{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-11-05", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY--NOVEMBER 5, 2013- 7:00 P.M.\nMayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 7:31 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Chen, Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Tam\nand Mayor Gilmore - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\n(13-489) Mayor Gilmore announced that the Resolution Approving the Term Sheet\n[paragraph no. 13-506 would not be heard.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY & ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(13-490) Mayor Gilmore read and presented a proclamation to Mark Sorensen.\n(13-491) Presentation by Chindi Peavey, District Manager, Alameda County Mosquito\nAbatement District (ACMAD) and Ryan Clausnitzer, ACMAD Trustee for the City.\nMs. Peavey gave a Power Point presentation.\nCouncilmember Chen stated the District's staff is professional and does a good job.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the Consent Calendar.\nCouncilmember Chen seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph\nnumber.]\n(*13-492) Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting Held on September 24, 2013; the\nJoint City Council and Planning Board Meeting Held on September 25, 2013; the\nSpecial and Regular City Council Meetings Held on October 1, 2013; and the Special\nCity Council Meeting Held on October 10, 2013. Approved.\n(*13-493) Ratified bills in the amount of $3,788,798.69.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nNovember 5, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-11-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-11-05", "page": 2, "text": "(*13-494) Recommendation to Accept the Quarterly Sales Tax Report for the Period\nEnding March 31, 2013 Collected During the Period Ending June 30, 2013. Accepted.\n(*13-495) Recommendation to Accept the Quarterly Report on Litigation and Liability\nClaims Settlements Paid During the Period July to September 2013. Accepted.\n(*13-496) Recommendation to Approve a Five Year Professional Services Agreement\nwith George Hills Company for Third Party Liability Claims Administrator Services for an\nAnnual Amount of No More Than $63,500 Per Year. Accepted.\n(*13-497) Resolution No. 14865, \"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).' Adopted.\n(*13-498) Resolution No. 14866, \"Amending the City of Alameda Executive\nManagement (EXME) Compensation Plan to Establish the Classification of\nAdministrative Services Director and Modify the Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point\nSalary Range.' Adopted.\n(*13-499) Resolution No. 14867, \"Amending the Management and Confidential\nEmployees Association (MCEA) Salary Schedule and Establishing the Classifications of\nAssistant Community Development Director, Economic Development Manager, Media\nand Communications Coordinator, Compliance Superintendent, and System Operations\nand Field Service Superintendent.\" Adopted.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(13-500) Resolution No. 14868, \"Approving a General Plan Text Amendment to the\nLand Use Policies in the MU-2 Mariner Square Specified Mixed Use Area to Facilitate\nthe Development of an Assisted Living Facility at 2400 Mariner Square Drive.\" Adopted.\nThe Supervising Planner gave a brief presentation.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she thinks Mariner Square Drive is a great\nlocation for an assisted living facility; she voted against a proposal for office space at\nthe location when on the Planning Board; the special needs and challenges of dementia\nneed to be met and this facility will provide for said needs.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved adoption of the resolution.\nCouncilmember Tam seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Tam concurred with Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft that\nthe site is a highly compatible use for an assisted living facility.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nNovember 5, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-11-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-11-05", "page": 3, "text": "(13-501) Resolution No. 14869, \"Amend Master Fee Resolution No. 12191 to Revise\nthe Community Development Department, Public Works Department, and Fire\nDepartment Fee Schedules.\" Adopted.\nThe Building Official gave a brief presentation; outlined proposed changes to the\nappeals fee.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired why the Planning and Building Department's\nrecommendation is still short of the full cost recovery.\nThe Building Official responded there is not a full cost recovery because of the reduction\nin fees for solar permits and online permits.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired why the Public Works and Fire Departments are also\nrecommending less than full cost recovery.\nThe Public Works Administrative Services Manager responded Public Works chose an\n85% cost recovery and would move full cost recovery in phases fashion so the\nincreases are not too steep; there is subsidy from other funds.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired if the Fire Department would also phase cost recovery.\nThe Fire Chief responded in the affirmative; stated the Department looked at the\nproposed fees and does not think the consultant's recommendation is appropriate; a\nmajority of the Department's fees are direct costs on businesses; increasing inspection\nfees would impose an undue burden on businesses; the Department chose an\nappropriate 50% level, which is an industry standard and comparable to other cities.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Fire Department charges a fine for reporting false\nfire alarms; she supports the idea of phasing; inquired whether Palo Alto was included\nin the fee comparison in order to raise the average.\nGreta Davis, NBS Consulting, responded there was a consensus between Planning and\nBuilding and Public Works staff to select the cities included in the fee comparison;\nstated selection of cities for the fee comparison is based on like-jurisdictions in terms of\nproximity, population, and land development issues, not whether a city is progressive or\nhas high fees.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if staff selected Palo Alto, to which Ms. Davis\nresponded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if median income and median residential prices have\nbeen taken into account, to which Ms. Davis responded in the negative; stated specific\ndemographic information was not considered.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nNovember 5, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-11-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-11-05", "page": 4, "text": "Councilmember Chen concurred with Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft on phasing fee\nincreases; inquired why excavation fees are above the average on the fee comparison.\nThe Construction Inspection and Survey Supervisor responded the amount includes\ntraffic review, technology fees, and is based on information from the permit center.\nCouncilmember Chen inquired what is the current fee for excavation, to which the\nConstruction Inspection and Survey Supervisor responded $850.\nCouncilmember Chen inquired why the excavation fees were the only fees selected to\nbe increased.\nThe Construction Inspection and Survey Supervisor responded typically the excavation\nfees do not apply to single families or property owners and is charged to utilities or\ndevelopers; stated the amount takes in consideration the time spent on the inspection of\nand staff's hourly rate.\nCouncilmember Chen inquired if the 25% operating fund balance is for minimum staffing\nlevels.\nThe Building Official responded in the affirmative; stated the Department does not\nreceive General Fund money; the fees pay for the Department; the idea is to develop a\nreserve to keep the Department staffed adequately for core services in the event the\neconomy declines.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether fees automatically adjust for inflation.\nThe Building Official responded in the affirmative; stated the standard practice is to\ninclude an automatic cost of living increase annually.\nThanked the Fire Chief for explaining the Fire fees; stated the increase is reasonable:\nRobb Ratto, Park Street Business Association (PSBA).\nStated Palo Alto should not have been used as a comparison: Allen Shiu, Alameda.\nThe Building Official stated the appeals fees are: Planning and Building: Residential\n-\n$250 flat fee plus a $500 deposit, Commercial - $350 flat fee plus $2500 deposit; Public\nWorks - $147 fee and the Director can set a deposit for more complex projects.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved adoption of the resolution with the appeal fee\namendments.\nCouncilmember Tam seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Tam stated the General Fund pays for services\nwhich do not fully recover costs.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nNovember 5, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-11-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-11-05", "page": 5, "text": "Mayor Gilmore stated she would like to see a cap on the Public Works appeal fee.\nThe Public Works Director responded the fee will be capped at $1000.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether an applicant is charged the $250 appeal fee\neach time an appeal is filed to a different body.\nThe Building Official responded in the affirmative; stated the current resolution states\n$250 plus a deposit is charged for an appeal to the Planning Board and an additional\n$250 would be charged for an appeal to the City Council.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft and Councilmember Tam agreed to amend the motion to\ninclude the $1000 cap for the Public Works appeal for deposits.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(13-502) Receive a Presentation on the Planning and Building Divisions' Ongoing\nCustomer Service Initiatives.\nThe Building Official gave a Power Point presentation.\nCouncilmember Chen inquired what is the current Code Enforcement caseload for\nAlameda.\nThe Building Official responded there are approximately 1,200 active or unclosed cases;\nlife-safety issues are a priority; staff does not have time to address some low-priority\ncases.\nSuggested the negative survey feedback be shared: Allen Shiu, Alameda.\n(13-503) Introduction of Ordinance Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City\nManager to Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a Lease\nAmendment with Turn Key Show Productions, for Two Years in Building 459 Located at\n101 West Tower Avenue at Alameda Point. Introduced.\nThe Economic Development Division Manager gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Daysog moved introduction of the ordinance.\nCouncilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(13-504) Introduction of Ordinance Amending Various Sections of the Municipal Code to\nAllow Portable Freestanding Signs Under Certain Conditions, Including Sections 30-6.7\nSigns Exempt, 30-6.9 Prohibited Signs, 6-3.2 Advertising Prohibited or Restricted, and\n22-21.5 Obstruction of Sidewalk by Boxes and Other Objects. Introduced.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nNovember 5, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-11-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-11-05", "page": 6, "text": "The Contract Planner gave a brief presentation.\nMayor Gilmore inquired if Code Enforcement of the signs falls under Public Works.\nThe Contract Planner responded in the affirmative; stated the Planning and Building\nDepartment would defer enforcement to Public Works if they receive the complaint\ninitially.\nMayor Gilmore inquired what priority level Code Enforcement would consider signs.\nThe Building Official responded the priority would not be high unless the sign poses a\nlife-safety issue.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired what is the enforcement process.\nThe Building Official responded there are three administrative steps included in the\nnormal process: 1) a letter is sent to the property owner to resolve a valid complaint, 2)\na second letter is sent if there is no compliance, stating the City may issue citations, 3)\ncitations are issued if the property owner does not comply.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether bicycles parked in racks on the sidewalk\nwere considered, to which the Contract Planner responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired if human-held signs are covered under the ordinance\namendment, to which the Contract Planner responded in the negative.\nCouncilmember Chen stated the first enforcement letter should include a dollar amount;\ninquired what is the penalty for non-compliance.\nThe Building Official responded the initial citation is $250.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether the ordinance amendment was triggered by a problem\nwith rogue signs, or a desire of the business owners for the signs, or both.\nThe Contract Planner responded the issue came from the business community; stated a\nsurvey indicated business owners wanted a legal avenue to advertise businesses.\nVice Mayor Ashcraft stated the public should have been surveyed in addition to the\nbusinesses; the signs can be a hazard to pedestrians and should not extend more than\nthree feet.\nThe Building Official clarified the current Code allows merchandise within the first three\nfeet of the sidewalk; signs would replace merchandise; business would not have an\nadditional three feet.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nNovember 5, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-11-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-11-05", "page": 7, "text": "Councilmember Tam inquired what modifications were recommended by Bike Alameda.\nThe Contract Planner responded the modifications included restricting the signs to the\nthree feet immediately adjacent to the buildings and the signs should be stable; stated\nthere was concern that the originally considered area next to the curb, would interfere\nwith car doors.\nCouncilmember Chen inquired if multiple business owners in one building would\nsaturate the sidewalks with signs.\nThe Contract Planner responded the condition does not exist on the applicable streets;\nstated the tenants are limited to two signs, but Councilmember Chen's concerns would\nbe taken under advisement.\nStated PSBA is happy with the proposed ordinance, will participate in outreach and try\nto self-regulate: Robb Ratto, PSBA.\nStated that he supports the ordinance: Jon Spangler, Alameda.\nDiscussed the West End: Allen Shiu, Alameda.\nCouncilmember Tam moved introduction of the ordinance.\nCouncilmember Chen seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(13-505) Ordinance adopts new technical building and fire regulations consistent with\nthe California Building Standards Code.\nIntroduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code to (A) Amend\nChapter XIII (Building and Housing) by Repealing Article I (Uniform Codes Relating to\nBuilding, Housing and Technical Codes) in its Entirety and Adding a New Article I\n(Uniform Codes Relating to Building, Housing and Technical Codes) to Adopt the\ncurrent version of the California Building Code, the current version of the California\nResidential Code, the current version of the California Historical Building Code, the\ncurrent version of the California Electrical Code, the current version of the California\nPlumbing Code, the current version of the California Mechanical Code, the current\nversion of the California Energy Code, the current version of the California Green\nBuilding Standards Code, the 1997 Uniform Housing Code, and the 1997 Edition of the\nUniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, Amending Article IV by\nrepealing Sections 13-12 and 13-13 in their Entirety and Retitling Article IV \"Vacant\nBuildings\" and (B) Amend Chapter XV (Fire Prevention) by Repealing Section 15-1 in its\nEntirety and by Adding a New Section 15-1 to Adopt the current version of the Edition of\nthe California Fire Code. Introduced.\nThe Chief Building Official gave a brief presentation.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nNovember 5, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-11-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-11-05", "page": 8, "text": "Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if the restriction of one outlet in a storage unit would\ncreate a fire hazard.\nThe Building Official responded he is not aware of any cases of fires caused by\noverloading an outlet.\nThe Fire Chief stated that he is not aware of any cases, either.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if the requirement for one outlet in a storage unit is\nokay as it stands, to which the Fire Chief responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Tam moved introduction of the ordinance.\nCouncilmember Chen seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(13-506) Adoption of Resolution Approving Term Sheet Between the City and Alameda\nUnified School District and Authorizing City Manager to Negotiate the Encinal Swim\nCenter Site and Facilities Leases. Not heard.\n(13-507) Provide Direction on the Request for Proposals for Leasing and Property\nManagement at Alameda Point and Other City Properties.\n*\nCouncilmembers Chen and Tam left the dais at 9:18 p.m. and returned at 9:20 p.m.\nThe Economic Development Division Manager gave a Power Point presentation.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired why California Capital Investment Group (CCIG) retaining\nexisting property management staff is viewed as a strength, while PM Realty Group's\n(PMRG) incumbency was deemed a weakness.\nThe Economic Development Division Manager responded retaining existing property\nmanagement staff was considered a strength for the CCIG because there would be\nconsistency and lack of ramp-up time on a complex property; stated PMRG's\nincumbency worked against them and was viewed as negative based on past\nperformance.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the panel sought a hybrid and asked for merger; inquired\nwhy one of the companies would not be willing to merge.\nThe Economic Development Division Manager responded the company preferred to\nmanage the property on their own as one entity; stated the company was concerned\nabout coordination efforts with another party.\nIn response to Councilmember Chen's inquiry regarding staff on the panel, the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nNovember 5, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-11-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-11-05", "page": 9, "text": "Economic Development Division Manager stated the City Attorney and the Interim\nCommunity Development Director were on the panel.\nCouncilmember Chen inquired whether both teams found a negotiated rate acceptable.\nThe Economic Development Division Manager responded scores were based on\nproposed rate.\nDiscussed his background and historic restoration: Phil Tagami, CCIG.\nProvided background information on CCIG: Damien Fink, CCIG.\nStated CCIG believes it could be more effective on its own rather than combining with\nPM Realty; provided background information on CCIG: Mark McClure, CCIG.\nExpressed support for CCIG and urged the contract be awarded to CCIG: Doug Bloch,\nTeamsters Joint Council 7 and Alameda Building and Trades Council.\nProvided background information on current leases: Rick Jones, PMRG.\nProvided background information on PM Realty: Jim Proehl, PMRG.\nProvided background information on Cushman & Wakefield (C&W); stated having\nproperty managers and leasing companies work together is common and seamless:\nJohn McManus, C&W.\nStated building teams is common and the existing team works well; noted the\nimportance of PM Realty's background knowledge: Ted Anderson, Alameda resident\nand C&W employee.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft how the C&W/PMRG team would manage the relationship\nbetween the leasing partner and the management partner.\nMr. McManus responded the team goes through a collaborative process daily; stated\nproperty management expertise includes identifying available buildings and helping\ntenants navigate through the process; there is constant communication through written\nreports and periodic meetings; depending on the project's phase, meetings can be\nweekly; meetings are held on a project-specific basis.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if C&W has experience working with buildings in the\nsame condition as buildings at Alameda Point.\nMr. McManus responded in the affirmative; stated that he has been with C&W since\n1991 and has experience with buildings in all conditions.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired about the unique and different leasing potentials at\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nNovember 5, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-11-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-11-05", "page": 10, "text": "Alameda Point.\nMr. McManus responded Alameda Point is a blend of raw land and existing buildings;\nstated the existing buildings can begin to be leased immediately; although the approval\nprocess for leasing is different with the City, the leasing process is the same.\nCouncilmember Tam stated there is more potential and more incentives for investments\nwithout the time constraints of the Lease in Furtherance of Conveyance (LIFOC);\ninquired if the type of tenants would change.\nMr. McManus responded in the affirmative; stated Alameda Point has tremendous\ngrowth opportunity.\nCouncilmember Tam stated leasing partnerships are typical; inquired whether C&W has\nexperienced any divorces.\nMr. McManus responded in the affirmative; stated divorces usually happen when there\nis a change in personnel, when the project is fully leased or the property sells; if a\npartnership fails for any other reason, it is most likely due to a communication failure.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired if C&W experienced a failed partnership with PMRG, to\nwhich Mr. McManus responded in the negative.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired how the City could be assured Alameda Point will be a\npriority over the Oakland Army Base.\nMr. Tagami responded CCIG does not see a conflict between Alameda and Oakland;\nstated CCIG has a team of 148 professionals working on the Oakland Army Base\nproject; CCIG will demonstrate the same sophisticated comprehensive responsibility in\nAlameda; the owners of the company would be in close proximity with various\nprofessional staff available.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired the different types of tenants and development at\nOakland Army Base versus Alameda Point.\nMr. Tagami responded Oakland is a rail-served train logistics facility; stated Oakland is\nprimarily heavy industrial, commodity, high velocity, fulfillment tenants; Alameda has\na\ndifferent direction.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if CCIG will be able to adhere to the conflict of\ninterest laws outlined in the management services contract and not want to develop the\nhistoric corridor of Alameda Point.\nMr. Tagami responded in the affirmative; stated CCIG brings a breadth of experience\nunique to the property and would respect the process and the limitations.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nNovember 5, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-11-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-11-05", "page": 11, "text": "Mayor Gilmore inquired what PMRG's approach would be to lease and market the\nhistoric structures at Alameda Point.\nMr. McManus responded marketing of historic buildings would be different and would\nmove away from interim use; the method of reverse engineering the buildings would be\nused to identify the appropriate users, such as residential, office, or educational\ncomponents.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated there have been issues in the past regarding looting\nand break-ins; inquired how PMRG intends to protect the property assets moving\nforward.\nMr. Jones responded PMRG has sophisticated motion detector systems that triggers a\ncall system; calls are received all hours of the day and night; monitoring personnel\nrespond, as well as the Police Department; there are also roving security guards;\nPMRG is doing everything possible, given the budget constraints.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired what more would PMRG do to protect property\nassets if money were no object.\nMr. Jones responded the number of motion detector systems and security guards would\nbe increased.\nMayor Gilmore inquired if there were Council recommendations.\nCouncilmember Chen and Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for PMRG.\n(13-508) Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of considering the remaining\nagenda items.\nCouncilmember Chen seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote:\nAyes: Councilmembers Chen, Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft and Mayor Gilmore - 4. Noes:\nCouncilmember Tam - 1.\nCouncilmembers Daysog and Tam, and Mayor Gilmore expressed support for PMRG.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of selecting PMRG and C&W for the leasing\nand property management of Alameda Point and other city properties.\nCouncilmember Tam requested the motion provide more flexible direction to staff to\nnegotiate with PMRG on the terms of the agreement.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft amended the motion to approve directing staff to pursue an\nagreement with C&W and PMRG for the leasing of Alameda Point and other city\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nNovember 5, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-11-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-11-05", "page": 12, "text": "properties.\nCouncilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(13-509) Presentation on Exclusive Negotiation Agreements (ENA) for Alameda Point\nDevelopment Projects.\n*\nCouncilmembers Tam left the dais at 10:37 p.m. and returned at 10:39 p.m.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point gave a brief presentation.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how do you determine the appropriate length of an\nENA.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded the complexity, size, and\nlocation of the proposed projects will determine an appropriate length of the ENA.\nThe City Manager stated other agencies involvement is another factor in determining\nthe length of the ENA; there is a second public process of whether or not to engage in\nthe DDA.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point concurred with the City Manager; stated\nthe business cycle is on an upswing and Alameda needs to be aggressive about\ntimelines.\nIn response to Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the Chief Operating Officer -\nAlameda Point stated development at Alameda Point is risky, uncertain, and expensive;\ncompleting due diligence will require funding; that she would recommend charging a\nnominal deposit; the project is unique; the amount should not be set so high that\npotential parties may be dissuaded.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether some of the deposit would apply to cost\nrecovery, to which the Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded in the\naffirmative.\nCouncilmember Chen inquired what is the process for a potential developer to get an\nappointment with the City Manager or the Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded anyone can make an\nappointment with her and/or the City Manager by calling or emailing.\nCouncilmember Chen stated Alameda is using an ENA process instead of an RFQ\nprocess; inquired if Alameda would be able to reach out to all the local, regional and\ninternational developers through an ENA process.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nNovember 5, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-11-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-11-05", "page": 13, "text": "The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded there has been a lot of press\nabout alameda Point; the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory process put Alameda\non the map; now, with the certainty about the property management and leasing team at\nAlameda Point, the word will continue to spread.\nThe City Manager concurred with the Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point; stated\nAlameda Point's outreach is global, many inquiries have come from China, England, the\nPhilippines, Italy, and Sweden; there has been press in the Wall Street Journal, and\nBusiness Journal; the development community monitors opportunities and an\nopportunity like Alameda Point rarely comes along.\n(13-510) Councilmember Chen moved approval of continuing past 11:00 p.m.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote:\nAyes: Councilmembers Chen, Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft and Mayor Gilmore - 4. Noes:\nCouncilmember Tam - 1.\n* *\nMayor Gilmore shared a story of a gentleman she met on the bike tour who expressed\ninterest in development opportunities at Alameda Point; stated the man indicated an\nRFP should not be done because he would not want to present his ideas in public with\nhis ideas and have them stolen.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the Planning Board has difficulty serving as an advisory\nbody without knowing specific use is being contemplated; definitive projects may\nwarrant an RFP process; the more challenging areas, such as the historic districts that\nneed a lot of investment and creative financing, would warrant public discussion; that\nshe recommends a hybrid approach to maximize opportunities for them to understand\nwhat is happening at Alameda Point.\nThe City Manager inquired what staff would be taking to the Planning Board in the\nprocess Councilmember Tam discussed.\nCouncilmember Tam responded it is not about taking anything to the Planning Board; it\nis about creating a forum and opportunity for residents to comment on the types of uses\ncontemplated.\nThe City Manager stated the heart of the disagreement is that staff does not believe\nthere should be prescriptive zoning; there is nothing wrong with having the public\ncomment when the ENA is public; he expressed concern of losing the market cycle.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with the City Manager; inquired how Council would\nget as much information as possible before entering into an ENA.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n13\nNovember 5, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-11-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-11-05", "page": 14, "text": "The City Manager responded an RFP is not going to help if the City is looking for\ninnovation and a mix of uses; stated the site is challenging and does not have\ninfrastructure in place; an RFP produces ideas that are not economically\nimplementable, which sets up a series of unrealistic expectations.\nMayor Gilmore stated that she was hearing two different things: 1) the Council needs\nmore information about the developer entity before deciding to enter into an ENA, and\n2) there needs to be a process to determine whether or not a particular proposal fits\nwhere Council thinks it should.\nCouncilmember Tam outlined the process proposed by Planning Board Member John\nKnox White; stated Mr. Knox White suggests that staff identify the specific special\ninnovative use that would be brought to the Council; the first meeting would be an open\nsession so the public would be afforded an opportunity to comment on whether the\nproposed use is desired, appropriate, and what conditions should be considered; the\nCouncil would vote whether or not to go into closed session to discuss the specifics and\ndetermine whether to hold the hearing on the ENA; then, a second open session would\nbe held to vote on an ENA.\nThe City Manager stated having staff bring a project with a secret developer to the\nCouncil in an open session is a very odd twist on transparency; staff has to identify the\ndeveloper if the matter goes into closed session; that he does not think a developer\nwould bring an innovative idea to be presented publicly without their name attached to\nit.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated residents need to see the rationale behind why one\ncompany is selected over another to enter an ENA; an RFP could be structured very\nspecifically; an ENA process is acceptable to him; the public needs to be involved in the\nprocess.\nMayor Gilmore cautioned Councilmember Daysog about presupposing that companies\nhe wants to do business with are public companies; stated that she does not want to\nprevent the opportunity of doing business with a private company because they are not\npublicly traded and their financial information is not available; reviewed Councilmember\nDaysog's spreadsheet on the process; inquired what the Blue Ribbon Task Force would\ndo that the Planning Board is not already set up to do.\nCouncilmember Daysog responded for a project as complex as Alameda Point, there\nshould be many more eyes on the project before an ENA; the Planning Board would be\ninvolved after an ENA process.\n(13-511) Recommendation to Approve Evaluation Criteria for Alameda Point\nDevelopment Proposals.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point gave a brief presentation.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n14\nNovember 5, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-11-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-11-05", "page": 15, "text": "Councilmembers Chen left the dais at 11:29 p.m. and returned at 11:35 p.m.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested an explanation of the phrase: \"an applicant's\ndemonstrated financial capacity for proposed development, including company structure\nthat promotes timely responsiveness to city relationship and concerns\".\nThe City Manager responded there will be challenges at Alameda Point; stated staff\nwould not want to be with a company that is not responsive because of its corporate\nstructure.\nCouncilmember Tam suggested the evaluation criteria include a good history of Project\nLabor Agreements (PLA) and a track record of successful development.\nStated November 2nd Bike Tour at Alameda Point should be repeated at other\nlocations; that he supports an RFP and public weigh-in process prior to an ENA\nprocess; a record of architectural distinctiveness should be added to criteria: Chuck\nKapelke, Alameda.\nStated that he supports an RFP process; criteria is too general in current process: Jon\nSpangler, Alameda.\nStated the City has earned right to be the developer; urged moving rapidly: Karen Bey,\nAlameda.\nCouncilmembers Daysog left the dais at 11:46 p.m. and returned at 11:48 p.m.\nThe City Attorney clarified that price and terms of payment are the issues discussed\nin\nclosed session; the evaluative criteria would be open and discussed in public.\nCouncilmember Chen stated that he would like to add an applicant's sensitivity to\nenvironmental protection to the criteria.\nThe Chief Operating Officer-Alameda Point stated all public/private partnerships are\nrequired to meet a minimum LEED certification and bay friendly landscape guidelines;\nAlameda has adopted the California Green Building Code and is implementing a \"Purple\nPipeline\" - a recycled pipeline; in terms of Environmental Protection, the Navy made\nsure Alameda comply with the Biological Opinion; the EIR requires every developer to\ncomply with biological mitigations.\nCouncilmember Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation with the addition\nof the questions he presented in the exhibit.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n15\nNovember 5, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-11-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-11-05", "page": 16, "text": "Mayor Gilmore summarized the motion is to approve the staff recommendation with the\naddition of Councilmember Daysog's questions, Councilmember Tam's additional\ncriteria on the PLA, and Councilmember Chen's bullet point about environmental\nsensitivity.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\n(13-512) The City Manager discussed East Bay Regional Park District's extended\nhours.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(13-513) Irma Garcia-Sinclair, Alameda, submitted a handout; expressed concern about\nBobac having hazardous materials.\n(13-514) Michael Grubman, Bobac, submitted a handout; provided background\ninformation about Bobac.\n(13-515) Bob Haydari, Owner of Bobac, provided background information on his\ncompany; stated his company does not deal with hazardous materials.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\nNone.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(13-516) Consideration of Mayor's Nomination for Appointment to the Youth Advisory\nCommission.\nMayor Gilmore nominated Elizabeth Wong for appointment to the Youth Advisory\nCommission.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 12:17 a.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n16\nNovember 5, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-11-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-11-05", "page": 17, "text": "The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n17\nNovember 5, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-11-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-11-05", "page": 18, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL\nAND PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD MEETING\nTUESDAY--NOVEMBER 5, 2013- -600 P.M.\nMayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 6:04 p.m.\nRoll Call - Present:\nCouncilmembers Chen, Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Tam and\nMayor Gilmore; Board Members Hamm, McCormick, Russo,\nSutter, and President Deaton - 10.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nThe meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(13-484 CC/PUB) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (54956.9); Case\nName: Nuveen V. City of Alameda; United States District Court, Northern District of\nCalifornia Case No. CV 08-04575-SI; and Case Name: Vectren V. City of Alameda;\nUnited States District Court, Northern District of California Case No. CV 08-03137 SI\n(13-485 CC) Conference with Real Property Negotiators (54956.8); Property: 1535\nBuena Vista Avenue; Negotiator: John Russo, City Manager;\nNegotiating party:\nFortmann Marina; Under negotiation: Price and terms of payment. Not heard.\n(13-486 CC) Public Employee Performance Evaluation Pursuant to Government Code \u00a7\n54957; Position Evaluated: City Attorney - Janet Kern.\n(13-487 CC) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Initiation of\nlitigation pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 54956.9; Number of cases: One (As\nPlaintiff - City Initiating Legal Action)\nFollowing the Closed Session the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Gilmore\nannounced that regarding Existing Litigation, the Council and Board received a briefing;\nand regarding Anticipated Litigation, direction was given to staff.\nMayor Gilmore called a recess at 7:24 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 12:25 a.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\nNovember 5, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-11-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-11-05", "page": 19, "text": "Adjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 12:52 a.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\nNovember 5, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-11-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-11-05", "page": 20, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND SUCCESSOR AGENCY OF\nTHE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (SACIC) MEETING\nTUESDAY--NOVEMBER 5, 2013- -6:59 P.M.\nMayor/Chair Gilmore convened the meeting at 7:30 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers/Agency Members Chen, Daysog,\nEzzy Ashcraft, Tam and Mayor/Chair Gilmore - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nCouncilmember/Agency Member Tam moved approval of the Consent Calendar.\nCouncilmember/Agency Member Chen seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk\npreceding the paragraph number.]\n(*13-019 SACIC) Minutes of the Joint City Council and Successor Agency to the\nCommunity Improvement Commission Meeting (SACIC) Meeting Held on June 11, 2013\nand the SACIC Meeting Held on September 17, 2013. Approved.\n(*13-488 CC/13- 020 SACIC) Recommendation to Accept the Fourth Quarter Financial\nReport for the Period Ending June 30, 2013. Accepted.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Chair Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 7:31 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger, City Clerk\nSecretary, SACIC\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and Successor Agency\nto the Community Improvement Commission\nNovember 5, 2013\n1", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-11-05.pdf"}