry, Mr. Reynolds stated the rule of thumb\nis that financing does not make sense unless there is a present value savings of at least\n3%; the limit could be put at 6% because the present value savings is anticipated to be\nmore than 3%.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolutions with the limit [present\nsavings value of 6%] and direction to set a policy on single source bids across the\nboard.\nMayor Johnson stated the issue should be discussed in more detail in order to establish\na comprehensive set of policies.\nThe Interim City Manager stated the matter would be placed on the June 24th special\nmeeting agenda.\nUnder discussion, Mr. Thimmig clarified that the Council resolutions would not need to\nbe amended to include present value savings but the APFA resolution would be\namended.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJune 15, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-06-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-06-15", "page": 19, "text": "Vice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(10-297) Resolution No. 14460, \"Authorizing the Interim City Manager to Apply for\nRegional Measure 1 Five Percent Unrestricted State Funds and Two Percent Bridge\nToll Reserve Funds for the Operating Subsidy and Capital Projects, and Regional\nMeasure 2 Bridge Toll Funds for the City of Alameda Ferry Services, and to Enter Into\nAll Agreements Necessary to Secure These Funds for Fiscal Year 2010-2011.'\nAdopted;\n(10-297 A) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim City Manager to Negotiate and\nExecute a Fifth Amendment to the Amended and Restated Ferry Services Agreement\nwith the Port of Oakland to Extend the Term for One Additional Year at a Cost of\n$60,649;\n(10-297 B) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim City Manager to Negotiate and\nExecute an Eighth Amendment to the Sixth Amended and Restated Operating\nAgreement for the Alameda Harbor Bay Ferry and Adopt the Associated Budgets; and\n(10-297 C) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim City Manager to Negotiate and\nExecute an Amendment to the Agreement to Extend the Term for One Additional Year\nof the Blue & Gold Fleet Operating Agreement with the Alameda/Oakland Ferry Service\nand Adopt Associated Budgets.\nThe Public Works Director gave a brief presentation.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether Regional Measure 1 and 2 funds are new.\nThe Public Works Director responded the City has always received Measure 1 funds;\nstated Regional Measure 2 funds are new.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the $10,000 Port of Oakland reduction is not so\nsignificant, to which the Public Works Director responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the City would be spending over $1 million more for\nthe ferries if the City did not get the Regional Measure 2 funds.\nThe Ferry Services Manager responded the Regional Measure 2 allocation consists of\ntwo components: 1) Regional Measure 2 funds controlled by the Water Emergency\nTransportation Authority (WETA) for chartering WETA's boats; and 2) Regional\nMeasure 2 subsidy for operating the City's services, which is just under $500,000; some\nprojects included in the budget would normally be for capital maintenance expenses.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the City would need to pay for chartered boats without\nRegional Measure 2 funds.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJune 15, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-06-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-06-15", "page": 20, "text": "Speakers: Jon Spangler, Alameda; Ann Spanier, Alameda League of Women Voters;\nand Bill Smith, Alameda.\nFollowing Mr. Spangler's comments, Mayor Johnson inquired whether the voluntary\nspending cap is enforceable; further inquired whether a candidate would sign a contract.\nThe City Attorney responded the only way to enforce a voluntary spending cap would be\nto have the City set aside a pot of money for the purpose of contributing a match; opting\nout would always be an option; voluntary means voluntary and no ordinance can force\ncandidates to agree to a voluntary limit on expenditures.\nFollowing Mr. Smith's comments, Mayor Johnson stated that the City is behind on the\nissue; there is no reason to delay; concurred that some type of voluntary spending cap\nshould be reviewed; suggested seeing what other cities have.\nVice Mayor deHaan requested clarification on the City's ability to control Political Action\nCommittee's (PAC's) expenditures.\nThe City Attorney stated that she has noticed a lot of public interest and some confusion\non the distinction between campaign contributions and campaign expenditures; the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJune 15, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-06-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-06-15", "page": 21, "text": "issue is a legal issue; the City cannot give any more sunshine or light on the issue other\nthan what has been said in the Supreme Court said and case law following; the issues\nare first amendment issues; the courts have stated that in terms of contributions, the\nregulation must be closely drawn to a sufficiently important interest in order to avoid a\nfirst amendment challenge; so far the only government interest that courts have held to\nbe valid with respect to campaign restrictions is \"in preventing the actuality and\nappearance of corruption\"; Council could consider adding said phrase to the Purpose\nsection of the ordinance; by contrast, limitations on expenditures are subject to strict\nscrutiny; regulation must be very narrowly tailored and government interest must be\ncompelling; so far, the Supreme Court has rejected expenditure limits for individuals,\ngroups, candidates, and parties; campaign contributions are treated differently because\nthe courts find that contribution limitations entail only a marginal restriction upon the\ncontributor's ability to engage in free communication; the courts state that expenditure\nceilings impose significantly more severe restrictions on protected freedom of political\nexpression and association; the ordinance would not limit campaign expenditures from\nany source because by case law and recent Supreme Court case, the City cannot do\nso; limitations apply to a contribution from a PAC; should a PAC make a contribution\ndirectly to a candidate, the contribution would be limited to $250; by contrast, if a PAC is\nexpending money which may benefit a candidate, case law states that the expenditure\ncannot be restricted; every ordinance that has been challenged on the issue has been\nstruck down; the ordinance was drafted very simply to only address the issues that\ncould be safely addressed; suggested that the additional safeguard language be added;\nstated otherwise, the ordinance is as narrowly drawn as possible.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he is for campaign reform; he voted in favor of\nthe first reading in order to get started; he attended the Democratic Club meeting last\nweek; the meeting topic was campaign reform; a watchdog group gave a good\npresentation; at the end of the discussion, not one question came up about Alameda or\nthe first reading of the ordinance; he feels discussions are in a vacuum; he would\nsupport having more hearings on the matter; particularly, with hearing the City\nAttorney's analysis of additional suggestions; the City has a Sunshine Task Force that is\ncomposed of appointees from each Councilmember; that he would like to have the\nSunshine Task Force review the ordinance and come back with a recommendation.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated the City looked at model ordinances from other cities; the\nissue was not under the oversight of the Sunshine Task Force; Council spelled out\nitems to the Sunshine Task Force; only four elements can be controlled within campaign\nfunding; State law PAC limitations have been a concern.\nThe City Attorney stated that she would not be surprised to see similar requests for\nregulation; however, the regulation would not be enforceable and the City would be\nsubject to a legal challenge by doing so; the voluntary contribution concept could be\nadded, but Council would have to determine whether it can afford to set aside money for\nthe purpose of publicly financing campaign contributions.\nIn response to Vice Mayor deHaan's inquiry, Councilmember Tam stated Fremont does\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJune 15, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-06-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-06-15", "page": 22, "text": "not have a cap on expenditure limits but has a cap on contribution limits; Hayward has a\nvoluntary expenditure limit; Hayward's ordinance has a $50,000 expenditure cap;\nenforcement is one of political peer pressure rather than violation of civil penalties;\nPleasanton has an expenditure limit tied to a dollar amount per registered voter with an\nescalator for inflation.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated everyone would point at the violator but there would\nbe no civil penalty.\nThe City Attorney stated the ordinance addresses what the City can do; the only thing\nmissing is a voluntary agreement for a candidate to limit expenditures; a public financing\nmatching fund would need to be created for enforcement.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the agreement would be enforceable with a public\nfinancing matching fund.\nThe City Attorney stated enforcement would be not getting the match.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated that she supports the idea of campaign finance reform;\nthe City should have a good ordinance, but this ordinance is not it; the ordinance has\nbeen rushed, is politically motivated, and has not had the proper public debate; the\nordinance has not gone to the Sunshine Task Force or League of Women Voters; the\nLeague of California Cities has a resource on campaign finance which the Council has\nnot reviewed; this ordinance is unfair; if someone decides to self fund the race there is\nno provision to give an escalator to anyone else so that the playing field would be level;\nthere is no escalator for inflation; the ordinance is politically motivated because there\nseems to be a rush to get the ordinance in place before the November election; several\ncandidates have already announced that they are running and have raised money; rules\nwould be changed in the middle of the campaign cycle; candidates who file in July\nwould be bound by a set of rules that people who got in early were not bound by; there\nis no provision saying that a candidate cannot transfer money into a campaign account\nfor another race; if the ordinance passes in its current form, then everyone that has\nbeen campaigning should give back money that has been raised that violates the\nordinance; it is more important to have the ordinance done right rather than quickly; a\nmajor barrier is being raised for people who have not already declared intent to run.\nMayor Johnson stated that she thinks the ordinance is very basic finance reform; people\nthat she has spoken to assume that the City already has an ordinance in place; waiting\ntoo long would be unfair to people running in the November election because they\nwould not understand what the rules would be.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired why rules are being changed in the middle of the\ncampaign; stated candidates should give back money that has already been raised if\nthe ordinance passes.\nMayor Johnson stated candidates can ask each other to make said pledge but it would\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJune 15, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-06-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-06-15", "page": 23, "text": "not be enforceable.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated that he does not think there will ever be a right period.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated a right period would be an odd-numbered year when no\none is running for anything; the ordinance is rampant with conflict of interest.\nMayor Johnson stated that she feels the ordinance is for the public.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated that public wants more public discussion; the only time\nthe matter has been of concern was when a candidate spent a lot of money.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated anyone can spend any amount of their own money; that he\nwishes the issue could be included but it cannot.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the Council voted three to two to introduce the\nordinance; three Councilmembers would be putting through a rushed campaign\nfinancing law which is very important to the City; an ordinance is needed but not on a\nrushed basis without public input.\nMayor Johnson stated there has been opportunity for public comment; lack of public\ninput indicates that the community is not opposed to what Council is proposing.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated in the time between the first reading and this meeting,\nhe found out that people do not know about the ordinance and more public hearing is\nneeded.\nCouncilmember Tam stated everyone supports campaign finance limits; the ordinance\nneeds to be meaningful and reflective of the community; if the idea is to limit the amount\nof expenditures and to make it more transparent on who receives money from whom,\nshe does not think an individual contribution limit is the way to go because it would drive\nmoney underground and would force a PAC to fund campaigns to the nth degree that\nno one would have any control over; the voluntary expenditure limit is the way to go and\nshould substitute for contribution limits; giving an opportunity for more review and\ncomment would not take that much more time; inquired whether there should be a\nmotion to extend the deadline for public comment, to which Councilmember Gilmore\nresponded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Gilmore moved approval of extending the deadline for public comment\nand sending the ordinance to the Sunshine Task Force with participation from the\nLeague of Women Voters; that she would direct the Sunshine Task Force to the League\nof California Cities website.\nCouncilmember Tam seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Vice Mayor deHaan inquired when the ordinance would be brought\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJune 15, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-06-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-06-15", "page": 24, "text": "Mayor Johnson - 2.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(10-299) Michael Johnson Torrey wished Vice Mayor deHaan and Councilmember\nMatarrese Happy Father's Day.\n* *\n(10-300) Vice Mayor deHaan moved approval of continuing the meeting past midnight\nCouncilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\n(10-301) Consideration of Addressing Parking in Impacted Residential Neighborhoods\naround Alameda High School.\nCouncilmember Matarrese gave a brief presentation.\nSpeaker: Robb Ratto, PSBA.\nCouncilmember Gilmore encouraged staff to look at St. Mary's High School in Berkeley;\nstated students get parking permits, but priority is given to students who carpool; St.\nJoseph's High School would be another place to look.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJune 15, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-06-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-06-15", "page": 25, "text": "Councilmember Tam inquired whether School District employees are offered a discount\nfor using the parking structure.\nThe Economic Development Director responded in the negative; stated the parking\nstructure offers a reduced, monthly rate.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether School District employees have participated in\nmonthly passes.\nThe Economic Development Director responded that she does not know; stated School\nDistrict employees are welcome to participate.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated teachers arrive early and take up parking spaces; offering\nteachers a different rate would be a good idea; the School District needs to be involved;\nat one point the School District was involved in discussions, but he does not know the\noutcome.\nThe Economic Development Director stated the School District wanted to park free\nwhich would pose a problem on designated floors.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired how many teachers are at the School District, to which the\nEconomic Development Director responded that she does not know.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated the School District may have only fifty or so teachers;\nsomething could be worked out.\nThe Economic Development Director stated the parking structure is not producing as\nmuch revenue as anticipated; the parking structure is offset by other lease revenues,\ncitation collection, and parking meter enforcement.\nCouncilmember Tam moved approval of directing staff to review the matter.\nCouncilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(10-302) Consideration of Mayor's nominations for appointment to the Civil Service\nBoard, Housing Commission, Library Board, Planning Board, Public Utilities Board,\nTransportation Commission, and Oakland Chinatown Advisory Committee.\nMayor Johnson made the following nominations: Jose Villaflor, Civil Service Board; Joy\nPratt, Housing Commission; Catherine Atkin, Library Board; Eric Ibsen, Planning Board;\nand Philip Tribuzio, Transportation Commission.\n(10-303) Written Communication from the League of California Cities requesting\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJune 15, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-06-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-06-15", "page": 26, "text": "designation of Voting Delegate for the League's 2010 Annual Conference.\nCouncilmember Gilmore nominated Councilmember Tam as the designated Voting\nDelegate and Vice Mayor deHaan as the alternate.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice\nvote.\n(10-304) Councilmember Matarrese stated on June 3rd, there was a Joint City/School\nDistrict meeting; the subcommittee recommends Council to direct the City Manager to\nnegotiate a master Joint Use Agreement with Alameda Unified School District (AUSD)\nto manage, improve, and maintain playing fields including, but not limited to, Encinal\nand Alameda High School fields; the purpose of the agreement would be to provide\nfields for continued school use and additional community use at large; Board Member\nSpencer raised potential health concerns which may be related to synthetic turf fields;\njoint efforts will be made to research the issue; the subcommittee discussed potential\nCity participation with the Everett Street site, the former Island High School campus, to\nassist AUSD in obtaining money so that AUSD would not need to develop housing; an\nitem was tabled until the Youth Commission survey results are obtained; rumor is that\nPacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) is going to apply commercial rates instead of municipal\nrates to school districts; the subcommittee is requesting that the City ensure\ncontinuation of the past policy regarding the School District getting municipal rates; the\nSchool District is having difficulty maintaining after school programs through a grant;\nhaving Recreation and Parks take the programs is a problem because of PERS\nrequirements; the Interim City Manager has been requested to help with the issue; the\nsubcommittee is recommending that the Council and School Board convene a meeting\nin the fall similar to the 2007 Joint Meeting; the next subcommittee meeting is tentatively\nscheduled for September 1st; provided a handout.\nVice Mayor deHaan noted Councilmember Tam raised the issue of getting the School\nDistrict to join in on waste recycling.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that the subcommittee will discuss waste\nmanagement and disposal for the schools.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the School District needs to implement energy efficiency\nprograms; Alameda Municipal Power (AMP) is willing to help secure grant funding.\n(10-305) Councilmember Tam stated that she attended the League of California Cities\nLegislative Action Day on June 2nd, which was organized by diversity caucuses within\nthe League; the event was very well attended; the State budget issue seems to be the\nmajor topic; the State is at a recessionary troth; the General Fund revenues for Fiscal\nYear 2010 are running slightly ahead of the State budget forecast; by the end of May,\nthe State will see General Fund revenues about $300 million over forecast; a budget is\nbeing proposed to close the $19 billion gap; the budget compromise includes paying off\ncities for funds borrowed in order to minimize the debt service by approximately $5\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJune 15, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-06-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-06-15", "page": 27, "text": "billion; the Governor is proposing an insurance surcharge on home premiums in order to\npay for emergency response and is looking at increasing booking fees to help raise $1\nbillion for fire protection; Councilmembers throughout the cities have urged their\nlegislative delegation not to take any more redevelopment money.\n(10-306) Mayor Johnson inquired when the vehicle parking ordinance is coming back to\nCouncil, to which the Deputy City Manager - Administrative Services responded at a\nmeeting in July.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the meeting at 12:11 a.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJune 15, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-06-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-06-15", "page": 28, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL AND\nCOMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING\nTUESDAY- -JUNE 15, 2010- -5:00 P.M.\nMayor/Chair Johnson convened the meeting at 5:15 p.m.\nRoll Call -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers/Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese,\nTam and Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nThe meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(10-271 CC) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Significant\nexposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9; Number of cases:\nOne.\n(10-272 CC) Public Employee Performance Evaluation (54957);\nTitle: City Attorney.\n(10-273 CC) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Significant\nexposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9; Number of cases:\nOne.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and Mayor/Chair Johnson\nannounced that regarding Anticipated Litigation [paragraph no. 10-271], Council\nreceived a briefing from its Legal Counsel; no action was taken; regarding City Attorney,\nCouncil directed the City Attorney to bring back her goals and objectives by the second\nmeeting in September, 2010; no action was taken; and regarding Anticipated Litigation\n[paragraph no. 10-273], Council received a briefing from Legal Counsel regarding a\nmatter of potential litigation; no action was taken.\n***\nMayor/Chair Johnson called a recess at 7:30 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 1:30\na.m.\nThe meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(10-274 CC) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Initiation of\nlitigation pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 54956.9;\nNumber of cases: One.\n(10-275 CC/10-42 CIC) Conference with Real Property Negotiator; Property: 1590 and\n1616 Fortmann Way; Negotiating Parties: Warmington Homes, City of Alameda and\nCIC; Under Negotiations: Price and terms.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJune 15, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-06-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-06-15", "page": 29, "text": "Following the Closed Session, Mayor/Chair Johnson announced that regarding\nAnticipated Litigation, Council received a briefing on a matter of anticipated litigation\nand provided direction to Legal Counsel; and regarding Real Property, the Council and\nCommission received a briefing from its real property negotiator regarding potential sale\nof City-owned property to Warmington Homes.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 2:10\na.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger, City Clerk\nSecretary, CIC\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJune 15, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-06-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-06-15", "page": 30, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ALAMEDA PUBLIC\nFINANCING AUTHORITY (APFA) MEETING\nTUESDAY- -JUNE 15, 2010- -7:01 P.M.\nChair Johnson convened the meeting at 12:21 a.m.\nRoll Call -\nPresent:\nAuthority Members deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam\nand Chair Johnson - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nConsent Calendar\n(10-03) Minutes of the Annual APFA Meeting of March 16, 2010 and the Special APFA\nMeeting of June 1, 2010. Approved.\nAuthority Member deHaan moved approval of the minutes.\nAuthority Member Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\n(10-04) Resolution No. 10-20, \"Authorizing the Issuance of Its 2010 Local Agency\nRefunding Revenue Bonds (Harbor Bay CFD and Marina Village AD), and Approving\nDocuments and Authorizing Actions in Connection Therewith.' Adopted.\nAuthority Member Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution with amendment to\ninclude 6% present value savings.\nAuthority Member deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote\n- 5.\nAgenda Items\nNone.\nOral Communications\nNone.\nBoard Communications\nNone.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda Public Financing Authority\nJune 15, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-06-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-06-15", "page": 31, "text": "Adjournment\nThere being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 12:23 a.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nSecretary\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda Public Financing Authority\nJune 15, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-06-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-06-15", "page": 32, "text": "June 15, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-06-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-06-15", "page": 33, "text": "CITY MANAGER/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNICATION\n(10-306 CC/ARRA/10-44 CIC) Semimonthly Update on SunCal Negotiations\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services provided a handout and gave a brief\npresentation.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether Stan Brown, SunCal, was here to speak or\nanswer questions, to which Mr. Brown responded to answer questions.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated a lot of people would like to\nsee the former Naval Base cleaned up; inquired whether SunCal is phone banking.\nMr. Brown responded in the affirmative; stated SunCal has been contacting supporters;\nSunCal is urging supporters to let the Council/Board Members/Commissioners know\nthat there is broad support.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether SunCal is intending\nto clean up the former Naval Base.\nMr. Brown responded in the negative; stated the intent of the communication is for\nsupporters to express continued support.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the communication\nis coming from SunCal staff, to which Mr. Brown responded the communication is\ncoming from a consultant hired by SunCal.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired what is the name of the\nconsultant, to which Mr. Brown responded he does not know.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the transcript and\nconsultant's name could be provided, to which Mr. Brown responded in the affirmative.\nSpeakers: Jon Spangler, Alameda; William Smith, Alameda.\n(10-307 CC/ARRA/10-45 CIC) Status Report of Finalized Navy Term Sheet Mandatory\nMilestone pursuant to Exclusive Negotiating Agreement Section 4.2.2.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated $108 million would\nhave provided the Navy with profit participation when the housing market was hot and\nwas calculated based upon far less units than what is in the Optional Entitlement\nAgreement (OEA); requested that future analysis project 5,000 units instead of 1,700\nunits.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda Public Financing Authority\nJune 15, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-06-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-06-15", "page": 34, "text": "The Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated that she would apply the\nformula specified in the draft Navy term sheet to the project to see what the land\npayment would be.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired whether the base project is\nthe Measure A compliant plan and whether the density bonus option is higher; further\ninquired whether the two ranges would be analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report\n(EIR).\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded project alternatives have\nnot been analyzed, but staff is close to finalizing a project description; stated the project\ndescription includes the base project and density bonus option; staff is studying two\nbuild-out scenarios.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated one hybrid project is being\nanalyzed; inquired whether the base project and hybrid project would be analyzed when\nthe Navy term sheet is developed in accordance with the Exclusive Negotiating\nAgreement (ENA).\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded staff has not started\nnegotiations on the modified OEA; stated staff has significant concerns with the project\npro forma, and does not want to enter into land payment negotiations with the Navy;\nthat she assumes that final term sheet negotiations would be based upon the density\nbonus option project because SunCal wants to build said project.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated that she recalls receiving an\nemail inviting Council, the Interim City Manager, and the Deputy City Manager -\nDevelopment Services to some type of outreach with the Navy; subsequently, the\nInterim City Manager sent an email reminding Council that a Council subcommittee was\nformed; inquired whether the subcommittee ever met with the Navy and the Pentagon is\nunclear; inquired whether the staff report asserts that SunCal may be in breach of the\nAgreement because of what may have been a meeting with the Department of Defense\nthat included the Navy.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded in the affirmative; stated\nthat she was on a conference call with SunCal in which SunCal notified both the City\nand Navy that they would like to set up a meeting with the Department of the Navy in\nWashington, D.C.; that she and the Base Realignment and Closures (BRAC) Office in\nSan Diego requested to be invited; several times, the BRAC Office asked when the\nmeeting might occur; she and the BRAC Office were never notified.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired whether the Deputy City\nManager - Development Services knows what the meeting was about.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded the BRAC Office\ninformed her that the meeting did occur; stated conveyance term details were not\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda Public Financing Authority\nJune 15, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-06-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-06-15", "page": 35, "text": "discussed at the meeting; SunCal requested that the Navy support the six month ENA\nextension.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired whether the Deputy City\nManager - Development Services' made a determination that there was a breach of the\nAgreement.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded that she did not make\nthe determination, but staff and the legal team made the determination that the City was\nsupposed to be notified and invited to attend the meeting; that she was not invited to the\nmeeting or a subsequent negotiation session.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether or not the\nWashington, D.C. meeting was an outcome of the email which invited Council, the\nInterim City Manager and Deputy City Manager - Development Services to the meeting\nand reminded everyone that the subcommittee had been formed.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded the meeting may have\nbeen; stated that she was never provided with a date or invited to attend.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam requested clarification on what\ntranspired in Washington, D.C. and how communication occurred.\nMr. Brown stated initially, the meeting was with the Department of Defense; that he\nheads SunCal's renewable energy plan; SunCal wanted to discuss opportunities to sell\npower to the federal government; solar power issues were discussed; negotiating was\nnot done; the status of the ENA was discussed; that he still wants the Council\nsubcommittee meeting to occur.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired whether meeting\ndiscussions were communicated to staff.\nMr. Brown responded that he called the Interim City Manager the next day; stated the\nInterim City Manager returned his call but he and the Interim City Manager were unable\nto connect; that he believes that SunCal CEO Frank Faye sent a text message to the\nMayor regarding the meeting; the meeting was not focused on Alameda Point; that he\nstrongly disagrees with the breach of Agreement position; the Agreement has a specific\nprovision that states the developer is authorized to communicate directly with the Navy\nregarding the project or project site as long as the developer keeps the City informed.\nThe Interim City Manager/Executive Director stated Mr. Brown's phone call was after\nthe fact; Mr. Faye advised her that he would take direction from Council and not the\nsubcommittee.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether SunCal requested the Navy to support an ENA\nextension.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda Public Financing Authority\nJune 15, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-06-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-06-15", "page": 36, "text": "Mr. Brown responded that SunCal indicated that the ENA would be ending soon and\nthat SunCal wanted to remain involved in the project.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired if the conversation included whether the Navy supports\nthe ENA extension, to which Mr. Brown responded briefly.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated Section 20-1 states that\nSunCal is not to meet or engage in negotiations with the Navy concerning the project or\nproject site without giving advanced, reasonable notice to the City in order to give the\nCity an opportunity to negotiate with SunCal and the Navy at such meeting; inquired\nwhat is Mr. Brown's interpretation of said Section.\nMr. Brown responded that he concurs that the statement is the first sentence of the\nSection; however, the second sentence states \"notwithstanding anything to the contrary\nin the foregoing, developer is authorized to communicate directly with the Navy\nregarding the project and project site as long as the developer promptly keeps the City\ninformed of such communications\"; stated SunCal made no attempt to negotiate with\nthe Navy without the City being present.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired how the meeting came\nabout; further inquired whether Mr. Brown just happened to be in Washington, D.C.\nMr. Brown responded in the negative; stated SunCal does a fair amount of business\nwith the Department of Defense; originally, SunCal was talking to the Department of\nDefense regarding solar opportunities; SunCal has been pursuing entering into a Power\nPurchase Agreement to sell power to the armed services; the opportunity came to head\nat the meeting.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated that it does not sound like a\nmeeting was planned to follow up on Council's opportunity to meet with the Navy;\ninquired whether SunCal informed City staff immediately after the meeting.\nMr. Brown responded in the affirmative; stated SunCal still wants to meet with senior\nNavy staff, Councilmembers, and City staff to negotiate terms of the Agreement; one\nfrustration has been that SunCal desires to have communications with the Navy but the\nCity has not been willing to schedule a joint meeting because of pro forma concerns and\nother issues; the situation is curious in that after a year of requesting to have a joint\nmeeting, SunCal is considered to be in breach of the Agreement.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired what is the path to the\nresolution of pro forma issues.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded staff has been working\non the new pro forma for less than two months; stated an extensive report was attached\nto the June 1, 2010 staff report regarding the pro forma; staff was directed to sit down\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda Public Financing Authority\nJune 15, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-06-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-06-15", "page": 37, "text": "is not sure whether changes have occurred in the last month or so; the School District is\nevaluating facility needs; SunCal has provided two school sites within the plan.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated school site placement has been an issue.\nMr. Brown stated the he is unaware of any location issues, but SunCal would be happy\nto engage in said conversation; the issue is a normal give and take process and would\nbe part of the EIR.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether SunCal is working on a transportation plan.\nMr. Brown responded transportation planning is a big part of the budget; stated SunCal\nis finding its own expert to advance the ball on transportation and transit issues;\nalternatives are being reviewed; SunCal realizes that issues need to be fully mitigated in\norder for a plan to be viable and approved by the City; SunCal recognizes that\ntransportation issues cannot become worse and is willing to work with its own\nconsultant in addition to the joint consultant retained through the EIR.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda Public Financing Authority\nJune 15, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-06-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-06-15", "page": 38, "text": "Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the EIR would provide an option for fewer\nhousing units.\nMr. Brown responded an alternative to be studied in the EIR has not been identified;\nstated work still needs to be done; typically, one option would be to have a lower level of\ndevelopment proposed; the EIR consultant and staff, along with comments from\nSunCal, would develop an alternative to be studied for a reasonable, smaller project.\nAGENDA ITEMS\n(10-46 CIC) Public Hearing to Consider Resolution No. 10-167, \"Approving and\nAdopting the Five-Year Implementation Plan for the Business and Waterfront and the\nWest End Community Improvement Projects (2010-2014).\" Adopted.\nThe Economic Development Director gave a Power Point presentation.\nCommissioner Gilmore thanked the Economic Development Director for the\npresentation; stated sometimes the City gets busy pushing ahead on the next project\nand does not take the opportunity to look back on accomplishments; the City has\nchanged for the better.\nThe Economic Development Director stated policy decisions have been put in place\nwith a lot of community input; this is the time for the City to talk about the impact that\nprojects have had on the community; in the last couple of years, funding projects\nwithout redevelopment agency support has been difficult; the construction trade is the\nhardest hit unemployment group in Alameda County.\nCommissioner Tam stated that she would like to echo appreciation to staff; all\nCouncilmembers throughout the State are telling their legislature that redevelopment\nfunds are an economic engine and create jobs; inquired whether the City has a strategy\nfor locating retail sites.\nThe Economic Development Director responded the City has a number of different retail\nopportunities which are not necessarily within the redevelopment project area\nboundaries; stated Alameda Landing has an opportunity for up to 300,000 square feet\nof retail; the City has identified how much the City could handle through a saturation\ninvoice and retail leakage analysis; the Catellus Agreement has a retail marketing plan\nin which Catellus has to meet quarterly with the City; Catellus needs to update the retail\nstrategic planning analysis if it deviates from its basic retail plan; the Marina Village\nShopping Center has issues; Bridgeside Shopping Center never finished leasing its\nproperty; the City needs to work on the strategic retail side.\nSpeaker: Former Councilmember Tony Daysog, Alameda.\nCommissioner Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda Public Financing Authority\nJune 15, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-06-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-06-15", "page": 39, "text": "Commissioner Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 1:32\na.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nSecretary, CIC\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda Public Financing Authority\nJune 15, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-06-15.pdf"}