pages
25 rows where "date" is on date 2010-07-07
This data as json, CSV (advanced)
Suggested facets: page
path 3 ✖
Link | body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-07-07.pdf,1 | AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority | 2010-07-07 | 1 | APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Wednesday, July 7, 2010 The meeting convened at 7:21 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding. 1. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Beverly Johnson Boardmember Lena Tam Boardmember Frank Matarrese Boardmember Marie Gilmore Vice Chair Doug deHaan 2. CONSENT CALENDAR 2-A. Responses to Questions Posed by the ARRA Board at the May 6th, 2010 Special ARRA Meeting Regarding the United States Navy's Environmental Program at Alameda Point. Member Gilmore requested additional information regarding the VA transfer and related agreement in response to the May 25, 2010 letter from the Navy which addressed the questions from the May 6th meeting. Staff stated that the information will be provided at the next ARRA meeting. The Consent Calendar was motioned for approval by Member Tam, seconded by Member Matarrese and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes: 5, Noes: 0, Abstentions: 0 3. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS None. 4. ORAL REPORTS 4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) representative - Highlights of June 3 Alameda Point RAB Meeting. Member Matarrese gave an overview of the June 3rd RAB meeting. He discussed the summary of the radiological surveys and clean ups that have been done at Fed sites 1 and 2. He also discussed the Bldg. 5 storm drain which was removed because of radium contamination, and that additional contamination was found in other storm drains; and site 17 sediment sampling of the seaplane lagoon. Member Matarrese stated that there is a new schedule of evaluation and remediation that runs from Aug thru Nov of 2010. Member Matarrese discussed two commentary papers prepared by RAB member and physical engineer, George Humphreys. One of the papers was on basewide radiological contamination, and the other on site 25 ground water plume above the FISC near Coast Guard Housing, Tinker-Stargell extension. There is a Navy-sponsored tour of the sites on Saturday, July 17 from 9-11:00 a.m. Interested parties can go to the … | AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-07-07.pdf |
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-07-07.pdf,2 | AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority | 2010-07-07 | 2 | 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT) One speaker, Jon Spangler, discussed clean-up of Alameda Point. He inquired what will happen with everything that is above-ground at Alameda Point, the crumbling infrastructure, buildings that were built with toxic materials, and contaminated buildings. He asked who will pay for remediation and up-keep if SunCal's contract is not renewed. 6. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY Considering the investigatory report against Councilmember Tam, Vice-Chair deHaan offered to attend the League of California Cities meeting as the alternate representative for the City of Alameda. He asked if this issue should be agendized for the next regular Council meeting. The General Counsel clarified that because Vice Chair deHaan is already the alternate, no official action is required, but if the Board would like to take a vote, this cannot happen tonight and would have to be at another meeting. Member Matarrese concurred with Vice-Chair deHaan and requested this issue be agendized for the next council meeting. 7. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 7:34 p.m. by Chair Johnson. Respectfully submitted, Irma Glidden ARRA Secretary | AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-07-07.pdf |
CityCouncil/2010-07-07.pdf,1 | CityCouncil | 2010-07-07 | 1 | MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING WEDNESDAY- - -JULY 7, 2010- -6:00 P.M. Mayor Johnson announced that the City Council attempted to hold a Closed Session meeting tonight on a matter of existing litigation; given the seriousness of the investigatory report against Councilmember Tam and given a concern expressed by a party to the existing litigation questioning the confidentiality of the closed session, Councilmember Tam was asked to voluntarily remove herself from the closed session; Councilmember Tam refused; as a result, the City Council did not proceed any further; the City Council and staff were unable to conduct the City's business; however, under the circumstances, we need to strive to maintain the integrity of the City process while we wait for the decision of the District Attorney. Councilmember Tam stated that she would not be intimidated; as an elected public official, she still has a job to do and will continue to do it. (10-347) Conference with Real Property Negotiators; Property: 2221 Harbor Bay Parkway; Negotiating parties: City of Alameda and SRM Associates; under negotiation: Price and terms. Not heard. (10-348) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (54956.9); Name of case: Collins V. City of Alameda (Boatworks). Not heard. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Alameda City Council July 7, 2010 | CityCouncil/2010-07-07.pdf |
CityCouncil/2010-07-07.pdf,2 | CityCouncil | 2010-07-07 | 2 | MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL, ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA), AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING WEDNESDAY- -JULY 7, 2010- -7:32 P.M. Mayor Johnson convened the meeting at 7:34 p.m. Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers deHaan, Matarrese, Tam, Gilmore and Mayor Johnson - 5. Absent: None. Consent Calendar Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the Consent Calendar. Vice Mayor/Vice Chair/Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.] (*10-349 CC/ARRA/10-51 CIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council, ARRA and CIC Meeting held on June 1, 2010; and the Special Joint City Council and CIC Meeting and the Special Joint City Council, ARRA and CIC Meeting held on June 15, 2010. Approved, City Manager/Executive Director Communication (10-350 CC/ARRA/10-52 CIC) Semimonthly Update on SunCal Negotiations The Deputy City Manager - Development Services provided an update on SunCal activities since the June 15th meeting. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether staff and SunCal closed the loop so that the EIR is moving forward and about the status of the process. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded the notice of preparation went out and the EIR process was kicked off; stated the key element is the project description, which staff has been finalizing; if the City moves forward with SunCal beyond after July 20th, the project description will be ready and the EIR process will continue. (10-351 CC/ARRA/10-53 CIC) Presentation on SunCal Modified Optional Entitlement Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and 1 Community Improvement Commission July 7, 2010 | CityCouncil/2010-07-07.pdf |
CityCouncil/2010-07-07.pdf,3 | CityCouncil | 2010-07-07 | 3 | Application (MOEA) The Deputy City Manager - Development Services gave a Power Point presentation on the SunCal Modified Optional Entitlement Application. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired if the submittal of the consolidated supplemental documents made the MOEA complete, to which the Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded in the affirmative. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated in an October 2009 closed session, SunCal's request for an extension was turned down. The Interim City Manager/Executive Director stated an extension was also requested in June 2009. Jim Musbach, Economic & Planning Systems (EPS), and the Deputy City Manager - Development Services gave a Power Point presentation on the OEA pro forma and fiscal neutrality. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether there is an analysis of sea-level rise and the levy system. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded the issues regarding sea level rise and the infrastructure requirements were not part of the analysis, but staff has looked at the issue and SunCal provided infrastructure plans; the City's Civil Engineers have reviewed the plans, and still have questions; the pro forma, includes fill to mitigate 18 inches of sea level rise and possible easements to allow for a future levy system if the sea level rise exceeds 18 inches. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired if there is a cost analysis on the levy system, to which the Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded in the affirmative; stated there are preliminary cost estimates. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the remediation or foundation requirements for a 5 or 6-story building was included in the evaluation, to which the Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded in the affirmative: stated that the direct construction cost for multi-family buildings was found to be reasonable. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired if pro forma includes the… | CityCouncil/2010-07-07.pdf |
CityCouncil/2010-07-07.pdf,4 | CityCouncil | 2010-07-07 | 4 | as a phase gets taken down, with exception of the MARAD lease; stated less and less lease revenue is assumed as the project progresses. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese inquired if the loss is included, to which the Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded the implied loss is implied and is in the calculation. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired if calculations were run without tax increment, to which the Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded in the negative; stated the focus was on the issues with SunCal; staff wanted to hold as much constant to see the impacts of particular assumptions; an analysis can be done, it just has not been done. In response to Mayor/Chair Johnson's inquiry about impacts, the Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated the impact on the bottom line could be pretty significant for the approximately $211 million in total bonds from both the non-housing and the housing tax increment. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether sale listings, as opposed to sold homes, were included when valuation was calculated. Mr. Musbach responded the current information is what EPS and staff could get at the time. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether or not there were enough actual sales to run the calculations. Michael Neeman, EPS, responded staff looked at Bayport sales in comparison to citywide sales to forecast Alameda Point home values; stated EPS staff reviewed the current listings to check if projections are consistent with Alameda Point values to date. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated there is a graph in the market report that shows Bayport listings compared to citywide sales; four units have been sold in the Grand Marina project; square foot costs were reviewed and are consistent with the listing costs for the Bayport project. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired about the financial feasibility implications; stated the results indicate an Internal Rate of Return (IRR)… | CityCouncil/2010-07-07.pdf |
CityCouncil/2010-07-07.pdf,5 | CityCouncil | 2010-07-07 | 5 | change anything; underlying assumptions embedded in the analysis still have to be determined and negotiated. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired how much would the IRR gain if the assumptions are revised. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded SunCal is requiring an IRR of 20 to 25%, so - -12% is not a feasible project; stated staff tested the sensitivity; using SunCall's assumption for the single family home values, the IRR increases by 10% points; assuming the average single family price premiums, the IRR increases by 3% points; with SunCal's single family direct construction costs, the IRR increases by 8% points; the cumulative effect of these three changes result in the 14% IRR rather than the -12% IRR, which is still well below the 20 to 25% required by SunCal in the ENA; the three changes do not add up to 14% is because a compounding effect happens when you add of the changes into the pro forma at the same time; moving forward on a project with unrealistic assumptions presents significant risks to the City and to the developer. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether the land payment is still an absolute figure of $108 million or is the premium per house above a threshold that adds up to $60 million, assuming $40 million for cleanup, to which the Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded SunCal's proposal is a $10 million up-front payment and $50,000 per unit starting with the first unit in phase three, which is different than what was in the draft term sheet agreed to with the Navy, but does add up to $108 million. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired if there is another possibility that the developer could come back to the City to renegotiate the deal, to which the Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded in the affirmative; stated if SunCal is unable to fulfill requirements and scale back on the assessments promised, they would have to come back to renegotiate in order to keep the deal. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gi… | CityCouncil/2010-07-07.pdf |
CityCouncil/2010-07-07.pdf,6 | CityCouncil | 2010-07-07 | 6 | to get paid and that needs the same security as well. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the Navy has reviewed the pro forma, to which the Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded in the negative; stated staff has not engaged the Navy regarding the pro forma; staff has to collectively be on the same page, and then approach the Navy with what is realistic; staff is not ready to do so. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired how much is currently in the pro forma for the transportation solutions, including the relocation and construction of a new ferry terminal and Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) within the City, to which the Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded an estimate of $60 to $80 million. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated the question she has always asked is how much density is needed in order to make transit work, which may be a very different number than how much density is needed to make the project itself work. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated upcoming slides in presentation should answer part of the question; the ultimate conclusion is that the Transit Oriented Development (TOD) programs make a difference and significantly reduce the impacts associated with traffic; however, the solutions do not eliminate all impacts. The Planning Services Manager gave a brief presentation on TOD. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated the City is not looking to AC transit to fund additional bus lines, but looking for the project to spin-off enough money to pay for additional transit services. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the price for the homes and added fees do not seem realistic. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated staff agrees and has concerns as to whether the project is going to be able to support fiscal neutrality and if there really is enough value to support assessments. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether there are examples of TOD, how the development was financed, what kind of surcharges are required… | CityCouncil/2010-07-07.pdf |
CityCouncil/2010-07-07.pdf,7 | CityCouncil | 2010-07-07 | 7 | much other developments charge for transit have been reviewed. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the City could require surcharges for the development to mitigate the problems that will occur within the rest of the City due to of the development. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded the assumption is that the project has to be able to support the cost of any required annual operating subsidy, even if users outside of the City use it. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired if there has been a sensitivity break point analysis between the total cost and the total number of units needed to make the transit robust and feasible not just for Alameda Point, but for the rest of the island, so that the number of car trips is reduced through the tube; gave Vallejo, Mare Island and Lennar as examples where there have been issues of delays; stated there is no way to bring decent transit out to Mare Island, so some units pay $9,000 a year in assessments; inquired if there has there been some sort of breaking point between all competing issues being balanced. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded it is complicated because everything is interrelated; isolating transportation is hard and depends on what is being proposed from a land use standpoint; kinds of densities and values determine what the project can support; an analysis has not been done. The Planning Services Manager stated the short answer is no, there is not a magic number or a break point because a smaller project generates less annual assessment to run transportation; however, if things do not work out with a smaller project, there is less risk because the smaller project generates less traffic and if the transportation program cannot be funded because of some unforeseen problem, the project would cause traffic impacts than a much larger project; with a larger project and more units, a lot more traffic is generated, but there is also a lot more money generated by additional units; the tr… | CityCouncil/2010-07-07.pdf |
CityCouncil/2010-07-07.pdf,8 | CityCouncil | 2010-07-07 | 8 | Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated the section of Oakland right out side the tube would be flooded with traffic; the City needs to work with Oakland to mitigate the issue. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated that he has been asking for the commercial transportation plan since the PDC; the pro forma should be run with a reduced number of units; the commercial aspect is absolutely critical. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired whether there is an estimate or assumption about what portion of the Alameda Point residents would work at the 9,000 replacement jobs at Alameda Point. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated an estimate has not been done since there is no commercial plan; that he has not seen a reliable number; tax increment is not reliable; keeping the public subsidy as a constant is optimistic on the City's part. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the tax increment needs to be addressed; inquired how the difference would be made up if the State keeps taking more and more away. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded staff could run some sensitivity at different levels of public subsidy to see the impact on financial feasibility and bring that to Council at the July 20th meeting. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan concurred with Councilmember/ Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese about the commercial and light industry not being identified or analyzed in the pro forma, which is a very substantial void; stated the City should look at the Harbor Bay model and where the marketplace is right now. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated there is no market plan or business plan to really understand the strategy for attracting businesses. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether some information could be obtained by July 20th The Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded staff would be meeting with SunCal tomorrow and would check on the status of said issue, and also address the s… | CityCouncil/2010-07-07.pdf |
CityCouncil/2010-07-07.pdf,9 | CityCouncil | 2010-07-07 | 9 | The Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated staff would come back on July 20th with examples of existing transit town centers to get a sense of the look and feel. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired what kinds of transit serves transit town centers, as BART does not serve Alameda. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired what mechanism is used to make the determination that SunCal and its partners have the financial wherewithal and ability to even enter into a project of this nature, to which the Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded at this point, no financial assurances have been provided to the City. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired if SunCal would do the underground infrastructure, to which the Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded in the affirmative; stated SunCal would do the horizontal or backbone infrastructure to serve the project; SunCal prepares the large parcels or super pads of land, which are then sold to the vertical market; vertical builders build what is called in-tract infrastructure within the super pads. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired how much SunCal has to come up with for the first 5 years or so. The Deputy City Manager responded staff would come back on July 20th with said number. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese requested that looking at the industrial component be made a priority, regardless of who develops the Base; stated the industrial component is going to serve the original mandate and transportation issues on the Island as regional housing obligation are met. Speakers: Jon Spangler, Alameda; Nancy Hird, Alameda; Caroline Mines, Alameda; Nancy Rogers, Alameda; Elizabeth Krase Greene, Alameda; Karen Bey, Alameda; William Smith, Sierra Club; Jean Sweeney, Alameda; Nancy Gordon, Alameda; Diane Lichtenstein, HOMES; Corinne Lambden, Alameda; and Ashley Jones, Alameda. Stan Brown, SunCal, stated that he is a little bit surprised by the presentation format, only in the sense that yes, he obviously intends to respond to some of the comm… | CityCouncil/2010-07-07.pdf |
CityCouncil/2010-07-07.pdf,10 | CityCouncil | 2010-07-07 | 10 | thought he was here for questions and did not know he had a presentation. Mr. Brown stated there are a number of things SunCal obviously disagrees with in the staff report; thanked the Deputy City Manager - Development Services and the Planning Serves Manager for help in completing the application process and finding it finally deemed complete, and also for continued efforts in the weekly meetings; stated they are professionals and he very much appreciates the continuing dialogue that SunCal has had with them and looks forward to doing it [dialogue] in the coming months; a couple of weeks ago, Vice Chair/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan asked both staff and SunCal not to come back here with a cat fight over statistics and facts; as staff indicated, information has been traded back and forth over the last several weeks; unfortunately he, nor anyone on his team, received the pretty extensive and detailed report both from staff and the City's consultants until Friday of last week, just before the holiday weekend, so it has been relatively difficult for SunCal to digest the information and give a more comprehensive report; that he disagrees with many of the conclusions presented tonight; turning to some of the areas where there was conversation, and probably the first one talked to is home valuation; a lot of time was spent on that [home valuation]; that he gave extensive comments several weeks ago at a prior review; putting aside all the numbers, SunCal has had conversations with the City's consultants extensively on valuation; there is a fundamental disagreement between the way SunCal views the piece of property, the project SunCal proposes to build, and the way, apparently, the City looks at it; although the community of 4800 homes and millions of square feet of commercial will be built in Alameda, is intended to be integrated into the community of Alameda, can be a part of the City of Alameda and the marketplace, both on the commercial level, as well as on the residential level, it is not simply Alameda [involved… | CityCouncil/2010-07-07.pdf |
CityCouncil/2010-07-07.pdf,11 | CityCouncil | 2010-07-07 | 11 | price; said number is from single-family detached home price projected in the pro forma. Mr. Brown inquired what is the context when you say "medium." Mayor/Chair Johnson responded typical; inquired are all the homes going to be that price. Mr. Brown responded of course not, no. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired then what is it [the $1,042,000 price]. Mr. Brown stated it is the single family detached home value for a 2,500 square foot home. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired what community does that compare to now. Mr. Brown responded, frankly, SunCal does not think there is any one community that you could go and say that house is equal to that house. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired what community has a home price where single-family homes are selling for that much. Mr. Brown stated SunCal's methodology and approach, which is typical of its approach to all larger master planned communities, is to review the totality of what is perceived to be the primary market area for the community; where the customers are going to be coming from and what are the other choices that they will be looking at; then, SunCal applies appropriate adjustments to home values based upon whether the location has more home value or less value; SunCal goes around an entire area to look at a large number of comparables and areas and finally comes to a valuation that it feels comfortable with; that is SunCal's approach; unfortunately, he cannot point to one versus another. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired what community would compare in price, perhaps Danville; stated that she does not think any community around here has single family homes that sell for $1,042,000 plus all the fees; there may be an occasional home within communities, but not a whole community of single family homes that sell for a over $1 million; so she is asking what community it would compare to. Mr. Brown stated that he does have that information here today, because that is not how SunCal looks at it; that he would be happy to have information at the next meeting; the question is fair and… | CityCouncil/2010-07-07.pdf |
CityCouncil/2010-07-07.pdf,12 | CityCouncil | 2010-07-07 | 12 | then there is a fundamental disagreement; SunCal thinks the City is looking at the wrong place to judge single family homes of a 4,800 unit community; a lot of time was spent on the matter a couple of weeks ago, so he does not want to belabor it because frankly, not much has changed since that time; he shared an exhaustive premium analysis from every block of the development with the City Council and staff in early January of this year; premiums are values above the base price of the home because of location, proximity to features, views of downtown San Francisco, or the water all of these premiums are easily annexed onto properties; SunCal came up with its premium analysis and that was its methodology; 1% is a typical premium used for a flat piece of property in the middle of nowhere; there are premiums for oversized lots, for cul-de- sacs, corner lots, etc.; that [1%] is the number that he typically puts into pro formas; that he does not understand why a detailed analysis was not done, on such a unique location; that he heard negative use was taken into account; he has not seen the analysis other than said statements; SunCal views every feature of the community, such as the existing buildings that will remain and be put into adaptive reuse and the harbor uses, as positives to the community, not negatives; SunCal views the project as a unique opportunity for an incredible architectural and land planning statement; further stated SunCal agrees with the absorption numbers that EPS has come out with; SunCal is happy with the numbers, which there are somewhat more conservative than SunCal numbers; for the record, SunCal does agree with them [numbers]; the issue of construction costs and SunCal's pretty exhaustive survey of 15 to 20 builders of projects for various types of construction, SunCal detailed construction costs builders are currently experiencing, made that information available, used that to develop estimates; that he does not understand the comment about making sure to include union wages, which are abso… | CityCouncil/2010-07-07.pdf |
CityCouncil/2010-07-07.pdf,13 | CityCouncil | 2010-07-07 | 13 | Mr. Brown responded that he has heard, seen some blogs emails and stuff like that, yes. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether Mr. Brown has had the opportunity to review the reports, to which Mr. Brown responded in the negative. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether Mr. Brown is aware that he is included in the report as having received unauthorized and/or illegal communications from Councilmember/Boaro Member/Commissioner Tam. Mr. Brown stated that he does not believe he has ever received communication from Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated that is not what she is asking; clarified that she is asking Mr. Brown if he is aware that the report has evidence of that. Mr. Brown inquired of him receiving [communications]. Mayor/Chair Johnson clarified not Mr. Brown personally, SunCal. Mr. Brown responded yes, he is aware that they have alleged that, yes. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated that she would recommend that SunCal review the report because SunCal is a pretty significant part of the report; inquired if the City Attorney made the request, would SunCal return all privileged or illegal communications, at least the written portions. Mr. Brown responded attorneys are involved; so he would have to ask his attorneys; stated in general, he thinks SunCal have no philosophical problem with it; in his conversations today with the members of his staff and the SunCal staff and team, SunCal absolutely cannot believe anything inappropriate has occurred; to the extent that Mayor/Chair Johnson is asking a legal question, he would have to defer to legal people; in general, SunCal would be happy to disclose that. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated one of the things that people have asked her over the last few weeks is what would it would take for SunCal to stay in the game; obviously questions about transportation, pro forma, economics, cannot be solved over the next few weeks; one of the fundamental things that she has told people and probably people from SunCal, is SunCal need to show that it is a trustwor… | CityCouncil/2010-07-07.pdf |
CityCouncil/2010-07-07.pdf,14 | CityCouncil | 2010-07-07 | 14 | Mr. Brown stated that he understood the allegations are not confirmed; in talking with his folks, SunCal strongly believes that nothing inappropriate has occurred; SunCal has communication all the time with the entire Council and City staff; communication occurs all the time, which is common in his experience; SunCal does not believe that anything inappropriate has occurred; that is SunCal's position today. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated when reviewing the report, SunCal will see that the documents are attached; the fact that communication occurred, is not disputed; Mr. Colantuono is a highly regarded expert in the area; he is an attorney for the League of California Cities, he has done a very thorough job of reviewing the matter and providing his opinion, which is available to the public. Jim Daisa, Kimley-Horn and Associates, stated the presentation which was developed over the past few months, was developed for a different context, and was not prepared for tonight; SunCal hired him because he has been doing this for 20 years has been working in the Bay Area on transit oriented development for that long, and has worked with Peter Calthorpe since the beginning; SunCal knows that he does not rubber-stamp any project and call it TOD until he is very comfortable that it can perform like true TOD; contrary to what was said tonight, TOD is not a cute development ploy; it works; it has been around for a long time; there is a lot of empirical data here in the Bay Area that shows that it reduces traffic by half of what similar amounts of development in suburban areas do; it is just a fact at this point; there is plenty of data to show that the location is ideal location for self selection, for people who use transit; the project is going to attract people who work in San Francisco because it is an ideal location with good high speed transit to San Francisco, which is subsidized; the project is going to attract a lot of people, young professionals, couples, families that self select these types of developments; in the Bay Ar… | CityCouncil/2010-07-07.pdf |
CityCouncil/2010-07-07.pdf,15 | CityCouncil | 2010-07-07 | 15 | project was designed by the Peter Calthorpe who coined the term TOD and first came up with the concept; Mr. Calthorpe has a series of design principles that he has worked on for over 30 years to get it to the point where the land use, the built environment and the transportation system all work together; the project has all the features that are part of the true definition of TOD: range of housing densities, diversity of commercial uses, vertical mixed use, horizontal mixed use, everyday conveniences so that people are not forced to get into their car and drive to do everyday errands because it is within walking distance; people can choose to walk or drive their cars a short distance, but still remain in Alameda Point; TOD is proven and demonstrated in the Bay Area; he has even done some research for the State of California; surveys have shown that TOD produces half or less traffic than similar forms of development in suburban areas without transit; the project is designed to be accessible to transit; most of the project, about 85% to almost 90%, is within a ten minute walk of the center transit terminal which will be the ferry terminal and where the BRT system comes through; the State of California has created a check list that has the best way to tell if a project is TOD; that he has gone through the checklist; the project has everything on the checklist ; further stated the components of transit plan are: high frequency transit to BART; priority improvements will be made along the routes being proposed for the phased BRT system to both the 12th Street and the Fruitvale BART stations; there will be direct ferry service to San Francisco from the Seaplane Lagoon by bifurcating from the Oakland service; that he is meeting with WETA tomorrow to go over the financial analysis and ridership analysis that SunCal prepared; an intermodal transit center serves the ferry and bus system; free transit passes to all residents, which is a motivation to use public transportation ; a shuttle system that goes to the 12th Street … | CityCouncil/2010-07-07.pdf |
CityCouncil/2010-07-07.pdf,16 | CityCouncil | 2010-07-07 | 16 | zero to one vehicle includes children. Mr. Daisa responded in the negative; stated the statistic is actually 50% of households. Mr. Daisa stated providing a rapid transit system that serves the entire residency and employees achieves an additional 4% ridership, or 6% or even 8% more ridership from existing residents or employees; the percentages can reduce the cars in the tubes and bridges by 600, 900 or 1200 in each peak hour, which is equivalent to increasing the capacity of the tubes by 15% to 30%; if 8% can be achieved, 30% capacity can be gained in the tube, which is the equivalent of adding a lane to the tubes; there is a way to gain capacity through transit operations; the ferry service is in two phases; phases one and two of the development use, the current Main Street terminal ferry service the new ferry terminal is constructed in phase three and the two systems from Oakland and from the Seaplane Lagoon are bifurcated; SunCal has done a financial analysis and will talking to staff and WETA tomorrow; showed maps indicating the existing system and the system after phase three to five; stated an onsite full time TDM Coordinator position Is included Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired what is a kiss and ride zone. Mr. Daisa responded a spouse or significant other drops you off, kisses you goodbye and says go make money and I will pick you up when you get back; continued the presentation; stated BRT is not just another bus and is really a light rail train on rubber wheels; new vehicles, new systems and new technology make BRT work; BRT targets choice riders, not transit-dependent people who always use transit; choice riders are people who own cars but want to choose to use a good, comfortable form of public transportation because it works for them and is attractive; BRT have dedicated lanes on either on the inside or the outside of the street; in SunCal's proposal, lanes are probably on the outside; BRT has very nice stations, which are attractive, comfortable, high- amenity facilities and us… | CityCouncil/2010-07-07.pdf |
CityCouncil/2010-07-07.pdf,17 | CityCouncil | 2010-07-07 | 17 | every year and those working will be kept; measures not working will be adjusted or changed; different tiered set of measures are used and get increasingly more stringent; reviewed the duties of the Alameda Point TDM Coordinator and the tier measures; stated the program, combined with the capital improvements and transit system, is the best way to get transit-oriented development to work; the City does not have to take his word that the project is going to provide more mobility for Alameda and mitigate impacts, the City's two transportation consultants will do a pretty extensive EIR to validate SunCal's program; if parts of the program do not work, the consultants will suggest a way to change it; the program will be completely vetted through the City's consultants who will analyze the entire Island and parts of Oakland; further stated a transit feasibility study will go on at the same time; the City's consultant is looking at SunCal's proposed route along Lincoln Avenue and about four other options to find the best way to provide the phased transit system; either the Lincoln-Tilden route will be validated, or the consultants will come up with a different route; there is clear data from years of collection that TOD works and really does reduce traffic when compared against the same type of suburban single family, low density, low intensity development that happens all over the Bay Area. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated that he commutes on the 72R, which goes on Broadway and San Pablo Avenue, and knows Lincoln Avenue because he comes to City Hall on Lincoln Avenue; that he is trying to imagine rapid buses run by AC Transit in Alameda between Alameda Point and the Fruitvale BART station actually being rapid; 25 miles per hour [on Lincoln Avenue] is not San Pablo Avenue, which is a broad street where buses get up to 40 to 45 miles per hour; the regardless of how Alameda Point is developed, rapid transit is needed in the City; that he has a hard time understanding how such a short line can be r… | CityCouncil/2010-07-07.pdf |
CityCouncil/2010-07-07.pdf,18 | CityCouncil | 2010-07-07 | 18 | imagining it; suggested a report with details be provided, because to get that average speed of 20 miles per hour on San Pablo Avenue, buses cruise up to 45 miles per hour; there is a speed limit here of 25 miles per hour on purpose Lincoln Avenue is a residential street and much of San Pablo Avenue is not; he thinks buses are absolutely critical for the City, and would love to get the 19 line back along with some of the other cross-Island routes; rapid transit to the 12th Street BART station is rapid until it reaches the tube. Mr. Daisa stated answers would come through City staff, because staff is coordinating consultants right now; further stated maybe findings will say the BRT system is needed sooner than anticipated. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated that he is interested in seeing the funding of such a short rapid line by AC Transit or self-funded. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired whether the presentation showed that there are ways to increase capacity through the tube through some operational efficiencies and using BRT. Mr. Daisa responded in the negative; stated the capacity of the tubes can effectively be increased by reducing the automobile demand in the tubes; the Broadway-Jackson project might be a way off, but so is build out of the project; the Broadway-Jackson project will really improve conditions going through the tube into Oakland and is high priority project, so funding is likely; stated the [Broadway-Jackson] project might take a decade or so to get built, but the [Alameda Point] project will also take some time to build out. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired whether discussion with WETA could be an opportunity to look at areas in Seattle and in Vancouver that have the ability to bring cars and passengers on a ferry to help alleviate some of the car traffic; whether said option is feasible in the project; and whether it would generate reductions. Mr. Daisa inquired whether Councilmember/Board Member/Commission Tam means between Oakl… | CityCouncil/2010-07-07.pdf |
CityCouncil/2010-07-07.pdf,19 | CityCouncil | 2010-07-07 | 19 | AGENDA ITEMS None. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 10:58 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger, City Clerk Secretary, CIC The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and 18 Community Improvement Commission July 7, 2010 | CityCouncil/2010-07-07.pdf |
CivilServiceBoard/2010-07-07.pdf,1 | CivilServiceBoard | 2010-07-07 | 1 | any OF FERKA MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CIVIL SERVICE BOARD OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA WEDNESDAY, July 7, 2010 1. The meeting was called to order at 5:12 p.m. by Board President Avonnet Peeler 2. ROLL CALL: President Avonnet Peeler, Vice President Peter Horikoshi, Board Members Dean Batchelor, Linda McHugh and Executive Secretary Karen Willis Executive Secretary Willis commented that Mr. Roberto Rocha's term had expired and the Mayor appointed a new Board member at the City Council Meeting last night. She stated that she would be meeting with him and that he would attend the next meeting of the Civil Service Board. STAFF PRESENT: Jill Kovacs, Senior Management Analyst 3. MINUTES: The minutes of the regular meeting of April 7, 2010 were presented for Board approval. Board Member McHugh moved to accept the minutes. Board Member Batchelor seconded, and the motion was carried by a 4-0 vote. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: SUMMARY REPORT FOR EXAMINATION ELIGIBLE LISTS AND CLASSIFICATIONS FOR THE MONTHS OF APRIL, MAY AND JUNE 2010. 4-A ELIGIBLE LIST ESTABLISHED DATE ESTABLISHED EXAM NO. Meter Reader Collector 6/03/2010 2010-15PR Office Assistant 6/09/2010 2010-PR Public Works Superintendent 4/21/2010 2010-09 Senior Account Clerk 4/20/2010 2010-11 Senior Management Analyst 4/07/2010 2010-08PR Utility Information Systems Supervisor 4/22/2010 2010-12 4-B ELIGIBLE LIST EXTENDED DATE ESTABLISHED EXAM NO. Administrative Management Analyst 12/22/2009 209-27PR Assistant Engineer 8/27/2009 209-22PR Custodian 12/02/2009 209-36PR Deputy City Attorney I 2/24/2010 2010-02 Journey Lineworker 1/13/2010 2010-05 Maintenance Worker II 2/03/2010 209-37PR Police Lieutenant 12/03/2009 209-29PR Police Officer (Academy Graduate or Lateral) 12/10/2009 209-33 Ho, Danny Shira, Craig Police Sergeant 10/14/2009 209-04PR | CivilServiceBoard/2010-07-07.pdf |
CivilServiceBoard/2010-07-07.pdf,2 | CivilServiceBoard | 2010-07-07 | 2 | City of Alameda Page 2 of 4 Civil Service Board Minutes Regular Meeting of July 7, 2010 4-C ELIGIBLE LIST EXPIREDICANCELLEDI DATE ESTABLISHED EXAM NO. EXHAUSTED Assistant City Clerk 12/09/2009 209-30PR Asst General Mgr - Energy Res Planning 8/10/2009 209-12 Deputy City Manager 12/11/2009 209-38PR Vice President Horikoshi moved to accept the consent calendar. Member McHugh seconded and the motion passed by a 4-0 vote. 5. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 5-A Activity Report Period of March 1, 2010 - May 31, 2010 Member McHugh asked about the reinstatement to former position. Executive Secretary Willis explained that this was a reinstatement from demotion. Member McHugh then asked about the reasons for the separations and if they were voluntary. Executive Secretary Willis stated that three were voluntary and one was a death. Member McHugh asked if the fact that three were voluntary resignations was a sign the economy was recovering. Executive Secretary Willis stated that she did not know as the City has received hundreds of applications for jobs the City has opened recently. She stated that the City has opened up Police Officer for entry, academy graduate and laterals and received several hundred applications. The City has also opened up Maintenance Worker and received over 200 applications. Member McHugh asked about the quality of the candidates. Executive Secretary Willis stated that the review process was going on for these jobs so she did not have those results to be able to share with the Board. Member Batchelor asked about the transfer to other department. Executive Secretary Willis stated that this was a meritorious selection from someone in Economic Development going to a Senior Management Analyst position in Finance. The positions are in classifications that are in the same salary range. 5-B Re-employment Lists Member Batchelor asked if there were people still left on these lists. Executive Secretary stated that yes, there are people on the lists as they stay on the list for two years from the date they were laid-off. … | CivilServiceBoard/2010-07-07.pdf |
CivilServiceBoard/2010-07-07.pdf,3 | CivilServiceBoard | 2010-07-07 | 3 | City of Alameda Page 3 of 4 Civil Service Board Minutes Regular Meeting of July 7, 2010 Department establishes a list of eligibles for a position of only those who have been laid off and eligible for that position. This list is then certifies to the hiring department. Thus, keeping with the Civil Service process and also allowing for better tracking of these laid off employees who are eligible for reinstatement. 5-C Cell Phone Use - Legal Opinion Executive Secretary Willis referred the Board to the legal opinion letter included in their Board packet. Member McHugh asked about how this issue came about. Executive Secretary Willis stated that she did not know the origin of this legal opinion but was advised that this needed to be shared with all Boards. She stated that although the use of cell phones during a public meeting was not a violation of the Brown Act, that the use of a cell phone during a meeting could result in someone not being able to hear both sides of the conversation, thus possibly creating an issue for the public. The City Attorney wanted to make certain that the Boards were cognizant of this and for the Boards to be made aware so that they would be sensitive to the issue. Executive Secretary Willis pointed out to that this has not been an issue with the Civil Service Board and would not expect that it ever would be. Member Linda McHugh moved to accept the Regular Agenda Items. Member Batchelor seconded and the motion passed by a 4-0 vote. 6. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT) There was no one present from the public. 7. CIVIL SERVICE BOARD COMMUNICATIONS (COMMUNICATIONS FROM BOARD) Vice President Horikoshi asked if the City contacted agencies such as the City of Oakland who were laying off police officers for the City's recruitment efforts. Executive Secretary Willis stated that she was not aware that we made special contact, however she did point out that these Oakland Police officers knew about our positions because many had applied for these positions. There was discussion that th… | CivilServiceBoard/2010-07-07.pdf |
CivilServiceBoard/2010-07-07.pdf,4 | CivilServiceBoard | 2010-07-07 | 4 | City of Alameda Page 4 of 4 Civil Service Board Minutes Regular Meeting of July 7, 2010 then utilize that information to apply for the positions listed. Applicants for the City will be linked to CalOPPs when searching our job openings and will be instructed on applying for the position on-line. Executive Secretary Willis stated that this process is much easier for the applicants and for the City and has been positive overall. 9. President Peeler asked for a motion to adjourn the meeting. Board Member McHugh moved to adjourn and Member Batchelor seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0 and the meeting was adjourned by President Peeler at 5:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kannah Karen Willis Human Resources Director & Executive Secretary to the Civil Service Board | CivilServiceBoard/2010-07-07.pdf |
Advanced export
JSON shape: default, array, newline-delimited, object
CREATE TABLE "pages" ( [body] TEXT, [date] TEXT, [page] INTEGER, [text] TEXT, [path] TEXT, PRIMARY KEY ([path], [page]) );