|
Quarterly MeetingWhen: Wednesday February 17, 2016 7 – 9 p.m.Where: Alameda Hospital, Second Floor, Room A Topic:What’s Happening at Alameda Marina
CERTCommunity Emergency Response Team
Alameda Fire Captain Sharon Oliver will conduct a community presentation open to all Alameda residents.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
1201 Grand (corner of Encinal)
Tuesday February 2, 2016Starts at 6:30 p.m. Ends at 7:30 p.m.
Q&A at the end.
Open HouseWhen: Monday, September 29, 2014 from 5:30pm – 8:30pmWhere: Free Library at 1550 Oak StreetThe City will be hosting an Open House on the evening of Monday, September 29th to offer the community a chance to meet the four development teams that are finalists to develop Parcels A & B (there are two teams still in consideration for each site). The event will be casual, with no presentations of proposed plans. Instead, we are asking each developer team to bring boards displaying some of their relevant past work and to make themselves available for one-on-one conversations. The idea is for community members to get an opportunity to meet the developers in person and ask them any questions they may have – to foster an ongoing dialogue between all parties. There will also be a table manned by City representatives to answer any questions people have about the City’s vision and process to date for Alameda Point.
Meet the Candidates Night!Wednesday September 17th 7-9 PMAlameda Hospital conference room AOn November the 4th Alamedans will be asked to vote for a mayor, 2 council members and 2 school board members.The following are the candidates (alphabetical order):Mayoral CandidatesMarie Gilmore (incumbent)Trish SpencerCity Council Candidates/2 openingsStewart ChenFrank MatarreseJim OddieSchool Board Candidates/ 2 openingsSolana HenneberryGary LymMike McMahonCandidates will be asked to comment on the issues cited below.Election 2014 – November 4thCHALLENGES FOR THE NEW CITY COUNCIL1. How are People Going to Get in and out of Town? About 1,000 more residential units are planned along the Northern Waterfront, i.e. on Buena Vista Avenue between Grand and Sherman. More than 1,400 houses and apartments are planned for Alameda Point. Add to this other new developments at Oak/Clement (Boatworks) and Alameda Landing near the Target Store. Traffic in and out of Alameda and on Island Drive is already congested during rush hours. Before new developments are approved actually feasible transit solutions need to be found to avoid further traffic congestion. (gondolas and water taxis won’t do) 2. Citywide Jobs/Housing Balance
The 2007 Northern Waterfront General Plan, section 10.1, calls for jobs/ housing balance in this area and in the city “for the purpose of reducing citywide traffic and the associated environmental, economic, and social impacts of long commute trips.”
After Piedmont, Alameda has the lowest jobs/housing ratio in the county. Northern Waterfront plans, and plans for other developments need to provide for a jobs/housing balance.
3. City Budget
Alameda’s Chief Financial Officer has stated that in the current fiscal year and in every one of the next three years the City will be running a deficit, that is expenses will exceed revenues. Accordingly, the City’s reserves will be depleted in fiscal year 2017/2018. Additionally there are unfunded pension liabilities.
The City of Alameda needs to cut expenses or increase revenues.
4. Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) with Alameda United Commercial, LLC (AUC) Involving Public Land at Alameda Point.
At a special meeting on July 29 the City Council authorized the City Manager to enter into exclusive negations with AUC for the development of two parcels, the former Bachelor Enlisted Quarters and 5.5 acres of taxiways north of the Seaplane Lagoon. No explanation was given why there was no bidding process before tying up these properties in exclusive negotiations. No explanations were given as to the qualifications of AUC and how the AUC plans would fit development concepts for Alameda Point. Our City Council needs to insist on transparency and permit community review. Requests for Qualifications/Proposals should be required for all developments at Alameda Point to encourage and provide competition. 5. Mayor to Preside at Council Meetings
Our City Charter mandates that the Mayor preside at Council meetings. Community participation should be encouraged. Rules of Order need to be followed. Observers’ letters starting with the July 17, 2012 meeting up to the July 15, 2014 meeting criticize the City Manager’s interruptions of speakers and Council members, even calling it “bullying” behavior. The Mayor and Council members keep permitting this. The mayor needs to control disruptive behavior by staff. The Mayor and Council need to welcome speakers’ contributions without an intimidating atmosphere.
6. Mayor and Council Members are Elected to Represent Alameda Voters
Recently, over a two year period, the Mayor and the Council members have ignored the will of Alameda voters who approved and funded the expansion of Crab Cove. The City’s attempt to develop the site next to Crab Cove with luxury housing led to litigation at taxpayers’ expense and was only defeated with a citizens’ petition drive to zone the site in question “open space”. The Mayor and Council members need to be responsive to voters and direct the City Manager accordingly.
7. The City Council Sets Policy, the City Manager Administers and Executes it Individuals and organizations have reported rude and uncooperative behavior by the City Manager, to the detriment of the City. For example, the City Manager required an unnecessary public hearing in connection with the sand replenishment of the city-owned portion of Crown Beach. The City Manager has been uncooperative with the East Bay Regional Park District which maintains the city-owned part of Crown Beach at no cost to the City. The Park District also has Measure WW funds available to develop and maintain future parks at Alameda Point.
The Mayor and City Council need to instruct the City Manager to perform his duties in a professional manner, without personal vindictiveness.
Skip to: Content | Footer | AccessibilityAlameda Citizens Task Force Presents an Evening Discussion of Alameda’s Emergency PreparednessAlameda Citizens Task Force (ACT), a community group that was formed to monitor, maintain, and improve Alameda’s quality of life, will host a quarterly meeting at Alameda Hospital on Wednesday, July 23rd from 7:00-9:00 p.m. in the second floor conference room.Staff members from the City Manager’s Office and the Alameda Police and Fire Departments will participate in a panel discussion regarding Alameda’s plan for dealing with emergencies. Topics covered will include the plans for the city’s new emergency command center; current and proposed staffing/equipment; and how the city agencies will work together to coordinate efforts to minimize life threatening incidents. They will talk about what citizens can do to prepare for a disaster and describe training available for both residents and businesses. The audience will have an opportunity for questions and comments following the presentation.ACT often works with local and state governments to assure public safety and government fiscal responsibility and openness. The organization also works with community groups to promote good stewardship of local resources. Most recently, the group has worked to retain public access to and support expansion of parks such as the Mif Albright Golf Course and Crab Cove.The meeting is open to the public and there is no cost for admission.
October 25, 2013“Personal contributions of candidates, non-residents and special interests made up 68% of contributions for City Council elections from 2008-2012. “This and other conclusions appear in the paper below, Alameda Campaign Finance Analysis: 2008-2012 Mayor and City Council.Alameda Election Financial Analysis 2008-2012 10-22-2013a The author is Alameda resident Joe Vanwinkle who provided this background: “The City Clerk website has posted PDF files for election campaigns back to 2008. I downloaded each of them and prepared the attached analysis based on the publically available information. I have endeavored to be non-partisan, factual and accurate. However, I have listed specific names of candidates as I feel actual examples yield the greatest insight for readers. And I have tried to do this in a balanced way. I hope the analysis enhances understanding of election finances in Alameda so that we may improve the system.”
__________________________________________________________________ September 21, 2013California Coastal Cleanup Day is Saturday, September 21, 2013!Monday September 2, 2013
Saturday, September 7, 2013, 10:00 AMWebster Street in Alameda, CA, between Central and Buena Vista Avenues See mapFree for all your family and friends! Neptune Beach Community CelebrationAlameda, CA Patch When’s the last time you saw a full-sized Ferris wheel in Alameda?
This two-day lively street festival along historic Webster Street in Alameda on September 7-8, 2013, commemorates the Neptune Beach amusement park of the early 20th century.
Kids will enjoy a Ferris wheel (Sat. only), giant slide, pony rides, inflatable obstacle course, climbing wall, walking on water, Jeep rides (Sat. only), nature activities at the Crab Cove mobile van, and more. Other family-friendly activities include award-winning bands playing live throughout the event; a
history walk; author reading; arts and crafts booths; and community organization displays. Food provided by Webster Street restaurants and food booths, with beer and wine from local vintners. Produced by Alameda Chamber of Commerce and Festival Productions. Artists, food vendors, businesses, and nonprofit organizations are invited to apply for a space atwww.neptunebeachcc.com to promote their products, business, or organization.
Contact info@festivalproductions2.com or mark@alamedachamber.com.
Thursday June 13th, 2013ACT wondered why the school board thought the State Supreme Court would change the state tax laws to suit the school district. We will be researching the legal cost for this misguided action. You would expect the school district attorney to give better advice.Alameda parcel tax shot down by high court (San Francisco Chronicle)The state Supreme Court declined Wednesday to revive a parcel tax for schools in Alameda that set higher rates for larger business properties, a case that could affect school taxes elsewhere in California. Crab Cove Concert August 9th 5:30 to 7:30 at Crab CoveAlameda Meals on Wheels Community Faire & Wine Tasting Fundraiser–Sunday July 21st 1 to 5 pm Rock Wall 2301 Monarch Street,on the Point, AlamedaAlameda’s finances: a train wreck in slow motion?As the City Council prepares to approve or temporarily hold action on the city budget this Tuesday May 7th, please see comments under the link below: Alameda Merry Go Round, a ‘blog’ written by Alameda resident and attorney Bob Sullwold. http://alamedamgr.wordpress.com/2013/05/02/bad-news-for-the-bottom-line/
PCL INSIDER: News from the Capitol NEW STUDY REVEALS CALIFORNIA HAS ENOUGH HOUSING TO MEET DEMAND FOR MORE THAN TWO DECADES Last week, the Urban Land Institute (ULI) released a study detailing how California’s four largest metropolitan areas (Sacramento, Bay Area, Southern California and San Diego), which make up 80 percent of the state’s population, are seeing a trend in locational demands for housing. The dream of owning a home out in the suburbs seems to be shifting as young professionals, and those entering the workforce, care more about living in close proximity to areas served by mass transit, with better access to goods, services and their employment. California’s most transformative recent environmental legislation, AB 32 and SB 375 (which, taken together, seek to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through more sustainable planning), seem to be aligning with the personal preferences of California residents. In fact, according to the ULI study, nearly “9 million households would like the option to live in locations served by public transit, but today only about 1.2 million California households can claim to have it.” This fact alone should make enough of a case to cities, counties, developers and planners that sprawl development has become outdated, and is no longer the desired option as and more and more residents are heading for urban dwellings and high density housing options. Even as California’s population is projected to grow by 4 million people by 2020 and 12 million by 2035, there is already enough large lot, single family housing within the four major Metropolitan Planning Areas (MPO) that not one more house needs to be built to accommodate the expected population growth and demand for this type of housing for the next 23 years. This in an obvious indicator of the change in desire for housing type; further stressing the point is that demand for housing close to transit stops is so high that if all new homes built until 2035 were placed next to transit stops, we still wouldn’t meet the demand. Now, as each of the 18 MPOs throughout California drafts its Sustainable Community Strategies (as required by SB 375), we hope they will take into account the growing demand for urban development over sprawl as we seek to get California on track environmentally and economically. As we continue to focus on better regional planning, in 2012 the Planning and Conservation League will also sponsor The Healthy Neighborhoods Act, authored by Assemblymember Roger Dickinson, which seeks to reduce the amount of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) at the project level by rewarding infill development and fostering improved project design and travel demand management programs. There will be more to come on this bill as the Legislature reconvenes in January.
Press Release 2/6/12 Protect Our Parks now has its own website:http://protectouralamedaparks.org Note: Please be aware the time for the Casitas meeting has changed! “Protect Our Alameda Parks” On Thursday, February 3, “Protect Our Alameda Parks” filed its notice to circulate an initiative petition. This initiative is essential to close the loophole in the City Charter that allows the City Council, without approval of the voters, to swap existing park land for other land the City Council determines to be park land with similar amenities. When the city staff proposed selling off part of the Alameda Golf Complex in 1992, the voters responded by passing an initiative (Charter Amendment 22.12) to require all sales of park land to be approved by the voters. In a strong showing of public support, the voters passed that by 83%. However, that Charter Amendment contained an exception that allows the Council to swap existing park land for new park land. Utilizing that loop hole, Alameda city staff is currently back with another proposal to replace the Mif Albright Golf Course with over 130 houses. It’s time to close the loophole. All sales of public parks, even swaps, should require voter approval. We need to do this to protect our Alameda parks for the present and for the future. The City Council, by a vote of three members, can choose to place this initiative on the November ballot. If they choose not to do this, “Protect Our Alameda Parks” will be putting this initiative on the ballot by gathering the requisite valid signatures. PROTECT OUR ALAMEDA PARKS! STOP THE LAND SWAP NOW AND FOREVER! IMPORTANT MEETING FEB 16 6:00 p.m. at Casitas Club House EVERYONE PLEASE COME! Learn about our Initiative and current city positions. Dear Friends and Neighbors, Thursday, February 3rd, “Protect Our Alameda Parks” filed notice to petition to place an initiative on the November ballot. This initiative would ensure that only a majority of Alameda voters can sell, swap, or otherwise dispose of any Alameda parkland. No City Council, present or future, would have the authority to do so. That willinclude the Cowan/HBIA land swap. We are calling on the City Council to show leadership and respect for the citizens of Alameda by placing this Initiative on the November ballot. Because of the overwhelming opposition to the swap and the precedent it sets, every Council member should vote to place this initiative on the ballot. Only 3 votes are needed and Councilman DeHaan has already expressed his support. We hope this will be on the Council agenda 2/21. We will have more information at the meeting. If the Council does not do this, we will continue our active campaign to collect the required signatures (over 6,000 by June 1 to place the Initiative on the November ballot. ≈ We know we can expect opposition, particularly from those who stand to make millions if the Cowan/HBIA land swap is passed. They would lose the right to build 130 new houses on the golf course on Bay Farm Island. They will not give that up without a fight. Alamedans love our parks. The parks belong to the people, and the people have a right to decide what happens to their parks. This Initiative will protect that right for the present and for the future. To pass this, we need a concerted effort by hundreds of people. We hope you will be one of them! Our thanks go to Marie Kane, Tony Corica, and Mike Robles-Wong for placing their names on our petition for the Initiative, and thanks also to Sandy Sullivan for agreeing to be our Treasurer. WE NEED YOUR HELP! Every single person is important to this effort. IMPORTANT NOW! Please write, call, or email our City Council members, respectfully requesting that they vote without delay to put this initiative on the November ballot. *** Come to the meeting at Casitas on Feb. 16, 6 p.m. *** Come to the City Council meeting on Feb. 21, 7 p.m. Best regards, Mary Theresa Anderson President, “PROTECT OUR ALAMEDA PARKS” mgilmore@ci.alameda.ca.us ddehaan@ci.alameda.ca.us rbonta@ci.alameda.ca.us ltam@ci.alameda.ca.us bjohnson@ci.alameda.ca.us Planning Board Meeting on February 13th, 2012 Please take note of this item on the planning board agenda. The DEIR for the North of Lincoln plan is out for public comments which are due by February 20th. Folks should look at this. It will have a big effect on Park Street Bridge and Fruitvale Bridge along with Boatworks. More traffic, more traffic, more traffic. Please see the attached Agenda for the Regular Planning Board Meeting on 2-13-12 and the link below to the full packet. 9.B. A Public Hearing to Take Public Comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the North Park Street Code and the Draft North Park Street Code REDEVELOPMENT GOES DOWN Congratulations Redevelopment Fighters! This morning the state Supreme Court issued its ruling on the fate of redevelopment agencies. They ruled to uphold ABX 26, which abolishes redevelopment agencies; they ruled against ABX 27, which would have allowed cities to opt back into redevelopment by paying $1.7 billion to the state this year and $400 million to schools every year after that. This is the absolute victory we have been looking for. Upholding both ABX 26 and ABX 27 would have been good. This is way better. http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S194861.PDF What’s next? Earlier this year many cities throughout the state attempted to tie up future redevelopment debt, and thereby keep redevelopment going, by creating “cooperation agreements” between the cities and their local redevelopment agencies for future projects. San Diego created $4.1 billion worth of cooperation agreements. My understanding of ABX 26 is the state reserved the right to challenge these agreements for up to two years. Per legislative staff and Assemblyman Chris Norby, expect a flood of bills in 2012 to try to revive individual redevelopment agencies. They will argue that their redevelopment agency is so special that it must be revived. In fact, one legislator tried this exact thing earlier this year, but it didn’t fly. We must maintain constant vigilance for what comes down the line on this front. What does this mean for Grantville redevelopment? With the abolition of the Redevelopment Agency, and even if the cooperation agreements relating to Grantville stand, Grantville redevelopment is essentially defunded. When enacted, Grantville redevelopment was speculated to generate over $600 million in tax increment. Of course, it has not met the projections. The cooperation agreements between the City and the Redevelopment Agency devote $200 million of future tax increment to Grantville. As of now, $31 million of this is still destined to go downtown. The end result is much less redevelopment in Grantville. The great benefit is a lack of funding for eminent domain abuse—the government taking private property for one of their favored developers. This is great news for the cause of Grantville property rights. What does this mean for San Diego? This could be a windfall for San Diego’s depleted general fund. Assuming the state successfully challenges the San Diego cooperation agreements, once current redevelopment is paid off, approximately $50 million in local property tax will be going to the City’s general fund, instead of the Redevelopment Agency. And given the local RDA has a budget of about $200 million and given that redevelopment derives 40% of its funding by diverting money away from local schools, just think of the benefit for education. If the state is unsuccessful in challenging the cooperation agreements, the City will still focus its redevelopment effort on downtown to the detriment of other communities. As I recall, about $3 billion of the cooperation agreements are reserved for downtown redevelopment. The Spanos family and the Chargers could still get their new downtown stadium. For the benefit of all neighborhoods, let’s hope the cooperation agreements do not stand. Thank you to everybody who supported GAG in our legal effort challenging the Grantville settlement agreement. (The appellate court will hear our case early next year.) We know that our effort has helped to spur the way towards redevelopment abolition. Brian T. Peterson, DVM Grantville Action Group, CEO 10433 Friars Road, Suites F&G San Diego, CA 92120 619-282-7677 An Update on the Golf Swap, December 2011 Dear Friends and Neighbors, We continue to face the very real threat that the City Council will approve swapping the 12 acre Mif Albright golf course land to Cowan/HBIA to build 130 houses, in exchange for his unmarketable land in the business park. However, there is some good news. THE MOST RECENTLY PLANNED MEETING ON THE LAND SWAP HAS ONCE AGAIN BEEN POSTPONED UNTIL MARCH 6, 2012: City Manager John Russo is now accepting applications from sports management companies (in addition to Kemper) to operate the golf course. We hope he and his staff will be enthusiastically marketing the golf complex. Proposals are due back by February 10, 2012 and Mr. Russo will present them to the Council on March 6, 2012. After researching our options with political and legal counsel, we have concluded that the best approach for protecting all our precious Alameda parkland is to pass an a city wide initiative that will ensure that any sale or swap of public park lands must go before a vote of all Alameda voters. A successful Initiative will stop this pending Land Swap and most importantly, it will preserve our parks for all future generations of Alamedans. Didn’t we already do that? Yes, in 1992 the people of Alameda passed Measure C by 83% of the voters. This resulted in Charter amendment 22.12. The voters believed they had protected our parks forever. They believed that only a majority vote of the people would allow a public park to be sold. They never imagined that a small paragraph intended to allow the Council some minor administrative decisions would be interpreted so broadly and so outrageously that the city would actually change the zoning of any parcel of land, call it “park land” and then “swap” it for our actual park land ! We are now preparing legal documents for the initiative process. We expect to have all the forms approved and begin collecting signatures by the first of February. We will have until June to get the 6,000 necessary valid signatures to qualify the Initiative to be on the November 2012 ballot. We recognize that placing an Initiative on the ballot in November 2012 and having it passed by a majority of voters will be a significant undertaking, requiring time, effort, and commitment from all of us. We believe that future generations of Alamedans will thank all of us for making this dedicated effort. There is so much opposition to the Land Swap, we know, WITH YOUR HELP, we can get the 6000 signatures. We will notify you of new developments and any Council meetings concerning the Swap. Please keep up your calls and emails to Council members and your letters to the papers. WE WILL HAVE A COMMUNITY MEETING IN JANUARY. WE LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING ALL OF YOU AT THIS VERY IMPORTANT MEETING. Sincerely, Citizens Against the Land Swap Budget Study Results The following report summarizes our work with a citizens committee assisted by our city Treasurer and city Auditor Alameda Citizens Task Force TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council John Russo, City Manager Lisa Goldman, Deputy City Manager FROM: Nancy Hird and Gretchen Lipow, Co-Coordinators Alameda Citizens Task Force DATE: June 13, 2011 RE: City of Alameda Budget 2011-2012 Background and Summary On March 29, 2011, City Staff presented a financial report to the City Council. The report reflected information that suggests the city could be facing bankruptcy within a few years if structural changes are not made, primarily due to underfunded pensions and rising medical expense for employee and retiree benefits. The information was consistent with the 2009 results of a Long Range Financial Forecast Report performed by community members, city staff and the City Treasurer and City Auditor. At subsequent City Council meetings, Mayor Gilmore stated she wanted to hear from the community members how any re-structuring could occur. Alameda Citizens Task Force (ACT) held three well-attended community meetings regarding the city budget. On May 18, 2011, Kevin Kennedy and Kevin Kearney explained to Alameda citizens the economic background and issues facing our city and they joined ACT for a workshop oriented evening on May 24th as group advisors. During that workshop session, citizens joined one of six groups to discuss ideas to present in this report to the members of City Council. The subject matter the groups explored were: Pensions Medical Insurance Employee Salary and Benefits Expense Non-Wage Expense Policies and Procedures affecting Expense Enhancing Revenue Each group had a moderator, scribe and laptop with which participants could research data and other materials available electronically to make informed suggestions. Throughout the evening, Kevin Kennedy and Kevin Kearney divided their time among all the groups. Lists of ideas were generated and assignments were made for further research. Between workshop meeting and the final meeting on June 9th, group members conducted further research and attempted to quantify savings for each suggestion. The numbers given in this report have not been verified for accuracy but are based on actual city data available in the public domain. In addition, the city staff presented their suggested budget to the City Council and the Council approved staff suggestions as appropriate. This ACT Report also reflects the discussions and some ideas generated on the topic of the city’s budget by Alameda community bloggers. During the final meeting, the groups completed and presented their ideas and those in attendance were given the opportunity to add to any other group’s lists following discussion. Participants were then asked to prioritize the ideas they found most compelling to help the city regain financial sustainability. In addition to the ideas generated during the ACT community meetings, the staff generated/City Council approved ideas as well as a list created from Alameda blogger sessions were included during the prioritization process. This document presents ideas based on information that was accessible and understood. Areas not yet explored and should be reviewed include revenues of AMP, Alameda’s Power Company and a clear picture of current city bonded indebtedness. Limited information is provided for purposes of comparison with other nearby communities. In some cases, trends taken from the League of California Cities City Manager Survey in which 449 cities that contract with CalPERS were surveyed with 296 responding. Of these, 26 responded from the East Bay. Overall Conclusions from Community Input Regarding Alameda’s Budget The Community of Alameda is very concerned about the city’s financial health yet want to see the city employees treated fairly. At the same time, tax payers want to be treated fairly as well and feel the salaries of public safety and management should be reduced substantially. There is a desire to see lower paid staff excluded from any salary reductions. Openness is vital to efficiency. Secrecy; in government, can lead to overspending and squandering public money. For this reason, ACT proposes City Council adopt a policy of a sunshine period for employee contract proposals; open to the public before bargaining occurs. All changes recommended for employees represented by a union are made within the collective bargaining process at the bargaining table. It is highly recommended that the City of Alameda create a regional alliance with other Alameda County cities for the purpose of sharing best practice information and performing regional purchasing negotiations for personnel wages and health insurance, and possibly offering greater flexibility than CalPERS. Group Purchasing could also be expanded to capital equipment, supplies and services. Staff salaries and benefits have exceeded the private sector. Other California cities are renegotiating contracts with employees and creating additional tiers with lower salaries and benefits than current staff but this will not help solve the near-term financial crisis that is affecting many cities. Alameda is especially vulnerable due to its aging workforce with many years of employment in Alameda. Nearly half will be eligible for retirement within 5 years. Any reductions negotiated must not allow past practices to influence allocations for time off with pay or pension calculations. Retiring employees should not be able to collect their full year worth of paid time off when they retire – it should be pro-rated for time worked only. �
Public Safety Expense
NOTE – Fire – Staff plan eliminates senior safety program Police – Staff plan is opposed by many Alamedans as it outsources the Animal Shelter. Annually, the shelter costs $937K, the city saves $734K keeping shelter available for animal drop offs with 2 part time employees and volunteers. Non-Safety Employees
NOTE: Parks – Staff plan reduces after school programs from 10 to 5 per week Library – The library is one of the most utilized programs of the city. In staff’s plan, the main Library hours become staggered (ultimately reduced) and branch days are reduced from 5 to 4 days open per week. There are other ways to reduce expenses at the library. Library staff changes to reduce full time benefits, the suggestion has been made that Librarians and Techs be considered for this savings plan. Other city departments of this size do not have Executive Assistants and the use of computers have greatly alleviated the need for this skillset. Too late to put into this year’s budget but to be worked on starting immediately:
NOTES: Revenue All tax increases except business tax require citizen vote and the earliest opportunity would be the November elections. If a tax is for general city use, to win approval requires 50%+1, if specified as a specific tax, such as sales tax, the approval requires 66%. City staff plans to have poll taken of citizen opinion this summer at a cost of $25K. It can be noted that the revenue group overwhelmingly said, “no” to new taxes and the priority voters did not rank a tax increase possibility as a priority. Expense 2 tier compensation and benefit plans helps in long run, not during this near term financial crisis which is expected to remain until at least 2018. Unless salary and benefit expense is significantly reduced and in line with other cities and private sector jobs, it would be in the city’s best interest to expand 2-tier compensation. The city of Newport Beach recently implemented the following plan which the Health Insurance group thought was a fair plan. The plan is as follows:
The problem with Alameda implementing the Newport Beach plan is that nearly 50% of the city employees are eligible for retirement within the next 5 years and would most likely take their retirement as soon as they became eligible to keep their current benefits. This might be something to consider after all efforts to renegotiate MOUs to reduce retirement benefits have been exhausted and a careful financial analysis of the expense to the city, especially within the current period of financial crisis. From an operational management perspective, such a large number of seasoned staff leaving the city would also result in the loss of experience and knowledge. Public Safety Staff: Base salary and total compensation could be compared to that of military personnel who are exposed to greater danger for extended periods that do wither fire or police staff. The work week in combat zones is also less attractive. The following are annual salaries stated in the 2011 military pay scale:
Management staff is voluntarily taking 5% cut in hope of providing an example to all the employees. If all employees agreed to take this reduction, it would save $1.3M a year, assuming salaries are frozen and the reduction remains in place until the economy improves. The community is not sure this percent is enough or that unions representing higher paid members would accept the reduction. As shown on the priorities table, the community members who voted favored the higher reduction at 9%. NOTE: There are elements of management staff salaries that merit review. The salaries are not in line with the private sector and appear inconsistent with the scope and complexity of responsibilities.
*Partial Year ** Seems excessively high for position scope, private sector and in relation to Deputy City Managers Community Priorities Following a spirited discussion at the end of the 3rd community meeting, the remaining participants were asked to rank ideas, prioritizing the most important to each of them. Unfortunately, several community members were unable to stay beyond the 2-hour discussion period so not all participated in the final ranking process. Lists were provided showing the staff/council ideas, ACT community ideas and blogger ideas. Each were given 7 votes. Based on the work and discussion from the three meetings, responses are listed below. (If an idea did not receive any votes, it is not listed. These ideas should still be considered as many offer financial gains to the city as well as those prioritized by the participants.) PRIORITY NUMBER OF RESPONSES
NOTE: The community is indicating a reduction in vacation and sick time with policies regarding how staff is backfilled when an employee calls in sick and banking of time should be the city’s highest priority when renegotiating MOUs. The current MOUs allow for:
Many organizations in private industry have adopted an “earned time off plan” that, with some variations, lumps all of each employee’s time together. By doing this, the number of employees calling in sick is greatly reduced as they are able to convert the days into vacation days that management can either backfill through a scheduling process that does not require overtime or to plan for a predicted absence in a different manner such as work re-allocation. This is not to suggest that negotiators simply convert the existing excessive time off to an earned time off plan – the number of days have to be adjusted downward. It is little wonder we have so much overtime when so many staff members are not working due to allotted time off. Attachments: 1 ACT Meeting Announcements 2 Meeting Attendees (Partial List) 3 Proposal for Workers’ Compensation Cost Containment 4 Additional Detail Meeting Minutes ACT on the POINT: WHERE WE STAND In February 2010, 85% of the voters in Alameda (13,419 to 2,300) soundly rejected the developer SunCal – and their hedge fund backer DE Shaw’s sponsored initiative to build over 4,000 residential units on Alameda Point. • Traffic; we already have serious limitations getting on and off this island as it is and there was no plan to alleviate this problem. Without a new bridge or a tube it would have created a traffic nightmare and filled the air with clouds of additional auto pollution. 4,000 residents would have generated an estimated 11,000 people and increased traffic would have impacted traffic within the island on a daily basis. • Municipal bonded indebtedness; The SunCal plan was to rely on our redevelopment agency bonding program to finance the huge cost of the necessary infrastructure. Their figures were over $600 million for openers. Of course infrastructure is necessary but on the city’s dime and no guarantees of a safe return it was a giant risk that citizens were smart enough to understand and reject. As Governor Brown has as noted, redevelopment is a drain on city services and schools. In these troubled times cities can not assume this risk with such additional debt. Alameda is already maxed out with $300 million in bonded indebtedness. • The Point is a superfund site which means it is in a process of being cleaned from all the years of poor chemical control as a military base. It is presently undergoing • Geological location requires recognition of a ground zero floodplain in a high seismic area with Alameda has a unique resource of an enormous piece of publicly owned land which can be used to benefit the people of Alameda and surrounding communities and can provide a solution to the financial crisis that Alameda Attend ACT’s next meeting ACT Meetings Move To Evenings at Boys & Girls Club Directions: And visit this blog regularly to learn about other special ACT sponsored community meetings. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Free Shuttle Between College of Alameda and Lake Merritt BART As of 15 August a free shuttle for riders and bikers runs between College of Alameda and Lake Merritt BART. Further information available here or call (510) 747-7936. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Meet City Manager John Russo At The Mastick Social Hall Alameda City Manager John Russo will be available to meet with citizens on Thursday, August 25, at 9:00am in the Mastick Senior Center Social Hall. Refreshments will be served. Please RSVP at 510-747-7506. |
(234 k)
ACT’s 3rd and final community meeting for “Workshop on Developing A Sustainable City Budget Plan”
On June 6th 2011, The Alameda Citizens Task Force held the 3rd and final community meeting for “Workshop on Developing A Sustainable City Budget Plan” held at the Alameda Main Library. Attendees finalized recommendations developed by Alameda citizens who attended the 3 meetings. The recommendations covered public employee pensions, medical insurance benefits, contracts, salaries and overtime, cutting city expenses, and revenue enhancements for the city. The letter to the Alameda City Council can be viewed at this link
- Alameda City Treasurer Kevin Kennedy makes a point to the group attending the 3rd public Workshop on Developing A Sustainable City Budget Plan sponsored by Alameda Citizens Task Force.
- Gretchen Lipow, Alameda Citizens Task Force Coordinator, presents points from one of the 6 workgroups.
- The recommendations from the Alameda City staff (on the left) to the City Council were posted so attendes to Alameda Citizens Task Force sponsored workshops were aware of what was going to happen in the city budget if public ideas were not brought forward and considered by the City Council. Other community recomendations (on the right) were also posted.
Workshop on Developing A Sustainable City Budget Plan
On April 26th, 2011, Alameda Citizens Task Force held the 2nd public “Workshop on Developing A Sustainable City Budget Plan” with Alameda City Treasurer, Kevin Kennedy and Alameda City Auditor, Kevin Kearney. The workshop was held at the Alameda Free Library at Lincoln and Oak Street in Alameda, CA. The workshop was designed to develop a report for the Alameda City Council about areas of public concern and suggested changes in various areas of the city budget.
After opening remarks by the City Treasurer and Auditor, the attendees divided up into 6 focus groups to discuss one of the following subjects: pensions, public employee contracts, salaries & overtime, cutting expenses, medical insurance benefits, and revenue enhancements. Each group’s facilitator provided information on the subject, kept notes and later provided the entire group
with a summary of their group’s discussion. In the interest of transparency it was ACT’s goal to further educate the participants on the complexities of the city budget. A third meeting was scheduled to complete the process.
- MC Nancy Rogers introduces Alameda City Treasurer Kevin Kennedy and City Auditor Kevin Kearney
- Workshop groups discuss budget items and develop recommendations supported by the public.
ACT sponsors “De-Mystifying The Budget” with presentations from Alameda’s Auditor and Treasurer
On May 18th, 2011, the Alameda Citizens Task Force (ACT) sponsored a community meeting Presenters Alameda City Auditor Kevin Kearney and City Treasurer Kevin Kennedy with MC Nancy Rogers. This meeting “De-Mystifying The Budget”, was the 1st of 3 meeting on the Alameda City budget sponsored by ACT. Kevin Kennedy, Alameda City Treasurer and Kevin Kearney, Alameda City Auditor, described present and future budget concerns about Alameda’s fiscal viability. An audio recording and additional Alameda City financial information can be found here
- Presenters Alameda City Auditor Kevin Kearney and City Treasurer Kevin Kennedy are introduced by MC Nancy Rogers
ACT Booth at Earthday 2011 Celebrations
Gretchen Lipow and Kathy Schumacher represent Alameda Citizens Task Force at the ACT table during the 2011 Earthday celebration at Washington Park in Alameda, CA.
During the day, ACT members talked to visitors about ACT’s goal of being a permanent watchdog group advocating for effective government and taking actions as necessary to support ACT’s mission to:
- Promote open government
- Advocate for fiscal responsibility
- Analyze critical comments on city issues
- Encourage community involvement in city government
- ACT Booth at Earthday 2011 Celebrations in Washington Park in Alameda, California
Congratulations to Alameda Activists
Activist Alamedans take a bow! Your activism in your community is part of a global phenomenon.
Whether you are working:
– for maintaining, upgrading, and enjoying the Mif Albright, a community resource, and against its takeover by one individual supported by the City
– for understanding just which contaminants, where they are, and in what quantities are contained at Alameda Point and against the City’s drive for unsustainable development
– for a homegrown animal shelter and against outsourcing truant pets
– for a fiscally balanced community and against overly-generous public employee benefit packages in an era of austerity
– for an Occupy Alameda zone, for beautiful trees on our streets, fortransparency in local government, or for other sustainable endeavors
…know that you are echoing the sentiments and actions of the 99% around the world.
As the Occupy movement matures from tent encampments easily harassed by law enforcement, the trend, in Greece, in Spain, in the U.S. and around the world, is about re-occupying our own communities, neighborhoods, and selves.
Across this nation residents are zoning in on what has happened to their communities and saying, “I will work to change things at my neighborhood level; my actions will “trickle up” to the country, state, and federal level.”
Sure, it may take years…but it has taken years to get where we are now: financially, socially, politically, and militarily troubled. The 99% has nothing to lose and everything to gain.
So, congratulations activist Alamedans, you’re re-invigorating your community with your wonderful, engaging, generative…and sustainable…ideas and actions.
(Susan Galleymore is an Alameda resident. Learn more at alamedapointcleanup.blogspot.com.)
An Update on the Golf Swap, December 2011
Dear Friends and Neighbors,
We continue to face the very real threat that the City Council will approve swapping the 12 acre Mif Albright golf course land to Cowan/HBIA to build 130 houses, in exchange for his unmarketable land in the business park.
However, there is some good news. THE MOST RECENTLY PLANNED MEETING ON THE LAND SWAP HAS ONCE AGAIN BEEN POSTPONED UNTIL MARCH 6, 2012: City Manager John Russo is now accepting applications from sports management companies (in addition to Kemper) to operate the golf course. We hope he and his staff will be enthusiastically marketing the golf complex. Proposals are due back by February 10, 2012 and Mr. Russo will present them to the Council on March 6, 2012.
After researching our options with political and legal counsel, we have concluded that the best approach for protecting all our precious Alameda parkland is to pass an a city wide initiative that will ensure that any sale or swap of public park lands must go before a vote of all Alameda voters. A successful Initiative will stop this pending Land Swap and most importantly, it will preserve our parks for all future generations of Alamedans.
Didn’t we already do that? Yes, in 1992 the people of Alameda passed Measure C by 83% of the voters. This resulted in Charter amendment 22.12. The voters believed they had protected our parks forever. They believed that only a majority vote of the people would allow a public park to be sold. They never imagined that a small paragraph intended to allow the Council some minor administrative decisions would be interpreted so broadly and so outrageously that the city would actually change the zoning of any parcel of land, call it “park land” and then “swap” it for our actual park land !
We are now preparing legal documents for the initiative process. We expect to have all the forms approved and begin collecting signatures by the first of February. We will have until June to get the 6,000 necessary valid signatures to qualify the Initiative to be on the November 2012 ballot.
We recognize that placing an Initiative on the ballot in November 2012 and having it passed by a majority of voters will be a significant undertaking, requiring time, effort, and commitment from all of us. We believe that future generations of Alamedans will thank all of us for making this dedicated effort.
There is so much opposition to the Land Swap, we know, WITH YOUR HELP, we can get the 6000 signatures. We will notify you of new developments and any Council meetings concerning the Swap. Please keep up your calls and emails to Council members and your letters to the papers.
WE WILL HAVE A COMMUNITY MEETING IN JANUARY. WE LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING ALL OF YOU AT THIS VERY IMPORTANT MEETING.
Sincerely,
Citizens Against the Land Swap
Equal Swap?
- Chuck Corica Golf Course – view from near club-house 9-26-11
- Harbor Bay Business Park – view from North Loop Road 9-26-11
- Plan of business park property
The plan insert for the business park property is taken directly from the 2008 HBIA claim for 104 houses there; it shows that the land there is two narrow strips with the child-care centre in between. This suggests to an architect that it is hardly equivalent to the golf course property for sports use, etc.
No, it’s not SunCal, it’s Cowan’s swap land !!
Remember all those pretty pictures of the Point showing what
SunCal was going to build? Well folks, here we go again a virtual
reality of the Cowan land that’s up for the swap for the Mif Albright
golf course.
If you want to see what this strip really looks like take a ride out
to North Loop Road and look for the stretch of grassy sand
dunes. This link below is an advertiser’s dream so don’t be
fooled.
http://www.youthsports4alameda.com
Memorandum to the Alameda Golf Commission
Prepared by Robert T. Sullwold1
June 12, 2009
ANALYSIS OF RON COWAN’S PURPORTED RIGHT TO BUILD ADDITIONAL HOUSING ON HARBOR BAY ISLE
Background
After the Alameda City Council voted to close the Mif Albright par-3 course in
November 2008, rumors began to circulate that the reason for the Council’s action was that the City
was negotiating a deal with Ron Cowan, the principal in Harbor Bay Isle Associates (“HBIA”), to
swap undeveloped land owned by HBIA in the Harbor Bay Business Park for the Mif. HBIA would
then demolish the existing Harbor Bay Club, build a new Harbor Bay Club on the Mif property, and
construct luxury homes on the former Harbor Bay Club site.
These rumors appeared have some basis in fact, since the agenda for a closed session
meeting of the City Council on February 17 contained an item referring to a “conference with real
property negotiators” involving the undeveloped Business Park parcel (which HBIA designated
“Village VI”) and the Mif. Apparently, this item was pulled from the agenda due to the absence of two
Councilmembers. At the subsequent public session, Golf Commission chair Jane Sullwold raised the
issue of the alleged deal in her remarks. Mayor Johnson attempted to dismiss the matter as a mere
rumor, but Vice Mayor deHaan admitted that the issue had indeed been scheduled for discussion
during the closed session.
Three months later, after a concerted lobbying effort by Alameda citizens, the City
Council voted to re-open the Mif on an “interim” basis for six months. But it made no commitment
regarding the future of the Mif property thereafter. And we are reliably informed that the City is
continuing to negotiate with HBIA regarding further development options. Those negotiations, of
course, are secret, and we do not know what proposals have been made. Nevertheless, it is likely that
the proposed swap involving the Mif is one of the issues on the table.
It has been publicly reported2 that HBIA claims to have leverage over the City in these
negotiations because it has a legal right to build additional housing on Harbor Bay Isle and that,
accordingly, the City is obligated to find a way for HBIA to exercise this right. The proposed swap, it
is argued, may be the solution. The purpose of this memorandum is to assess the validity of the
premise behind this argument. It is based solely on public documents filed with the City Clerk and the
Alameda County Superior Court. I am not relying on, and, indeed, have no knowledge of, extrinsic
evidence of negotiations between the parties.
1 The opinions expressed herein are those of the author as an Alameda resident with a law degree. The firm of Sullwold &
Hiughes has not been engaged by any party to render legal advice on the issues discussed in this memorandum.
2 E.g., by John Knox White in his blog entitled “Stop Drop and Roll,” posted on March 9, 2009.
2
Issue Presented
Does HBIA have the legal right to construct additional housing units on Harbor Bay
Isle?
Short Answer
HBIA has no unconditional legal right to construct additional housing units on Harbor
Bay Isle. It does have the right to apply to re-zone property it owns from commercial to residential
use. But neither the Planning Board nor the City is legally obligated to approve such an application.
Rather, they are required to evaluate it using the criteria generally applicable to re-zoning applications,
including benefit to the community and environmental impact. HBIA already has exercised its right to
apply for re-zoning – but the Planning Board unanimously denied the application, and HBIA took no
appeal.
Statement of Facts
A. The Harbor Bay Isle Development
In September 1973, HBIA proposed a master plan for Harbor Bay Isle that provided for
a maximum of 4,950 housing units arranged in five “villages” and approximately 350 acres for
commercial use. Thereafter, various issues arose, including the impact of noise associated with aircraft
operations at the Oakland Airport and the amount of land that would be dedicated for public uses (e.g.,
schools and parks). HBIA sued, and, in 1977, HBIA and the City entered into a settlement agreement
that allowed the development of the first four “villages” to proceed. They agreed on a master plan
authorizing up to 3,200 housing units within the area zoned for residential use and reserving 325 acres
adjacent to the Oakland Airport for commercial use. In 1980, HBIA and the Port of Oakland entered
into an agreement allowing the development of the fifth “village” and the business park to proceed
subject to agreed-upon conditions for noise mitigation.
Disputes again arose between HBIA and the City in 1987 and 1988 over the
development plans for Villages IV and V and the business park. HBIA again sued, and again HBIA
and the City entered into a settlement agreement purporting to resolve what dedications and exactions
the City could require for completion of the Harbor Bay Isle development. The settlement agreement
provided that HBIA and the City would negotiate a comprehensive Development Agreement that
would set forth their respective rights and obligations.
B. The Development Agreement
HBIA and the City entered into the Development Agreement effective April 4, 1989. In
section 1.5, the Agreement recited that HBIA “had obtained approvals” from the City to build “up to a
total of 3,200 units” in Villages I through V, which were zoned for residential use, and HBIA had
covenanted not to build more than 3,200 units in those five villages. Construction in Villages I
through IV was complete or near complete. HBIA had obtained approval to build 839 housing units in
the remaining parcel zoned for residential use, Village V, but section 1.6 of the Agreement recited that
HBIA had proposed a revised development plan calling for building only 630 units in Village V and
not more than 3,000 units in all five villages.
3
Sections 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 of the Agreement addressed HBIA’s development rights.
Section 4.1 provided that HBIA had the right to develop and use its property for the uses set forth in
the “Existing and Proposed Approvals” described in Exhibit D and “such other uses that may be
mutually agreed upon by the parties hereto in accordance with the applicable provisions of the
Government Code.” Exhibit D in turn showed that Villages IV and V were approved for residential
use and the business park was approved for commercial use.3 Sections 4.2 and 4.3 provided that HBIA
had the right to develop its property “to the density or level of intensity” and the “maximum size and
height,” respectively, indicated in the Existing or Proposed Approvals.
Section 4.1 also contained two sentences that became the focus of subsequent litigation.
After stating that HBIA had the right to develop and use its property for the uses set forth in the
Existing and Proposed Approvals, that section then stated,
City acknowledges that, from time-to-time, the Property Owners may seek to obtain, in
accordance with the applicable provisions of state and local law, minor amendments to
the Existing and Proposed Approvals without the need for an amendment to this
Agreement. So long as an amendment to a development approval does not increase the
overall density or intensity of use, an amendment shall be deemed a “minor
amendment.”
C. The Re-zoning Application
After the Development Agreement was executed, construction of Village V apparently
went forward as planned, and, ultimately, the residential development totaled 2,973 houses in the five
villages. Then, in August 2004, HBIA applied to re-zone 12.2 acres of the business park from
commercial to residential in order to build 104 new homes on that parcel (which HBIA designated
Village VI). This new construction would bring the total number of homes constructed on Harbor Bay
Isle to 3,077. HBIA argued that, since this total was lower than the “up to 3,200” density specified in
the Development Agreement, the re-zoning application was a “minor amendment” that did not trigger
the procedures required by the Development Agreement Statute – i.e., a minimum of two public
hearings, a finding of consistency with all applicable general and specific plans, and adoption of an
ordinance challengeable by referendum.
The City of Alameda disagreed. It took the position that the re-zoning application
required either an amendment to the Development Agreement or a new development agreement, either
of which would trigger the statutory procedures. More significantly, it also stated that, to obtain the
City’s consent to re-zoning, HBIA would have to comply with the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance
(which would require that Village VI include low-income housing or a payment in lieu thereof) and to
pay additional development fees.
Not surprisingly, HBIA found these conditions unacceptable. It insisted that the City
expedite processing of the re-zoning application. The City then had a Draft Environmental Impact
Report (“EIR”) prepared. When that report adopted the City’s position regarding the necessity of an
amended or new development agreement, HBIA once again sued in June 2007. Its petition sought a
writ of mandate ordering the City, among other things, to process the re-zoning application without
requiring an amended or new development agreement and to “confirm the right of HBIA to develop up
3 Exhibit D does not mention Villages I through III, presumably because the buildout of these villages already had been
completed.
4
to 3,200 residential units in Harbor Bay Isle upon compliance with the applicable provisions of the
Development Agreement.”
D. The Settlement Agreement
The litigation did not last long. The City never filed an answer to the petition but
instead entered into settlement negotiations. (It would later be claimed – and denied by the City – that
the suit was a “friendly” one whose outcome was predetermined). Those negotiations produced a
Settlement Agreement, which was approved by City Council in a closed session on October 9, 2007.
(The publicly available documents do not record the vote).
In the Settlement Agreement, the City renounced its contentions that the re-zoning
application required an amended or new development agreement and that it could apply the
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance to, or impose additional fees on, the proposed Village VI. Rather,
City accepted HBIA’s position that the re-zoning application was only a “minor amendment” that did
not trigger the statutory procedures and that Village VI was subject only to the ordinances and fees in
effect when the Development Agreement was entered into in 1989 (which did not include the
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance). In exchange for these concessions, HBIA agreed to make a
“voluntary contribution” of up to $1 million to the City’s low- and moderate-income housing fund and
a “one-time voluntary payment” of $500,000 for road maintenance.
The Settlement Agreement addressed both HBIA’s rights and the City’s obligations
under the Development Agreement. Section 2.1 stated that the Existing Development Agreement4
“grants to HBIA the vested right to develop and to complete the build-out of Harbor Bay Isle” in
accordance with its terms. Section 2.2 then described what the City agreed those terms to be:
City acknowledges and confirms that, pursuant to Section 1.5 of the Original
Development Agreement, HBIA has the right to develop up to 3,200 residential units
within Harbor Bay Isle, subject to the terms, covenants, and conditions of the
Development Agreement and that the residential units of Village Six, as proposed by
HBIA pursuant to the Rezoning Application, would fall within this 3,200 residential
unit development entitlement.
Section 2.5 of the Settlement Agreement required the City to “process as expeditiously
as possible” the review of the re-zoning application and related authorizations, including the EIR. But
it went on to state that such authorizations “shall be subject to State statutorily and City Municipal
Code required notice and hearing provisions and procedures.” Later, section 2.12 made clear that
HBIA “acknowledges that this Agreement does not take away the City’s police power and authority to
make its decisions on the Rezoning Application. . . .” Read together, these sections require the City to
process the re-zoning application – but they do not require the City to approve it. This distinction
would become significant in subsequent litigation.
E. The Peet’s Coffee Suit
After HBIA filed its suit against the City, Peet’s Coffee and the Citizens League for
Airport Safety (“CLASS”) moved to intervene in the case to oppose the relief sought by HBIA. It
appears from their motion that Peet’s was concerned about the impact of a new residential
4 The Development Agreement had been amended twice since 1989 in respects not material to the analysis.
5
development on the existing and planned operations of its roasting plant and distribution center located
in the Harbor Bay Business Park. CLASS was concerned that the new residential development would
undermine its efforts to address noise impacts from the airport.
Before the motion to intervene could be heard, HBIA and the City settled the case,
rendering the motion moot. (In subsequent pleadings, Peet’s and CLASS allege they were sandbagged
by the City Attorney). Peet’s and CLASS then filed their own suit against HBIA and the City. The
suit alleged that the Settlement Agreement between HBIA and the City was illegal on a number of
grounds and sought a writ of mandate ordering the City to rescind it.
F. The Judge’s Decision
Peet’s/CLASS, HBIA, and the City all filed briefs in support of their respective
positions. No trial was held, but Judge Frank Roesch of the Alameda Superior Court heard oral
argument on February 7, 2008. Two months later, the Judge issued his decision rejecting the claim
that the Settlement Agreement was illegal and denying the petition for mandamus.
Judge Roesch was not asked to, was not required to, and did not rule on the issue of
whether HBIA had the legal right to build additional homes on Harbor Bay Isle. Rather, the issue
before him was whether the Settlement Agreement was illegal because, among other reasons, the City
allegedly had amended the Development Agreement without following the statutory procedures and
allegedly had “contracted away” its police powers. Nevertheless, the Judge’s decision on those issues
required him to construe the Settlement Agreement, and his interpretation of that Agreement is
instructive as to what rights and obligations it recognized or imposed.
The primary contention by Peet’s/CLASS was that the Settlement Agreement
constituted an amendment to the Development Agreement that required public hearings and adoption
of an ordinance. Judge Roesch rejected this attack for three reasons. First, he agreed with defendants
that, rather than “amending” the Development Agreement, the Settlement Agreement merely “resolved
the interpretation and clarification” of the Development Agreement. Second, he agreed with
defendants that a “minor” amendment to a development agreement did not trigger the statutory
procedures and that the re-zoning application in fact was a “minor” amendment as defined in section
4.1 of the Development Agreement. Finally, and most significantly, the Judge found that the
Settlement Agreement did not actually “modify” the Development Agreement at all, since it neither rezoned
any property itself nor committed the City to approving the re-zoning application. He said:
The Court finds that the Settlement Agreement does not re-zone the site, does not
amend the General Plan, does not authorize HBIA to proceed with Village Six. It
confirms HBIA’s rights under the City’s controlling land use regulations, subject to the
City’s actions in regard to the Application, including public hearings and the City’s
exercise of its discretion in reaching any decision on the Application.
Later in the opinion, in rejecting the contention that the City had “contracted away” its police powers,
Judge Roesch emphasized that, under the Settlement Agreement, the City retained discretion to review,
and, if it so chose, to deny the re-zoning application:
[T]he Settlement Agreement here imposes no constraint on the City’s exercise of its
police power in the future, and does not mandate any action. . . . The Settlement
Agreement contemplates that land use applications for a General Plan amendment and
re-zoning will be presented to two decision-making bodies of the City, which will
6
exercise their judgment as they see fit. . . . The City Council maintains its discretion to
weigh and evaluate the Application and make a decision as to whether to approve or
deny it.
G. The Planning Board Decision
In the meantime, HBIA went forward with its application to re-zone the 12.2 acre parcel
in the business park from commercial to residential, and the City completed the final EIR. The
application was placed on the Planning Board agenda for May 12, 2008.
The Planning Board staff recommended that the re-zoning application be denied. Staff
cited four reasons: (1) the noise environment on the site is not suitable for residential development;
(2) the City should maintain an “adequate buffer” between Alameda neighborhoods and the Oakland
Airport; (3) the City should preserve the business park for commercial, job-creating uses, and (4) the
proposal did not provide significant housing, transportation or fiscal benefits.
At its May 12, 2008 meeting, the Planning Board held a public hearing on the
application. HBIA presented its case. Home and business owners spoke in opposition. The Board
then voted unanimously to deny the application.
HBIA had the right to appeal the Planning Board’s decision to the City Council. As far
as I have been able to determine, no appeal was taken.
Legal Analysis5
HBIA’s legal rights, and the City’s legal obligations, are determined by the
Development Agreement entered into between HBIA and the City in 1989 and the Settlement
Agreement entered into between them in 2007. In my view, neither agreement grants HBIA an
unconditional legal right to construct additional housing units on Harbor Bay Isle.
A. The Development Agreement
The most straightforward reading of the Development Agreement is that it confers on
HBIA the right to build up to 3,200 housing units on the property zoned for residential uses – Villages
I through V – and to develop the property zoned for commercial uses as a business park Section 1.5
of the Development Agreement recites that HBIA “has obtained approvals” to build up to 3,200
housing units in Villages I through V. Section 4.1 then ties HBIA’s development rights specifically to
the “Existing and Proposed Approvals, described on Exhibit D.” Taken together, these sections would
seem to mean that HBIA has the “right” to build the housing units already approved (or for which
approvals were pending): i.e., up to 3,200 units in Villages I through V. (An even more restrictive
reading is also possible by virtue of section 1.6: HBIA voluntarily agreed to reduce the number of
housing units it had the right to build to not more than 3,000 units).
The Development Agreement contains no provision entitling HBIA to build any houses
anywhere on Harbor Bay Isle other than Villages I through V. Nor does it say that, if HBIA chooses
not to build the maximum number of approved housing units – whether 3,200 or 3,000 – in Villages I
5 The following analysis is based on general principles of contract interpretation under California law. I have no expertise
in either municipal government or land use law.
7
through V, it can “bank” the difference and build them at the business park. And it certainly does not
impose any obligation upon the City to approve any subsequent application by HBIA to build
additional housing units beyond those already approved (or for which approval was pending).
Presumably, if the parties had intended to give HBIA the right to build additional housing elsewhere
on Harbor Bay Isle, or to obligate the City to approve its application do so, they would have included
language in the Development Agreement to that effect. But they did not. To me, the Development
Agreement reflects the parties’ agreement that, after years of dispute and litigation, residential
development on Harbor Bay Isle would comprise 3,200 – or 3,000 – units constructed within the
confines of the five villages.
I have no way of knowing why, five years after signing the Development Agreement,
HBIA decided it wanted to build another 104 homes. But the argument that the Development
Agreement gave it the right to do so (or obligated the City to approve its request to do so) is
unpersuasive. This argument is based on the last two sentences of section 4.1, in which the City
acknowledges that HBIA “may seek to obtain, in accordance with the applicable provisions of state
and local law, minor amendments to the Existing and Proposed Approvals” without amending the
Development Agreement and that, as long as any proposed change to an existing or proposed approval
“does not increase the overall density or intensity of use,” it shall be deemed “minor.”
At the time the Development Agreement was signed, HBIA’s revised development plan
for the last of the residential villages, Village V, was still pending. It would seem entirely reasonable
for HBIA to want to be able to change that proposal in some “minor” way without having to go
through the process of formally amending the Development Agreement. The quoted language
preserves that ability.
The construction placed by HBIA on these two sentences in subsequent litigation is,
however, far broader. According to HBIA, the Development Agreement gave HBIA the “right” to
build 3,200 housing units on Harbor Bay Isle. True, the Development Agreement identified Villages I
through V as the site for residential development. But, according to HBIA, the last two sentences in
section 4.1 preserved HBIA’s “right” to build additional houses elsewhere within the project. All
HBIA had to do was to apply to re-zone property from commercial to residential (or to increase the
density on property already zoned for residential use). As long as the proposal would not result in
breaching the 3,200-unit cap, HBIA had the “right” to get property re-zoned to permit additional
residential development.
In my view, this argument, while creative, is not a reasonable interpretation of the
Development Agreement. The Development Agreement did not give HBIA the “right” to build 3,200
housing units anywhere on Harbor Bay Isle. To the contrary, it was quite specific about what uses
were permitted on which parcels: up to 3,200 housing units, arguably reduced by agreement to 3,000
units, in the five “villages” approved for residential uses. But even if the Development Agreement can
be construed to contemplate the possibility of future housing development on Harbor Bay Isle, it does
not give HBIA an unconditional “right” to build additional homes. Rather, like any property owner,
HBIA would be entitled to apply to re-zone property from commercial to residential – i.e., in the
language of section 4.1, HBIA “may seek to obtain” such a change. But, if HBIA made such an
application, it would, like every other property owner, be subject to the usual review and approval
process – i.e., in the language of section.4.1, to “applicable state and local law.”
The last two sentences of section 4.1 do not create an exception for HBIA to these
requirements. At most, they purport to reflect the parties’ agreement that, if HBIA proposed a change
8
in use that did not increase “overall” density, it would not be required to go through the additional
procedures required by state law for amending a development agreement. An ordinary property owner
who desires to re-zone his property does not have to jump through the hoops mandated by the
Development Agreement Statute. Neither, the parties agreed, should HBIA have to do so, as long as
its proposed change did not expand the previously established scope of residential development.
Under this interpretation, the last two sentences of section 4.1 represent a reasonable concession by the
City to HBIA. But they by no means create an unconditional “right” for HBIA to construct, or impose
a binding “obligation” on the City to approve construction of, additional housing units on Harbor Bay
Isle.
B. The Settlement Agreement
HBIA’s petition for a writ of mandate sought a court order requiring the City to
“confirm the right of HBIA to develop up to 3,200 residential units in Harbor Bay Isle upon
compliance with the applicable provisions of the Development Agreement.” In section 2.1 of the
Settlement Agreement, HBIA appears to have gotten the City to give it – without a court order – what
it asked for. In that section, the City “acknowledges and confirms” that, “pursuant to Section 1.5 of the
Original Development Agreement,” HBIA “has the right to develop up to 3,200 residential units within
Harbor Bay Isle, subject to the terms, covenants, and conditions of the Development Agreement. . . .”
And, lest anyone miss the point, it continues, “the residential units of Village Six, as proposed by
HBIA pursuant to the Rezoning Application, would fall within this 3,200 residential unit development
entitlement.” Thus, the City appears to concede that HBIA does indeed have the legal right to build
additional housing units in the business park. And, by including the reference to section 1.5 of the
Development Agreement, the parties seek to characterize this concession as simply acknowledging a
right that the Development Agreement conferred in the first place.
Section 2.1, however, must be read in the context of the rest of the Settlement
Agreement. Although section 2.5 requires the City to process the re-zoning application as
expeditiously as possible, it recognizes that the process “shall be subject to State statutorily and City
Municipal Code required notice and hearing procedures and provisions.” Nowhere does the Settlement
Agreement dictate the outcome of this process by obligating the City to approve the re-zoning
application. Indeed, section 2.12 expressly recognizes the possibility that the City may not approve the
application. In the same section, HBIA acknowledges that the Agreement “does not take away City’s
police power and authority to make its decisions” on the re-zoning application. To the extent that
section 2.1 of the Settlement Agreement can be read as giving HBIA the legal right to build additional
housing on Harbor Bay Isle, section 2.12 makes clear that such a “right” is not unconditional. Rather,
it is subject to the exercise by the City of its discretion to review the re-zoning application — which
includes the discretion to deny it. In the end, the “right” conferred upon HBIA by the Settlement
Agreement thus amounts to little more than the right to apply to have the property re-zoned. The right
to build additional housing arises only if and when, having considered the criteria generally
applicable to similar requests, the City approves the re-zoning application.
Judge Roesch’s opinion supports this conclusion. That opinion emphasizes what the
Settlement Agreement does not do: It “does not re-zone the site, does not amend the General Plan,
does not authorize HBIA to proceed with Village Six.” Nor does it “mandate any action” by the City
to approve the re-zoning application. Rather, HBIA’s “rights” are “subject to the City’s actions in
regard to the Application, including public hearings and the City’s exercise of its discretion in reaching
any decision on the Application.” Indeed, the City Council “maintains its discretion to weigh and
evaluate the Application and make a decision as to whether to approve or deny it.”
9
By interpreting the Settlement Agreement in this way, Judge Roesch saved it from the
two main attacks launched by Peet’s and Class: that the Settlement Agreement “amended” the
Development Agreement without following the required statutory procedures and that it unlawfully
“contracted away” the City’s police powers. Had the judge interpreted the Settlement Agreement to
give HBIA the unconditional right to build additional housing on the business park, it would have been
vulnerable to both of these attacks. But by emphasizing that any rights conferred on HBIA by the
Settlement Agreement were conditioned upon successful completion of the review and approval
process, Judge Roesch was able to conclude that the City acted lawfully by entering into that
Agreement. The plain implication of his reasoning is that, if the review process resulted in denial of
the re-zoning application, HBIA would have no basis for complaining that its “rights” had been
violated. And that, of course, is just what happened.
Conclusion
The fate of the Mif Albright course may hang upon whether the City Council decides to
enter into a deal with Ron Cowan and HBIA to swap the Mif for other property owned by HBIA. I
express no opinion on whether such a deal would be beneficial economically to the City. Nor do I
express an opinion on whether such a swap would comply with City ordinances regarding sales or
exchanges of property designated for recreational issues. I do, however, believe that the sword
apparently being held over the City’s head – i.e., that Cowan and HBIA have the legal right to build
additional housing units on Harbor Bay Isle – is not supported as a matter of law. If I am correct, the
Golf Commission should not be persuaded by any argument that a swap of the Mif is necessary to
satisfy the City’s legal obligations to Cowan/HBIA.
RTS
cc: Interim City Manager Ann Marie Gallant
A Golfer’s Letter to the City Attorney and the Press
In an effort to promote transparency and open government ACT is publishing the following letter. Read carefully as there is a great deal of important information contained in this document.
Ms. Donna Mooney September 2, 2011
City Attorney
2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Room #130
Alameda, CA 94501
Reference: 9-Hole, Mif Albright Golf Course
Subject: Secrecy, Inconsistencies, Deliberate False
Data, Non-rational Edicts, Incorrect
Presentations, Irrational Conclusions,
Conflicts of Interests, Lack of Transparency,
Non-Compliance With City Charter And Other
Irregularities
Dear Ms. Mooney,
I am writing this letter because I believe that the proposed “trade” of the land, historically called the Mif Albright, 9-hole, par- three golf course, which is a part of the Chuck Corica Golf Complex on Bay Farm Island, Alameda is ill advised, possibly illegal, inequitable, without public support, and harmful to the long-established use of the golf complex. The regular golfers, the beginning golfers, naturalists and everyone I have interviewed, without exception, do not want this trade to happen. The “trade” would be, exclusively, with a very well known wealthy developer (Ron Cowan) who has already developed a major portion of the so-called island—The Community of Harbor Bay.
I have no vested interest in the issue other than my wife and I and our friends are among many people who like to play the course; and, the fact that I have become aware of what I believe to be fraudulent, illogical, irrational, contradictory, and suspicious happenings over the last three years. I will illustrate some of those of which I am personally aware.
First, to establish some credibility for myself:
- I am a California Registered Civil and Structural Engineer.
- I have an Alameda City license for my retirement business, Global Perspectives, which offers engineering services, often pro-bono. Examples of gratuitous projects for the City: The design of the pedestal structure which supports the Encinal High Jet airplane; The design of the Skate Park for the children at Alameda Point; Twelve years as a member of the Restoration Advisory Board for the environmental cleanup of the former Alameda Naval Air Station.
- Concluding my 61 years of engineering experience I was, for 10 years, a Senior Project Manager for Jacobs Engineering Group—the world’s largest engineering and construction Company.
- I earned my way thru college grading law papers.
- I know right from wrong and my logic still functions.
SOME OF THE THINGS THAT HAVE HAPPENED WHICH HAVE PROMPTED MY CONCERN
During the period since the former golf complex manager was let go, the Director of Parks and Recreation has been “acting” manager (a true description since he has demonstrated that he knows little about golf) of the Golf Complex. Examples:
- In the City’s search for a golf course management company, the request for proposal purposely deleted the inclusion of the profitable Mif Albright course.
- The proposal was withheld from public review and by those knowledgeable about our complex and how it has been traditionally used.
- One weekend night someone posted a notice on the door of the driving range building where fees are collected to play the course, that “THE MIF ALBRIGHT COURSE IS CLOSED”. There was no explanation to the employees, the golf instructors, or the public.
- When I confronted an official in Parks and Recreation and asked about the reason for the closure I was told that it was “losing money”. This Director would not give me a copy of the financial loss analysis, so I obtained a copy from one of his employees. During the time period that he reported to the City Council that it was losing money I proved that it, in fact, made $140,000 in profit and I gave the corrected tabulation to the City Council. At that meeting I indicated that the financial report was either “fraud or ignorance, take your choice”. After the Council Meeting, which went until 2:00 a.m., the Council adjourned to a “closed door” session. The next day the City Manager was fired.
- The weekend after the Mif Albright course was closed a fencing company appeared and installed a 600 foot long decorative fence worth $45,000, along the north side of the Mif Albright on Clubhouse Drive. The fence was not needed. In fact, ten years before, a chain link fence was taken down because it interfered with the maintenance of the landscaping.
- At the next City Council meeting I asked why a $45,000 fence that we couldn’t afford and that wasn’t needed was installed. Mr. Lillard claimed that it only cost $15,000 and gave no justification for it being installed in the first place, (the other side of the entry street has no fence). Since I had used my allotted 3 minutes before the Council I had no rebuttal opportunity. I was puzzled why these things were happening and consulted my friend who is more familiar with city government. My friend’s answer: “every employee has a boss”. I believe the report writer’s “boss” was then Mayor, Beverly Johnson.
- When Jim’s-at-the-Course (restaurant) got much needed new carpets an edict was sent from Parks and Recreation that golfers would be required to “take off their golf shoes” to enter the restaurant. Of course everyone ignored it.
- In the negotiations with the successful bidder, Kemper Golf Management Company, the Director of Parks and Recreation has apparently inserted himself between their management personnel and the City Manager in all negotiations without the advice of knowledgeable golf players, or even the Golf Commission. Perhaps that is why the negotiations have taken so long—about three years.
- An order came to the maintenance people to not water the Mif Albright course and to not take care of it even after public pressure forced the course to be reopened.
- Water was falsely restricted for use on the grounds, justified as “water conservation,” even though EBMUD said it was not required because water is an essential factor in the running of a golf course business.
- The Golf Commission (a supposed oversight and advisory group) was excluded from: 1) Receiving monthly financial statements (recently corrected); 2) Talking to any maintenance employees; 3) Developing the parameters of the Requests for Proposals that went out to potential golf course management companies. As a result the RFP prepared by the then City Manager, a non-golfer, was made to be fatally flawed.; 4) And, in general, from seeking their advice or input relative to golf course matters.
- Even though the Kemper organization was selected to manage the golf courses three years ago their manager has been blocked from independent managing. As a result a lot of much needed work on the two 18-hole courses and the driving range remains in hostage. We call Kemper’s manager, John Vest, “manager-in-waiting”.
ABOUT THE PROPOSED SWAP OF LAND
Some time ago, before I moved to Alameda in 1999,
There was a ballot measure B, approved by over 90% of the vote, intended to prevent the Mif Albright land from being sold. There was a poorly thought-out clause, however, which allowed the City to exchange the land for a comparable facility. This mistake is being used by the developer, Ron Cowan, to try to satisfy the City Council that it is legal to trade highly valuable land for less valuable land that he owns, so long as he supplements the lack of equal value with extra cash which would be available at some future date when he subdivides the Mif Albright property. In my opinion, the above procedure is still selling the land, or else giving it away.
His plan is to try and squeeze the 9- hole, par three course to a location between the east side of the driving range fence and the South Jack Clark 18 hole course, (no new land added to the complex), and give the City some of his land along Loop Road, in the business-zoned district, for two soccer fields and two baseball diamonds.
There are several flaws and short comings to the “exchange proposal” which will be brought out in a community input meeting if the City Council permits such a meeting to take place. Issues include: value of land trade; safety of golfers on the proposed altered course design; non-accessibility of the new playing fields; no need for the new soccer fields (the use of the two existing free-use fields at Alameda Point can be doubled by providing lighted fields); the proposed reconfiguration of the existing Jack Clark course would eliminate it from being eligible for tournament play and create non-standard, dangerous, narrow, fairways (by crowding three long fairways too close to each other, for example); no unbiased evaluations of the existing Mif Albright land value; no vote of the Alameda citizens allowing the swap of the land, incomplete environmental report; destruction of wild life habitat; increased traffic congestion entering the course; no resolution as to what would become of the 50 mature Memorial Trees;
mis-representation that the Mif Albright course was used only by Junior golfers when, in contrast, I provided the Council with a copy of a 1600 person survey of adult players who indicated several of eight reasons that they play the course, and petitioned to have the short, par three, course remain open.
I do not believe that the City Council has been transparent in their dealings about the Mif Albright Golf Course. In one meeting Marie Gilmore, on Public TV, said that she would “never let anything happen to the Golf Complex”. In a more recent meeting, also on TV, Lena Tam explicitly said “we don’t owe Ron Cowan anything”. What is it that changed their minds to even consider a land swap? If he doesn’t own land zoned for residential use upon which to build, it seems more logical to rezone the land he does own rather than destroy the present open space, profit-making, multi-use recreational, historical, daylight use, land that is used and cherished by so many.
Our Chuck Corica Golf Complex has more play than the next three competing courses combined. It has more play than any other course in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. Nearly all of these players have used the Mif Albright for any number of reasons, both past and present. To obliterate 20% of the golf holes would do immense harm to the Complex as well as to provoke the anger of an even larger percentage of the community.
RELATIVE SECTIONS OF THE CITY CHARTER
Section 22-12.
Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Charter to the contrary, the public parks of the City shall not be sold or otherwise alienated except pursuant to the affirmative votes of the majority of the electors voting on such a proposition; except that the City Council may (a) lease or grant concessions of privileges in public parks or any portion thereof or building structure situated therein, or (b) grant permits, licenses or easements for street, utility or any other purposes in public parks or any portion thereof or building or structure situated therein, or (c)
Sell or dispose of public parks or any portion thereof if, after a public hearing or hearings in each case, the City Council determines that another new park has been or will be designated by the City Council for public park purposes and operated for public park purposes. The City Council shall determine that said “new park” is of comparable size and utility and serves the same service area with substantially the same amenities and improvements. As used herein “public parks” means any and all lands of the City which have been or will be designated by the City Council for public park purposes and/or recreational uses.” Public parks” also includes the Alameda Golf Complex.
End of Section 22-12
It is not the consensus among those who have reviewed this letter for accuracy that the proposed land swap with Mr. Cowan would comply with the requirements of the portions of the Charter which are underlined above, nor, especially, would the proposed plan have substantially the same amenities and improvements.
It is my hope that your advice to the Council and the City Manager can be instrumental in dismissing the land swap idea. There will be plenty of land at Alameda Point for which Mr. Cowan can compete with others to develop. Please help leave the Mif Albright as it is—a valuable part of the Chuck Corica Complex, and avoid stirring up a hornet’s nest.
Sincerely,
c.c. The Alameda Journal
The Alameda Sun
Golf Swap Meeting
The following is a summary of the ACT meeting held August 17th concerning
the Mif Albright Golf course swap. Following this report will be an update on
the ongoing saga of the swap; which has still not been decided by city council.
As of yet this item has not be agendized for a future meeting.
An informational meeting titled “Land Grab or Fab Plan” was hosted on 17th August by Alameda Citizens Task force to examine the proposed land swap of the Mif Albright golf course for a smaller parcel owned by Harbor Bay Isle Associates in an industrial zone. Five speakers covered a broad agenda addressing many questions from our community, but HBIA, representing Ron Cowan, declined to participate.
Architect and Golf Commissioner Bob Wood presented a brief history of Alameda’s golf complex from the opening of the first eighteen-hole course in 1927. For its first 80 years, the complex was self-sustaining and built a substantial Enterprise Fund for maintenance and renovations.
He also showed plans of proposed revisions to the existing golf complex, and explained that squeezing the south course to make room for housing, an office building and a new 9-hole course would create fairways too narrow for proper separation. This would degrade safety and playability of the course and eliminate much of the appeal that has historically brought out-of-town golfers to Alameda. Competition from a large number of public courses (currently 146 in the Bay Area) already makes it harder for Alameda’s complex to remain competitive. To retain its position as a championship venue, the quality of both the courses and the banquet facilities needs to be enhanced.
Bob also showed that the proposed schematic plan for new housing is crowded and awkwardly positioned for traffic flow serving it and the golf complex. The general conclusion was that neither housing nor proposed golf complex is likely to provide future benefit to the city. He believes that Alameda’s golf complex could again become a valuable revenue source, so long as the courses are not compromised by poor reconstruction that leaves them unappealing to golfers.
Jane Sullwold, Golf Commissioner, discussed the challenges for the golf complex, which has had its Enterprise Fund drained over the past eleven years by approximately $8.7M, into the City’s General Fund. Had the City not chosen to bleed the profitable golf courses to cover its operational budget, badly needed renovation of all 3 courses and the golf club would have been completed and paid for. Since the City of Alameda has made it plain that it will not fund the complex, alternative sources of funding are needed. The City received 3 unsolicited bids from bonafide golf management companies to operate the golf complex, including the overdue maintenance. Ms. Sullwold believes that the “Mif” is worth close to $60M (based on comparison with the recent Boatworks property sale) and that the land swap proposal put forward by Mr. Cowan is far below the true property value.
Bert Morgan, member of the golfing community, echoed many of the concerns raised by the previous speakers. He also decried the city’s reliance on just one valuation of the “Mif”, where the industry norm is three valuations. He emphasized that the golf complex is a valuable community asset, not only because of its recreational opportunities, but also because it provides much needed green space, adding to property values. The 9-hole “Mif” course provides an affordable venue for young golfers to learn the game and for older members of the community, who find 18 holes beyond their capabilities
George Humphreys, Golf Club President and ex Golf Commissioner, is alarmed that there is no guarantee that the City will in fact use the money promised in the land swap to improve the golf complex. In addition to the one-sided offer by Cowan and HBIA, the deal subtly proposes that the city of Alameda assume all the costs and responsibility for producing documents to show compliance with State requirements, including meeting environmental quality and other standards. Since there is no assurance that these conditions could in fact be satisfied, this alone could result in a long, drawn-out and expensive burden from which the city would receive no benefits. Further, Cowan and HBIA would not make any payments to the city unless and until they sold the land to whoever would actually build the houses.
Griff Neal of Alameda Youth Sports Coalition spoke about the proposed construction of sports fields in the business park. He is concerned that this location is difficult to access from the rest of Alameda, especially for youth relying on public transport. He also expressed a belief that Mr. Cowan and/or Doric haven’t got the necessary cash to fund the sports facilities that they propose for this property and that once an agreement is signed by the City of Alameda, none of the promised benefits will materialize.
Audience member, Robert Sullwold, addressed the complicated legal history of the proposed land swap between the city and HBIA. He also made available a nine-page summary of its origins with the informal conclusion that the legal right claimed by Cowan and HBIA to build additional homes on Harbor Bay Isle is not supported by law. This in turn raises questions about the closed-door dealings of the prior city council with HBIA, all of which should be made public immediately.
An example of how a city can pull together, organize, & accomplish wonderful things for the community
Protect Our Alameda Parks began gathering signatures on February 25th and completed signature gathering on April 2nd.
143 Volunteers
37 Days of Signature Gathering
11,000 Approximate number of signatures gathered by volunteers. Then our validation volunteers eliminated signatures from non-Alameda locations as well as those not matching the County Registrar’s current list of voters.
1,139 Number of petition (10 signatures per petition) accepted by the City Clerk.
9,372 Approximate number of signatures as counted by City Clerk.
6,190 Required to Match based on 15% of 41,268 Alameda registered voters.
Over 3,000 names were collected beyond the required number!
INTERESTING COMPARISONS:
Number of Votes for candidates elected in the Alameda November 2010 Election:
9,298 Mayor Marie Gilmore
9,164 Rob Bonta
7,748 Lena Tam
7,682 Beverly J. Johnson
Andrew Thomas, City Planner
Wednesday April 17th, 7 pm Alameda Hospital Community Room 2nd Floor
Will present a power point of current developments:
-
Park and Lincoln
-
Boatworks
-
Alameda Point
-
Alameda Landing Residential
-
Target Shopping Center
-
Neptune Point
The public is invited, qestions/comments are encouraged.
————————————————————-
Thursday April 18th, at 7 pm
Special City Council Meeting in Chambers
- Summary of Budget Proposed for 2 Years 2013-15
- Appropriation of $500,000 (one-half million dollars) “for”? a layoff program
Please note that Alameda’s huge debt does not appear in this Budget but is revealed in the short newspaper article following, from the Alameda Journal / Oakland Tribune / Bay Area News Group, written by Ken Peterson, 1529 Sixth Street, Alameda, CA 94501, kpet@pacbell.net, 510 / 910-4032 .
Ken Peterson is a 40-year resident home-owner of the City of Alameda, and a frequent Public Comment speaker at the Alameda Council Meetings. Ken joined the City Auditor, the City Treasurer and moderator Susan Gallymore in last Fall’s radio broadcast about the City Finances:
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 11, 2012
Is Alameda going broke?
An Interview with City Treasurer Kevin Kennedy, City Auditor Kevin Kearney and Resident Ken Peterson
Is Alameda going broke?
April 5, 2013
“Peek-a-boo Accounting & Balanced Budget Bankruptcy”
The City of Alameda has been passing “balanced budgets” at the same time it has been spending far over the amounts admitted in those budgets.The trick is this:
Yes on Measure D – Click on link to view flyer!
ACT is committed to sustainable fiscal responsibility and presents community educational
Celebrate New Year’s Eve with Josh Kornbluth
at Rhythmix Cultural Works!
Red Diaper Baby: A Revolutionary Comedy
When: Monday, December 31st
Time: Two performances, 7pm and 10pm
Where: Rhythmix Cultural Works, 2513 Blanding Avenue, Alameda, CA 94501
Cost: 7pm: $30, 10pm: $40 includes champagne toast
Info: www.rhythmix.org
Ph: 510.865.5060
Tickets: http://www.brownpapertickets.com/event/286953
An Evening with Jim Rough
January 3, 2013 from 7:00 to 9:00
Hosted by Nancy Hird and Phil Mastrocola
Island Yacht Club, 1853 Clement Avenue – Bldg. 14, Alameda, CA 94501
(Located directly on Oakland Estuary behind Svendsen’s Boat Works; Enter at Gate 7) See map attached.
Come meet Jim Rough and learn more about Jim’s work around the globe leading seminars and helping communities to achieve greater consensus.
Jim is the author of Society’s Breakthrough! Releasing Essential Wisdom and Virtue in All the People and co-founder of the Center for Wise Democracy (www.WiseDemocracy.org) He is the originator of Dynamic Facilitation, Wisdom Councils and Creative Insight Councils. Since the 1990s, he has been teaching these new “co-sensus” tools in seminars to people all over the world.
Hear how the Wisdom Council offers a breakthrough approach to solving national and local issues. Jim will discuss a solution to “partisan gridlock” and other difficult concerns like prioritizing scarce community resources. He will describe how the Wise Democracy process is being taken up by governments in many cities of Europe, and by citizen groups in the United States and Canada.
In late January, Jim will be back in Alameda presenting Dynamic Facilitation and Wisdom Council Seminars January 23-26, 2013.
For more information contact: nancy.alameda1@att.net
Alameda Public Affairs Forum will present on Saturday evening January 12, at 6:30pm
NEW SIGNS OF LIFE IN AMERICAN LABOR
In the last year, high profile strikes by teachers and other public employees, telephone workers, Wal-Mart employees, fast-food workers, health-care providers at Kaiser, longshore union members, and many others have put organized labor back in the news. At this Alameda Public Affairs Forum we have asked three longtime Labor Notes supporters in the Bay Area to present their thoughts on the current state of labor. They lead a discussion about new strategies and ideas needed to revive the union movement as an effective voice for all working people.
Panelists: Tenaya Lafore, Mike Parker, and Steve Early.
TENAYA LAFORE is a longtime labor and community activist. She recently received a Master’s degree in Education at UC Berkeley and is currently working as an organizer for the UC teaching assistants.union. MIKE PARKER is a longtime labor and community activist and was a UAW member in Detroit for more than three decades. He is now involved in grassroots political organizing for the Richmond Progressive
Alliance.
STEVE EARLY has been active in the labor movement since 1972. He worked on the national staff of the Communication Workers of America and is the author of two books: “Embedded with Organized Labor”; “Journalistic Reflections on the Class War at Home”, and “The Civil Wars in U.S. Labor” (2011).
programs by city officials and others. Review our recent educational and community program on this topic in the archives.
It’s been a year since the ACT Alameda Citizens Task Force began.
Interested citizens are invited to our:
First Anniversary Party
Wednesday, February 15th, 2012
7-9 pm
At the home of Jeannie Graham 1240 Saint Charles Street
For further information, contact 510-931-3607
Meet City Manager John Russo At The Mastick Social Hall
Alameda City Manager John Russo will be available to meet with citizens on Thursday, August 25, at 9:00am in the Mastick Senior Center Social Hall. Refreshments will be served.
Please RSVP at 510-747-7506.
ACT’s 3rd and final community meeting for “Workshop on Developing A Sustainable City Budget Plan”
On June 6th 2011, The Alameda Citizens Task Force held the 3rd and final community meeting for “Workshop on Developing A Sustainable City Budget Plan” held at the Alameda Main Library. Attendees finalized recommendations developed by Alameda citizens who attended the 3 meetings. The recommendations covered public employee pensions, medical insurance benefits, contracts, salaries and overtime, cutting city expenses, and revenue enhancements for the city. The letter to the Alameda City Council can be viewed at this link
- Alameda City Treasurer Kevin Kennedy makes a point to the group attending the 3rd public Workshop on Developing A Sustainable City Budget Plan sponsored by Alameda Citizens Task Force.
- Gretchen Lipow, Alameda Citizens Task Force Coordinator, presents points from one of the 6 workgroups.
- The recommendations from the Alameda City staff (on the left) to the City Council were posted so attendes to Alameda Citizens Task Force sponsored workshops were aware of what was going to happen in the city budget if public ideas were not brought forward and considered by the City Council. Other community recomendations (on the right) were also posted.
Workshop on Developing A Sustainable City Budget Plan
On April 26th, 2011, Alameda Citizens Task Force held the 2nd public “Workshop on Developing A Sustainable City Budget Plan” with Alameda City Treasurer, Kevin Kennedy and Alameda City Auditor, Kevin Kearney. The workshop was held at the Alameda Free Library at Lincoln and Oak Street in Alameda, CA. The workshop was designed to develop a report for the Alameda City Council about areas of public concern and suggested changes in various areas of the city budget.
After opening remarks by the City Treasurer and Auditor, the attendees divided up into 6 focus groups to discuss one of the following subjects: pensions, public employee contracts, salaries & overtime, cutting expenses, medical insurance benefits, and revenue enhancements. Each group’s facilitator provided information on the subject, kept notes and later provided the entire group with a summary of their group’s discussion. In the interest of transparency it was ACT’s goal to further educate the participants on the complexities of the city budget. A third meeting was scheduled to complete the process.
- MC Nancy Rogers introduces Alameda City Treasurer Kevin Kennedy and City Auditor Kevin Kearney
- Workshop groups discuss budget items and develop recommendations supported by the public.
ACT sponsors “De-Mystifying The Budget” with presentations from Alameda’s Auditor and Treasurer
On May 18th, 2011, the Alameda Citizens Task Force (ACT) sponsored a community meeting Presenters Alameda City Auditor Kevin Kearney and City Treasurer Kevin Kennedy with MC Nancy Rogers. This meeting “De-Mystifying The Budget”, was the 1st of 3 meeting on the Alameda City budget sponsored by ACT. Kevin Kennedy, Alameda City Treasurer and Kevin Kearney, Alameda City Auditor, described present and future budget concerns about Alameda’s fiscal viability. An audio recording and additional Alameda City financial information can be found here
- Presenters Alameda City Auditor Kevin Kearney and City Treasurer Kevin Kennedy are introduced by MC Nancy Rogers
ACT Booth at Earthday 2011 Celebrations
Gretchen Lipow and Kathy Schumacher represent Alameda Citizens Task Force at the ACT table during the 2011 Earthday celebration at Washington Park in Alameda, CA.
During the day, ACT members talked to visitors about ACT’s goal of being a permanent watchdog group advocating for effective government and taking actions as necessary to support ACT’s mission to:
- Promote open government
- Advocate for fiscal responsibility
- Analyze critical comments on city issues
- Encourage community involvement in city government
- ACT Booth at Earthday 2011 Celebrations in Washington Park in Alameda, California
Budgets deal with money we have and how we spend it. They don’t deal with money we don’t have and how we spend it.
We spend a lot of money we don’t have.
The City of Alameda this year admits to spending about $30 million more than the $72 million cash shown in the budget.
Budgets do not show actual spending or the borrowing and the increase and the size of the debt.
All of these are obviously important to understand the City’s condition and prospects. It is incorrect and foolish to consider and misleading to represent the budget as a statement of the City’s actual financial health and operation.
When it is presented as a responsible spending program of a financially healthy city, and the actual conditions are very different, it is not merely misleading; it is deceptive, false and fraudulent.
To avoid such impropriety, the budget presentation must be accompanied with a clear statement of the City’s actual income, spending and general fund shortages.
For the current year, I suggested heading the budget statement,
“Income $69 million. Spending $100 million.”
“Debt and deficits in ordinary operations, $400 million.”
“Spending reduction needed to balance spending to current income – $30 million this year”
“Additional spending reduction required to pay off current debt and deficits — $20 million this year and each year for the next twenty years.”
“Total spending this year —$100 million. Total reduction required this year – $50 million.”
The City pointed with pride that it closed a five million dollar budget gap. But it is false pride. The actual gap between income and spending was thirty million dollars or more.
Just to stay even. Just this year.
Spending on credit, even though not declared in our peek-a-boo accounting, is real spending creating real debt .
Really, the people of Alameda will have to pay.
Experts say the City will he called to pay these debts at a steeply increasing rate during the next few years and the increased demands will cause the City to fail and collapse financially within six to fifteen years.
The size of the unbudgeted debt is staggering.
The City spends nearly one dollar and forty cents for every dollar of income.
The accumulated debt is six to eight times the size of all the money the recent sales tax idea hoped to collect over thirty years.
To stop the yearly shortages, the City spending must be reduced by nearly one-half of its current income or it must raise the equivalent of a sales tax of eight to nine percent.
– That’s just to stop the plunge.
Our City is spending forty percent over its income. It is spending three or four times what it could afford if it were to pay off the accumulated shortage over twenty years.
We are running up our debt.
The same as was done by Vallejo and by Stockton, San Bernardino and other troubled cities.
You may have heard of them and of their situations.
They are known as “failed cities.”
Cc: Kevin Kearney, Kevin Kennedy, Dan Borenstein