{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-10-15", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY--OCTOBER 15, 2013- 7:00 P.M.\nMayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 7:23 p.m. Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft led the\nPledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Chen, Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Tam\nand Mayor Gilmore - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\n(13-459) Mayor Gilmore announced that the Resolution Acquiring Temporary\nConstruction Easements [paragraph no. 13-469 would be heard on November 5th and\nthe Joint Use Agreement [paragraph no. 13-474 would be heard after the Rent\nIncrease Concerns at 1645 Park Street [paragraph no. 13-473].\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY & ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(13-460) Proclamation Declaring October as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender,\nQueer/Questioning (LGBTQ) History Month.\nMayor Gilmore read and presented the Proclamation to Henry Villareal, Co-Chair of the\nSchool District LGBTQ Roundtable.\n(13-461) Presentation on Status of Alameda Point Planning Documents.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point gave a Power Point presentation.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(13-462) Mark Wagner, Drawing on Earth, submitted a proposal for a chalk drawing\npark; stated that he is applying for a lease would like rent to be waived.\n(13-463) Chuck Kapelke, Alameda, stated that he sent an e-mail expressing interest in\nusing a Request for Proposal process to develop Alameda Point; urged an open\nprocess; discussed Greenway Golf proposing to operate the Golf Course; expressed\nconcern over development fitting together.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor Gilmore announced that the Lease-Purchase Agreement [paragraph no. 13-466];\nthe Granicus contract [paragraph no. 13-467]; and Resolution the urging Congress to\nenact comprehensive immigration reform [paragraph no. 13-470 were removed from\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nOctober 15, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-10-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-10-15", "page": 2, "text": "the Consent Calendar for discussion and the Resolution Acquiring Temporary\nConstruction Easements [paragraph no. 13-467 would be considered on November\n5th.\nCouncilmember Tam moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the\nparagraph number.]\n(*13-464) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings and the Special\nJoint City Council, City of Alameda Financing Authority and Alameda Public\nImprovement Corporation Meeting Held on September 17, 2013. Approved.\n(*13-465) Ratified bills in the amount of $3,111,236.65.\n(13-466) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Lease-Purchase\nAgreement and Purchase the Remounting of One Ford E-450 Horton Ambulance in An\nAmount Not to Exceed $152,000, and Authorize the Purchase of Five Fire Department\nStaff Vehicles in An Amount Not to Exceed $189,400.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired if Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) grant\nfunds from the Department of Justice are available to the Fire Department for the\nequipment purchase.\nThe Fire Chief responded in the negative; stated there is no grant funding available for\nFire Department vehicles.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired how much of the equipment replacement fund is allocated\nto the Fire Department.\nThe Fire Chief responded that he could not answer and deferred to the Finance\nDirector.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if grant funding is available through FEMA.\nThe Fire Chief responded in the negative; stated there is no grant funding for staff\nvehicles; the Fire Department received grant funding for one emergency apparatus\nseveral years ago, but funds have been reduced by the sequestration.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if there is a distinction between staff vehicles and\nemergency equipment, to which the Fire Chief responded in the affirmative.\nThe Finance Director stated there is currently $3 million in the equipment replacement\nfund.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nOctober 15, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-10-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-10-15", "page": 3, "text": "Councilmember Tam stated the City is loaning the School District $3 million for pools;\ninquired whether the expense was anticipated, or budgeted, in the equipment\nreplacement fund.\nThe Finance Director responded the $750,000 is coming from Capital Improvement\nProjects (CIP); stated the proposed $1.15 million was not included in the budget;\navailable funds would be reduced.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that she would abstain from voting until negotiations with\nthe School District have been concluded in order to better understand the impacts to the\nequipment replacement fund, which is the funding source for the pools.\nCouncilmember Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Chen seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote:\nAyes: Councilmember Chen, Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft and Mayor Gilmore - 4.\nAbstention: Councilmember Tam - 1.\n(13-467) Recommendation to Approve a Contract with Granicus in an Annual Amount of\n$19,200 for Webcasting and Agenda Management Services.\nThe City Clerk gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired if a hardcopy of the agenda can still be printed using the\nnew paperless system.\nThe City Clerk responded in the affirmative and demonstrated how to print hardcopies\nusing the system.\nMayor Gilmore stated that she is very excited with the implementation of the new\nwebcasting and agenda management system; thanked the City Clerk for her\npersistence; stated the new system is very important because residents can access the\nmeetings on iPads live or the following day.\nThe City Clerk noted the Council is authorizing the City Manager to execute a contract\namendment through December 2015; stated the Council is approving the amendment\nsince the $75,000 cap would be exceeded.\nCouncilmember Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote\n- 5.\n(13-468) Recommendation to Approve a Budget Carryover of $77,448 from FY12-13 to\nFY13-14 for a Portable Self-Priming Centrifugal Pump. Accepted.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nOctober 15, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-10-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-10-15", "page": 4, "text": "(13-469) Adoption of Resolution_Authorizing the City Manager to Acquire Temporary\nConstruction Easements in Relation to the Sewer Pump Station Renovations for\nReliability and Safety Improvements Project (All Groups). Not heard.\n(13-470) Resolution No. 14864, \"Urging Congress to Enact Comprehensive Immigration\nReform.\" Adopted.\nCouncilmember Chen gave a brief presentation.\nState the symbolic gesture sends a message to Congress: Terry Sandoval, SAIU-\nULTCW.\nCouncilmember Chen moved adoption of the resolution.\nCouncilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(*13-471) Ordinance No. 3079, \"Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending\nChapter 2 (Administration) Article Il (Boards And Commissions) by Repealing Section 2-\n15; Amending Section 2-19.2(A), to Dissolve the Economic Development Commission\n(EDC) and to Revise the Membership of the Commission On Disability Issues (CDI).'\nFinally Passed.\n(*13-472) Ordinance No. 3080, \"Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City Manager to\nExecute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a Lease Amendment with\nGFC Moving and Storage, Inc. dba All City Moving North American Van Lines for Two\nYears in Building 170 Located at 1770 Viking Street at Alameda Point.\" Finally Passed.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(13-473) Recommendation to Acknowledge the Rent Increase Concerns at 1645 Park\nStreet and Authorize the Mayor to Send a Letter Encouraging the Owner to Comply with\nthe Rent Review Advisory Committee (RRAC) Recommendations.\nThe Housing Authority Development Manager and RRAC Chair gave a brief\npresentation.\nMayor Gilmore inquired how long the $400 per month rent had been in place before the\nincrease.\nThe RRAC Chair responded 20 years; stated the tenant, Ron Jackson, has been in the\nbuilding for 21 years; his original rent was around $200; Mr. Jackson did maintenance\nwork in exchange for reduced rent; the rent was increased from $200 to $400 before\nand is now increasing from $400 to $600.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if there was a written agreement between the tenant\nand the landlord regarding maintenance work being done to reduce the rent.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nOctober 15, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-10-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-10-15", "page": 5, "text": "The RRAC Chair responded in the negative; stated Mr. Jackson had a verbal\nagreement with the landlord for janitorial services.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she knows the landlord, Mr. John Costello; noted\nthe letter advising Mr. Costello of the RRAC meeting was addressed incorrectly;\nquestioned whether the noticing was fair.\nThe RRAC Chair responded that she could not address the issue of the incorrect\naddress since City staff did the mailing; stated the RRAC received a response from the\nlandlord after the first meeting, which indicates that he was aware of the meeting.\nCouncilmember Chen inquired how much other tenants are paying.\nThe RRAC Chair responded that she does not have the information since the landlord\ndid not attend the meetings.\nProvided background information on his rent: Ron Jackson, Tenant.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether Mr. Jackson was paying the $40 rent increase or the\n$200 increase.\nMr. Jackson responded $40 which the RRAC recommended.\nMayor Gilmore stated the RRAC did not recommend Mr. Jackson only pay an additional\n$40; theRRAC simply suggested a $40 rent increase as a compromise.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how long Mr. Jackson has lived 1645 Park Street, to\nwhich Mr. Jackson responded since 1992.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired what was Mr. Jackson's rent when he first moved in,\nto which Mr. Jackson responded $275.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how many times the rent has been increased in 21\nyears.\nMr. Jackson responded that he did not keep track of the number of rent increases;\nstated for a few years he was hired to do the janitorial service for the premises.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if Mr. Jackson's rent was increased every year that\nhe has lived there.\nMr. Jackson responded in the negative; stated no one's rent has increased every year;\nincreases depend upon when the landlord does maintenance upgrades or rents to\na\nnew tenant.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nOctober 15, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-10-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-10-15", "page": 6, "text": "Councilmember Tam inquired how much Mr. Jackson is paying now, to which Mr.\nJackson responded $440 per month.\nProvided background information on Mr. Jackson's rent and provided comparisons:\nJohn Costello, Landlord.\nMayor Gilmore inquired if the rents are comparable.\nMr. Costello responded in the affirmative; stated the rooms are not exactly the same;\nthe smaller rooms are cheaper.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired how many times the rents for other rooms have increased\nsince 2009.\nMr. Costello responded since 2007 Unit 6 has been $675 and Unit 8 has been $550;\nsince 2011, Unit 4 has been $600 and Unit 9 since has been $550; he has been raising\nthe rents over the last years due to increased expenses.\nMayor Gilmore inquired the amount of other increases.\nMr Costello responded Unit 4 and Unit 6 were each raised $50; stated the increment\nhas been the same over the last 3 or 4 years.\nIn response to Mayor Gilmore's inquiry, Mr. Costello stated he had not raised Mr.\nJackson's rent since 1990.\nMayor Gilmore stated that she understands Mr. Costello's reasons for needing to raise\nMr. Jackson's rent by $200; other rooms have been systematically increased;\nincreasing from $400 to $600 in one fell swoop comes as a shell shock to the tenant.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired why Mr. Costello did not attend the RRAC meetings.\nMr. Costello responded his attorney informed him the RRAC does not have any power,\nand just makes recommendations.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if Mr. Costello has any problems with Mr. Jackson.\nMr. Costello responded that he does not want to discuss problems with Mr. Jackson.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if other tenants were having problems with Mr.\nJackson.\nMr. Costello responded that he does not wish to discuss thematter either.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Mr. Costello would be willing to tell his side\nof the situation to the RRAC, to which Mr. Costello responded in the negative.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nOctober 15, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-10-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-10-15", "page": 7, "text": "Councilmember Tam inquired if Mr. Costello gave Mr. Jackson renter's credit for\njanitorial services rendered.\nMr. Costello responded that he tried to help out Mr. Jackson; Mr. Jackson was not\ncleaning the restrooms for very long.\nCouncilmember Chen stated the sudden 50% spike in Mr. Jackson's rent caused grief\nfor a tenant who has consistently paid rent consistently for the last 20 years which is\nbad business; increasing the rent incrementally would be easier to absorb.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated figuring something out with the RRAC would be helpful.\nTim Goodman, Alameda, stated rent increases were done legally.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the RRAC is a voluntary process that works best if\nboth parties are willing to participate.\nMayor Gilmore inquired if the landlord informed staff that they were not going to attend\nthe meetings, to which the RRAC Chair responded in the affirmative.\nIn response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry, the RRAC Chair stated a general rule\nis that a 10% increase is acceptable in a rising rental situation; the sticker shock is the\nbig issue; people have budgets; increasing rent on a routine basis if is warranted is\nencouraged to prevent sticker shock.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is troubled that the RRAC was not able to\nresolve two cases this year.\nMayor Gilmore stated Mr. Costello is an upstanding business person who has been\ngenerous to the community; business people need to raise rents; however, meetings\nwere not attended and the process was not followed; there is a lot to be said for\ncommunication.\nCouncilmember Daysog suggested the RRAC process be reviewed; stated Council\nneeds information to make a decision; the situation of someone having low rent for\nmany years should also be reviewed.\nCouncilmember Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Chen seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Mayor Gilmore inquired whether Mr. Costello would be interested in\nmeeting with the RRAC, to which Mr. Costello responded in the negative.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nOctober 15, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-10-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-10-15", "page": 8, "text": "Councilmembers Chen, Daysog, Tam and Mayor Gilmore - 4. Noes: Vice Mayor Ezzy\nAshcraft - 1.\n(13-474) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Extend the Current Joint\nUse Operating Agreement with Alameda Unified School District for the Operation of the\nDistrict Swimming Pools to a Date to be Determined by City Council.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director gave a brief presentation.\nIn response to Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the Recreation and Parks Director\nstated there is a typo in the Joint Use Operating Agreement which states the term is\n\"one month\"; the term can be whatever length the Council desires.\nMayor Gilmore clarified Council is here tonight to decide whether to extend the\nagreement and the length of the extension.\nCouncilmember Chen inquired if students swim during winter months.\nMayor Gilmore responded in the affirmative; noted audience members.\nCouncilmember Chen stated extending the agreement well past the next semester\nmakes sense so kids can still have access to the pool.\nSuggested a standing Ad Hoc Committee to deal with the swimming pools be set up:\nAshley Jones, Alameda.\nMayor Gilmore stated a subcommittee of the City Council and the School Board\ndiscussed pools for the last two years; the current proposal is to renovate the Encinal\npool.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the School District's consultant estimated renovation cost at\n$1.9 million including design; the City agreed to pay $750,000 from the capital\nimprovement fund; the School District requested a loan from the City for the remaining\nfunds; the City Council offered a loan to pay for the entire $1.9 million.\nMayor Gilmore inquired how many years the pool would last.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director responded the new, competitive pool is estimated to\nlast 30 years.\nExpressed support for keeping the pools open: Barry Parker, Alameda.\nClarified how pools are used and when; stated keeping pools in Alameda is critical:\nDonald Krause, Alameda.\nStated that he is glad the agreement is moving forward: Kyle Baldi, Water Polo Coach.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nOctober 15, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-10-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-10-15", "page": 9, "text": "Acknowledged staff's efforts: Trish Spencer, Alameda.\nUrged continuing the legacy of swimming in Alameda: Linda Gilchrest, Alameda.\nCouncilmember Chen stated that he is not suggesting the pools would close at the end\nof the Joint Use Agreement; hopefully, there will be a solution either with the loan or a\nnew facility.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether the School District would close the pools if there\nis no Joint Use Agreement.\nSchool Board Member Trish Spencer responded that she could not speak on behalf of\nBoard, however, she does not believe the pools will close if there is no agreement;\nstated there is a serious funding issue; District is dependent on the partnership with the\nCity to keep the pools going.\nMr. Krause stated that he spoke to the School Superintendent and was told the District\nwould try to keep the pools open for school purposes.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether school teams would be included, to which Mr.\nKrause responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired if the Superintendent indicated the pools would only be\nopen for school teams.\nMr. Krause responded in the affirmative; stated the Islander's and the Master's work\nwith the Recreation Department, not the School District.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft cited the education code sections of the Joint Use Agreement\nthat authorizes public entities to cooperate with one another to organize, promote and\nconduct programs for community recreation; stated the board of any school district is\nauthorized to grant the use of any building, grounds or equipment of the district to any\nother public authority for community recreational purposes.\nMr. Krause concurred with Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft; stated that he understands the his\nunderstanding of the reasons the District would not allow pool use is partly budgetary;\nthe District would lose half the operating costs [paid by the City] and does not have the\ninfrastructure to rent pools.\nThe City Manager asked the Recreation and Parks Director to clarify the City's revenue\nand expenses from the swim programs.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director stated the City and the District both spend about\n$150,000 each for total of $300,000 per year; the City receives about $26,000 to\n$30,000 per year in revenue.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nOctober 15, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-10-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-10-15", "page": 10, "text": "Mayor Gilmore inquired if the City is operating the pools at a loss, to which the City\nManager responded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the language in the agreement does not require the\nDistrict to only allow school teams to swim.\nThe City Manager stated there is not a legal requirement; the District would be making a\nbudgetary choice against other potential priorities; the City has proposed a master\nleasing in the past; the current proposal would cost the City more than $2 million, some\nof which is coming out of the equipment budget.\nMayor Gilmore stated funds are also coming out of the capital improvement budget and\nthe General Fund.\nThe City Manager suggested the Council consider extending the Joint Use Agreement\nuntil the end of next September, rather than the end of the school year to include\nsummer programs; the Joint Use Agreement is not being extended in perpetuity\nbecause a different set of agreements will be required if an agreement to rebuild the\nEncinal pool is reached; staff was suggesting a four month extension, in order to allow\ntime to reach a deal.\nMayor Gilmore stated that she is hopeful an agreement will be reached with the District\nfor the new pool at Encinal; she is in favor of extending the Joint Use Agreement for a\nshorter term until February.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like to take the pressure off the swim\ncommunity.\nCouncilmember Chen concurred with Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft; stated that he hopes\nthe swim community attends the School Board meetings with the same passion and\nvigor; both parties have to agree to the terms.\nCouncilmember Daysog thanked the swimming community for holding Council's feet to\nthe fire; stated exploring a long term pool solution is important; the capital equipment\nfund is limited.\nThe City Manager stated staff is committed to a solution; the best and most cost\neffective solution is to rehabilitate the Encinal pool; both the District and the City have\nbudgetary issues; other financing needs to be found if a conclusion cannot be reached\npremised upon the City fronting $2 million.\n***\nCouncilmember Tam left the dais at 9:23 p.m. and returned at 9:25 p.m.\n***\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nOctober 15, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-10-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-10-15", "page": 11, "text": "Mayor Gilmore concurred with the City Manager; stated the City is committed to serving\nthe swim community; that she is frustrated about the deal not being able to be closed;\nthe longer the wait, the more likely one of the pools will breakdown beyond repair.\nCouncilmember Chen stated the term should be extended through September.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of authorizing the City Manager to extend\nthe current Joint Use Operating Agreement with AUSD for the operation of the District's\nswimming pools to September of 2014, but with no further extensions beyond that date.\nCouncilmember Tam stated she would rather not include a caveat about no further\nextensions; inquired whether the City could modify the agreement if an agreement is\nreached and there will be a new facility\nThe Recreation and Parks Director responded in the affirmative; stated a revised\nagreement could be brought to the Council.\nThe City Manager proposed Councilmembers include the specific date, September 30,\n2014.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft revised her motion to authorize the City Manager to extend\nthe current Joint Use Operating Agreement with AUSD for the operation of the District\nswimming pools to September 30, 2014.\nCouncilmember Chen seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(13-475) Report on Sale of 2013 Certificates of Participation and General Obligation\nBonds.\nThe Finance Director gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Chen congratulated staff and the past administration for achieving a AA\nrating.\nThe Finance Director stated the City of Alameda has the highest ratings of all the cities\nin Alameda County.\nCouncilmember Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(13-476) Recommendation to Authorize Sole Source Procurement and Award a\nContract in the Amount of $291,000, Including Contingencies, to Brown Reynolds\nWatford (BRW) Architects to Provide Professional Services for the Design, Construction\nDocuments, and Contract Management for the Emergency Operations Center (EOC).\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nOctober 15, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-10-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-10-15", "page": 12, "text": "The Interim Public Works Director gave a brief presentation.\nIn response to Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquiry about the library, the Interim Public\nWorks Director stated the construction was done via sole source contract.\nCouncilmember Tam requested an explanation of Charter Section 3-15, which requires\na great necessity or emergency requires immediate action.\nVice Mayor Ezzy inquired why the paragraph is in the staff report if the City is\nproceeding with a contract.\nThe Interim Public Works Director responded the report should read \"without a\nprocurement\"; apologized for the misinformation; stated \"great necessity\" is the urgency\nof constructing a new EOC as soon as possible; staff believes the existing EOC is\nfunctionally inadequate to handle an emergency\nCouncilmember Tam stated the contract with BRW is plans, not construction.\nThe Interim Public Works Director stated hopefully, plans will be presented to the\nPlanning Board early spring and start construction in September 2014; when 90% of\ndrawings are complete, the project would go out to bid.\nCouncilmember Chen inquired if going out for a Request for Proposals (RFP) would\ndelay the process by many months, to which the Interim Public Work Director\nresponded in the affirmative; stated an RFP would be issued for the design and\nconstruction on the fire station.\nCouncilmember Chen inquired whether the $242,000 is a fair rate.\nThe Interim Public Works Director responded in the affirmative; stated $242,000 is 10%\nof the estimated construction costs; architect fees range from 8% to 12%; the facility is\nsophisticated; the fee is well within range.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired who did the cost estimate.\nThe Public Works Director responded the cost estimate was done originally by BRW.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the cost estimate was done by the same entity that\nstaff is suggesting hiring.\nThe Interim Public Works Director stated that he double checked the cost estimate.\nMayor Gilmore stated the Interim Public Works Director was under instructions to take a\nvery sharp look at the cost estimate and to bring the cost of the facility down; a prior\nCouncil set aside $400,000 for the design of Fire Station 3 and the EOC; she suspects\nbidding was done in pieces because there was not enough money; if the City had the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nOctober 15, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-10-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-10-15", "page": 13, "text": "funding when the original RFP went out, the entire project would have been bid as a\npackage.\nThe Interim Public Works Director and City Manager stated the Mayor is correct.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the fund is coming from the capital improvement program\nwhich is the same fund that will be used for the $750,000 for the pools; further stated\nthe City would be borrowing money since Measure C did not pass.\nCouncilmember Chen moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote\n- 5\n(13-477) Recommendation to Approve Evaluation Criteria for Alameda Point\nDevelopment Proposals.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point and the City Manager gave a brief\npresentation.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated there are shades of grey between different elements by\nwhich development projects are measured; that he thought it would be very helpful, and\nhe would really push for, a blue ribbon task force to help with the evaluation process.\nCouncilmember Chen left the dais at 10:13 p.m. and returned at 10:14 p.m.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft questioned the need for a task force since there has already\nbeen a lot of public involvement over the years; stated what is wanted in the end is a\nlong term vision for a truly integrated development, which also meets the financially\nsustainable criteria; there is such an opportunity at Alameda Point; there should not just\nbe mediocre development to bring lots of revenue; a high bar should be set in the\ndesign and kinds of clients to attract; if the City starts attracting high quality clients,\nothers will follow.\nCouncilmember Tam stated she was hoping to see priority development areas.\n*\n(13-478) Councilmember Chen moved approval of continuing past 10:30 p.m.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by a voice vote - 4 ayes.\nNoes - 1 (Councilmember Tam).\nThe City Clerk clarified the motion was to consider the remaining agenda items, to\nwhich there was no objection.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n13\nOctober 15, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-10-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-10-15", "page": 14, "text": "Mayor Gilmore stated the issues a blue ribbon committee would consider are not\ndifferent than those the Planning Board considers; the Planning Board makes\ndeterminations, balances competing interests and reviews grey areas; they are taking\npublic input at those meetings, in order to have a recommendation to the City Council;\nshe agreed with Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft; a blue ribbon committee would add an\nunnecessary layer to the approval process; addressed negotiations with developers\nbeing done in public; stated there is a specific exception under the Brown Act that\nallows negotiation in closed session for real estate; that she cannot foresee a situation\nwhere the City would want to negotiate with a developer in public; the public should rest\nassured that the agreement comes to the City Council in public for people to review and\ncomment on.\n***\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft left the dais at 10:28 p.m. and returned at 10:33 p.m.\n* *\nCouncilmember Daysog stated a blue ribbon committee of volunteers as proposals\ncould make judgments and recommendations about the grey areas in the development\nproposal process; staff has elements to evaluate different proposals; a blue ribbon\ncommittee couldl help staff and the City Council vet elements\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n14\nOctober 15, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-10-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-10-15", "page": 15, "text": "Mayor Gilmore inquired why a developer would spend time, effort, energy, and money\nto showcase a project to a citizen group before there has been any indication\nwhatsoever as to whether or not the City Council is interested in the project.\nCouncilmember Daysog responded staff would be interested in the project; the blue\nribbon committee will be the first eyes of staff or the first eyes on behalf of City Council.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether Councilmember Daysog would want the blue ribbon\ncommittee to make decisions about whether or not a developer gets to the City Council.\nCouncilmember Daysog responded the buck always stops and starts with City Council;\nhaving extra helpers, especially with large project, is helpful; having more people\ninvolved in the early development evaluation process does not hurt; in the long run, the\nCity Council has a lot of experience with projects; however, the Council is just five\npeople; forming a more formal blue ribbon committee would be great.\nMayor Gilmore stated that she thinks convincing a developer to come before a blue\nribbon committee on the front end would be difficult.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired if Councilmember Daysog is suggesting that prospective\ndevelopers meet with staff and the blue ribbon task force in lieu of an RFP process.\nCouncilmember Daysog responded that he was not making a comment for or against a\ncompetitive RFP process.\nUrged more specific criteria be developed and the process be broadened: Chuck\nKapelke, Alameda.\nThe City Manager stated the he disagrees; the criteria rely on various documents which\nwere developed over a long and exhaustive planning process; the planning process\nneeds to end; the \"doing\" process needs to start or the business cycle may be missed.\nMayor Gilmore concurred with the City Manager; stated particular things which the\nCouncil wants to see highlighted should be raised.\nIn response to Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft, the Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point\nstated the City requires any public/private partnership to have a minimum LEED\ncertification; the Town Center Plan sustainability requirements and guidelines will be\nvetted through the Planning Board and City Council; campuses or universities can be\nmade a priority.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the project has been in the San Francisco Business\nTimes; however, reaching out to campuses interested in expanding might make sense;\nsuggested selection be based on experience or track record of creating jobs and\nattracting top tier businesses.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated a criteria could be added to\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n15\nOctober 15, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-10-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-10-15", "page": 16, "text": "evaluate a developer's qualification and track record; criteria for high quality businesses\nis more subjective and may need more direction; the architectural standards and form\nbased code are going to be in the detailed plans for some areas and can be\nincorporated.\nThe City Manager stated a campus or research facility as an incubator is fine; however,\nthere are tax issues; negotiating in lieu payments is a problem, because proposals\nshould not be discussed in the event it does not pan out.\nIn response to Councilmember Tam's inquiry, the City Manager stated bringing a\ncampus to Alameda Point is difficult financially; the only location which makes sense\nwould be the adaptive reuse area.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the City Manager touched on the granularity that she would\nlike to see; housing allocations at the historic district or the adaptive reuse area should\nbe consciously discussed and prioritized; focus should not be about whether buildings\nare architecturally appropriate or LEED certified; instead, there should be more about\nthe overall strategy.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated staff has listened to direction to\nfocus on a major retail and/or campus user; at the same time, there has been indication\nhousing options should be pursued on a parallel track; requested clarification for the\nevaluation criteria.\nCouncilmember Tam stated there has been a lot of good discussion about the Town\nCenter creating a sense of place and being a transit oriented village; there is a good\ncohesive plan; the area should be a priority; market rate residential areas should pay for\ninfrastructure and can be a lower priority.\nThe City Manager stated staff understood said direction from the September 25th\nmeeting.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that the she did not see the direction reflected in the\ncriteria.\nThe City Manager stated the documents are different; a disposition strategy was\npreviously discussed; the evaluation criteria does not need to address priority order,\nrather the criteria is a guide for judging projects.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the criteria and the disposition strategy should be\ncoordinated.\nThe City Manager stated the disposition strategy is used to review and determine how\nto proceed with the entire Base; specific proposals would be measured against the\nevaluation criteria.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n16\nOctober 15, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-10-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-10-15", "page": 17, "text": "COUNCIL REFERRALS\nNone.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(13-481) Consideration of Mayor's Appointment to the West Alameda Transportation\nDemand Management Association.\nMayor Gilmore appointed Randy Rentschler.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 11:01 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n17\nOctober 15, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-10-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-10-15", "page": 18, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY--OCTOBER 15, 2013- -600 P.M.\nMayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 5:36 p.m.\nRoll Call -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Chen, Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Tam and\nMayor Gilmore - 5.\n[Note: Councilmember Chen arrived at 6:06 p.m. and Councilmember\nDaysog arrived at 6:09 p.m.]\nAbsent:\nNone.\nThe meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(13-455) Conference with Real Property Negotiators (54956.8); Property: Alameda\nPoint; Negotiator: John Russo, City Manager; Negotiating party: Charles Company;\nUnder negotiation: Price and terms of payment\n(13-456) Conference with Real Property Negotiators (54956.8); Property: Alameda\nPoint; Negotiator: John Russo, City Manager; Negotiating party: Debartolo; Under\nnegotiation: Price and terms of payment\n(13-457) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Initiation of litigation\npursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 54956.9; Number of cases: One (As Plaintiff - City\nInitiating Legal Action)\n(13-458) Public Employee Performance Evaluation; Pursuant to Government Code\n\u00a7\n54957; Position Evaluated: City Attorney - Janet Kern\nFollowing the Closed Session the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Gilmore\nannounced that regarding Charles Company, the Council gave direction to staff;\nregarding Debartolo, the Council gave direction to staff; and regarding Anticipated\nLitigation, Council gave direction to staff.\nMayor Gilmore called a recess at 7:17 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 11:05 p.m.\nFollowing the Closed Session the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Gilmore\nannounced that regarding Performance Evaluation, the meeting was continued.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 15, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-10-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-10-15", "page": 19, "text": "Adjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 11:56 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 15, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-10-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-10-15", "page": 20, "text": "UNAPPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE SPECIAL SUCCESSOR AGENCY OF THE\nCOMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (SACIC) MEETING\nTUESDAY--OCTOBER 15, 2013- -7:01 P.M.\nChair Gilmore convened the meeting at 11:01 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nAgency Members Chen, Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Tam\nand Chair Gilmore - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nAGENDA ITEMS\n(13-018) Recommendation to Approve the Long-Range Property Management Plan.\nThe Acting Community Development Director gave a brief presentation.\nAgency Member Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nAgency Member Chen seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Chair Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 11:02 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nSecretary, SACIC\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nSpecial Meeting\nSuccessor Agency to the Community\nImprovement Commission\nOctober 15, 2013\n1", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-10-15.pdf"}