{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-04-15", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- -APRIL 15, 2014- -6:00 P.M.\nMayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 6:03 p.m.\nRoll Call -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Chen, Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Tam and\nMayor Gilmore - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nThe meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(14-129) Conference With Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (54956.9); Case Name:\nUSA/Baykeeper V. City of Alameda, et al. United States District Court, Northern District\nof California; Case No. CV 09-05684 RS\nFollowing the closed session, the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Gilmore\nannounced that direction was given to staff.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 7:05 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\nApril 15, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-04-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-04-15", "page": 2, "text": "65\nMINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL\nAND ALAMEDA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY (APFA) MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -APRIL 15, 2014- -7:01 P.M.\nMayor/Chair Gilmore convened the meeting at 7:14 p.m.\nRoll Call -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers/Authority Members Chen, Daysog,\nEzzy Ashcraft, Tam and Mayor/Chair Gilmore - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nOral Communications\nNone.\nConsent Calendar\nVice Mayor/Authority Member Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the Consent Calendar.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member Tam 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(*14-130 CC) Resolution No. 14910, \"Approving Amendments to the Reimbursement\nAgreement, Dated as of December 1, 2003, and Approving a Fee Letter, Relating to the\n$9,080,000 Alameda Public Financing Authority Variable Rate Demand Revenue Bonds\n(Alameda Point Improvement Project), 2003 Series A, and the $4,360,000 Alameda\nPublic Financing Authority Taxable Variable Rate Demand Revenue Bonds (Alameda\nPoint Improvement Project), 2003 Series B, and Approving Official Actions. (City\nCouncil); and\n(*14-14-01 APFA) Resolution No. 14-24, \"Electing to Substitute the Remarketing Agent,\nApproving the Form and Authorizing Execution of a Remarketing Agent Agreement with\nthe Successor Remarketing Agent, Electing to Remove the Confirming Letter of Credit,\nApproving the Form and Authorizing Execution of Amendments to the Indenture of\nTrust, Dated as of December 1, 2003, Approving Amendments to the Reimbursement\nAgreement, Dated as of December 1, 2003, and Approving a Fee Letter, All Relating to\nthe $9,080,000 Alameda Public Financing Authority Variable Rate Demand Revenue\nBonds (Alameda Point Improvement Project), 2003 Series A, and the $4,360,000\nAlameda Public Financing Authority Taxable Variable Rate Demand Revenue Bonds\n(Alameda Point Improvement Project), 2003 Series B, and Approving Official Actions.\nAdjournment\nJoint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and Alameda\nPublic Financing Authority\nApril 15, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-04-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-04-15", "page": 3, "text": "66\nThere being no further business, Mayor/Chair Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 7:15\np.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger, City Clerk\nSecretary, APFA\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nJoint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and Alameda\nPublic Financing Authority\nApril 15, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-04-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-04-15", "page": 4, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -APRIL 15, 2014- -7:00 P.M.\nMayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 7:15 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Chen, Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Tam\nand Mayor Gilmore - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\nNone.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY & ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(14-131) Proclamation Declaring April 2014 as Mary Rudge Month.\nUrged moving forward with the Proclamation: Michael John Torrey, Alameda.\nMayor Gilmore read the proclamation and presented it to Mary's daughters Diana and\nRobin.\n(14-132) Proclamation Declaring April 26, 2014 as Earth Day in Alameda.\nMayor Gilmore read the proclamation and presented it to Anil Bhagat, South Shore\nCenter Property Manager.\n(14-133) Proclamation Declaring April 20 through 26, 2014 as Arbor Day in Alameda.\nMayor Gilmore read the proclamation and presented it to the Public Works\nSuperintendent.\n(14-134) Mayor Gilmore read a proclamation declaring May as Asian Pacific Heritage\nMonth and presented it to Benny Chin.\n(14-135) Presentation on Alameda Municipal Power (AMP) at Alameda Point - Current\nand Planned Infrastructure.\nThe AMP Operations and Engineering Assistant General Manager gave a Power Point\npresentation.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired the infrastructure cost of site A and B.\nThe AMP Operations and Engineering Assistant General Manager responded the\ninfrastructure would accommodate early development; infrastructure depends on\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nApril 15, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-04-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-04-15", "page": 5, "text": "projects; any development in Area A would involve a 60/40 cost split.\nIn response to Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry regarding the split, the AMP\nOperations and Engineering Assistant General Manager stated the larger amount is the\ndeveloper's share.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(14-136) Diane Foster, Harbor Bay Neighbors, submitted a letter and discussed the\nHarbor Bay Club.\n(14-137) Kathy Moehring, Alameda Education Foundation (AEF), invited everyone to\nattend an upcoming AEF event on April 26th\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor Gilmore announced that the plans and specifications for repair and resurfacing of\ncertain streets [paragraph no. 14-143] and the plans and specifications for Alameda\nlagoon dredging [paragraph no. 14-144 were removed from the Consent Calendar for\ndiscussion.\nCouncilmember Tam moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote\n- 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph\nnumber.]\n(*14-138) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings, and the Special\nJoint City Council and Successor Agency to the Community Improvement Commission\nHeld on March 18, 2014. Approved.\n(*14-139) Ratified bills in the amount of $1,759, 649.33.\n(*14-140) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Second Amendment to\nan Agreement with Russell Resources for Environmental Consulting Services for Alameda Point\nExtending the Term for 15 Months and Adding $183,500 to the Budget. Approved.\n(*14-141) Recommendation to Accept the Quarterly Report on Litigation and Liability\nClaims Settlements Paid During the Period January to March 2014. Accepted.\n(*14-142) Recommendation to Award a Fourth Amendment to Consultant Agreement in\nthe Amount of $37,277 to Schaaf and Wheeler for Engineering Design Services for the\nSewer Pump Station Renovations for Reliability and Safety, Phase 1, No. P.W. 12-10-\n33. Approved.\n(*14-143) Recommendation to Adopt Plans and Specifications and Authorize a Call for\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nApril 15, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-04-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-04-15", "page": 6, "text": "Bids for Repair and Resurfacing of Certain Streets, Phase 33, No. P.W. 02-14-04.\nThe Public Works Director gave a Power Point presentation.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated allowing Alameda streets to deteriorate at a faster rate\nthan the City can repair is unacceptable; that she would like staff to find ways to spend\nmore than what is currently being spent on street repair.\nThe Public Works Director provided an example of how long streets have gone without\nrepair; stated he agreed to repave a street not paved since 1961.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated infrastructure issues are growing; a plan should be\ndeveloped that recognizes there will be tradeoffs to reach the $5 million delta; Council\nhas to make tough decisions on behalf of the citizens, funds need to be put back into\npriorities.\nThe Public Works Director stated his department will be working closely with the City\nManager's office in the upcoming budget cycle to work through the issues.\nMayor Gilmore concurred with Councilmember Daysog; stated there are tough\ntradeoffs; getting the public to prioritize needs is difficult; Council relies on public input;\nthe City could not get the two-thirds vote to pass a measure since 50% of the public\nperceives that the roads are okay.\nThe Public Works Director stated as the condition of the streets goes down, the voice of\nthe public gets louder and repairs become more expensive.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with Mayor Gilmore about the public's perception;\nstated the deterioration does not stop; in addition to asking the public for tradeoffs, she\nencourages City staff to look for tradeoffs within City funds; as stewards of the City,\nCouncil relies on staff for information regarding the condition of City streets as well as\nfeedback from the public.\nThe Public Works Director stated that he considers street repair as a City asset; like a\nhome which is not maintained, roads will deteriorate and cost more to repair.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired if the City anticipates any potential increase in\nCountywide Measure B funds.\nThe Public Works Director responded the amount would depend on what passes and\ncompeting priorities.\nThe City Manager suggested bringing the issue back with more appropriate outreach;\nstated the discussion is straying into a Measure B discussion which is not on the\nagenda.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nApril 15, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-04-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-04-15", "page": 7, "text": "Mayor Gilmore stated that she would like a fuller discussion of the issue in another six\nto eight months; getting public input is very important.\nCouncilmember Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Chen seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(14-144) Recommendation to Adopt Plans and Specifications, Authorize a Call for Bids\nfor Alameda Lagoon Dredging, No. P. W. 11-13-26, and\n(14-144 A) Resolution No. 14911, \"Certifying the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration\nand Adopting Findings and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the\nAlameda Lagoon Dredging Project.\" Adopted.\nCouncilmember Tam recused herself and left the dais.\nThe Associate Civil Engineer gave a brief presentation.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired what constitutes the Alameda West Lagoon Home\nOwners Association (HOA).\nThe Associate Civil Engineer responded the HOA includes residents on the south side\nof all five lagoons, not including the Gold Coast.\nIn response to Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the Associate Civil Engineer stated\nthe HOA has agreed to pay 30% of the cost of dredging, but no more than $700,000.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if the assessment is yearly, to which the Associate\nCivil Engineer responded that she does not know how the HOA collects fees; stated the\nHOA has funds to cover the dredging and the rest is covered by Citywide urban runoff\nfees.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated 12,000 cubic feet of the dredge material will be used at\nInstallation Restoration Site 1 at Alameda Point.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the reason why Gold Coast residents are not part of the\nHOA is because of an agreement with Utah Construction; when the lagoons were\ninstalled, the resident's beach front property was taken away.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the staff recommendation and adoption of\nthe resolution.\nCouncilmember Daysog Seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n4. [Absent: Councilmember Tam - 1.]\n(*14-145) Resolution No. 14912, \"Adopting Safe Harbors Under the Patient Protection\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nApril 15, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-04-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-04-15", "page": 8, "text": "and Affordable Care Act.\" Adopted.\n(*14-146) Ordinance No. 3093, \"Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City Manager to\nExecute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a Lease with Navigator\nSystems for Seven Years with an Additional Five Year Option in Building 14 Located at\n1800 Ferry Point at Alameda Point.\" Finally passed.\n(*14-147) Ordinance No. 3094, \"Adding Section 30 5.17 to the Alameda Municipal Code\nto Provide Regulations Regarding Reasonable Accommodation in Compliance with the\nFederal Fair Housing Act, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, and\nCalifornia Housing Element Law; Action is Categorically Exempt pursuant to California\nEnvironmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15305, Minor Alterations in Land\nUse Limitations.\" Finally Passed.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(14-148) Summary: Adopt an Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by\nRevising the Webster Street Business Improvement Area (BIA) Boundaries and Setting\na new Surcharge for Large, Single Stand Alone Retail Stores within the BIA Boundaries\nand Determining that Adoption of the Ordinance is not a \"Project\" under California\nEnvironmental Quality Act (CEQA).\nIntroduction of Ordinance Amending Alameda Municipal Code Chapter VI, Sections 6-\n7.2(a), 6-7.2(b), and 6-7.5(j), and Adding Sections 6-7.5(a)6 and 6-7.5(e) to Revise the\nWebster Street Business Improvement Area (BIA) Boundaries and Setting a New BIA\nSurcharge Fee for Large, Single, Stand-Alone Retail Stores; Action is not a Project\nunder CEQA because it is Organizational or Administrative Activities of Government\nthat will not Result in Direct or Indirect Physical Changes to the Environment.\nIntroduced.\nCouncilmembers Chen and Daysog recused themselves and left the dais.\nThe Economic Development Manager gave a Power Point presentation.\nOutlined meetings that West Alameda Business Association (WABA) held with\nbusinesses which would be added to the district: Sandip Juala, West Alameda Business\nAssociation.\nUrged approval of the staff recommendation: Sean Whiskeman, Catellus.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated including all information in any correspondence is\nimportant to ensure clarity and transparency; commended Mr. Juala's volunteer time\nand efforts for WABA in addition to managing his business; stated that she supports the\nstaff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether Aquatech and Mariner Square Athletic Club\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nApril 15, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-04-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-04-15", "page": 9, "text": "(MSAC) will be participating more with WABA activities to be better informed.\nThe Economic Development Manager responded the two businesses are invited to all\nWABA events; the level of participation they would like to be involved in is their choice.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired if the two businesses were inspired by the conversations\nabout the value of participating in WABA events.\nThe Assistant City Manager responded the two businesses left the meeting fully aware\nof the program; staff suggested having events at their businesses, but they were not\nopen to the idea at this time.\nCouncilmember Tam moved introduction of the ordinance.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote\n- 3. [Absent: Councilmembers Chen and Daysog - 2.]\n(14-149) Recommendation to Approve the Webster Street Business Improvement Area\n(BIA) Annual Assessment Report;\n(14-149 A) Resolution No. 14913, \"Resolution of Intention to Levy an Annual\nAssessment on the Webster Street BIA of the City of Alameda for Fiscal Year 2014-15.\nAdopted;\n(14-149 B) Set a Public Hearing on June 17, 2014 to Levy an Annual Assessment on\nthe Webster Street BIA.\nCouncilmembers Chen and Daysog recused themselves and left the dais.\nThe Economic Development Manager gave a Power Point presentation.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the staff recommendation, and adoption of\nthe resolution.\nCouncilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 3.\n[Absent: Councilmembers Chen and Daysog - 2.]\n(14-150) Recommendation to Approve Outline for Request for Qualifications (RFQ) and\nForm of Exclusive Negotiation Agreement (ENA) for Two Development Sites at\nAlameda Point.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point gave a Power Point presentation.\nMayor Gilmore inquired when potential developers' financial capability would be\nexamined.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded staff would follow the RFQ for\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nApril 15, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-04-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-04-15", "page": 10, "text": "Lawrence Berkeley National Lab (LBNL) model; stated a consultant economist would\nreview potential developers' financials; there will be several stages, including a first cut\nto select which developer to interview; a more extensive, forensic evaluation process\nwould take place once a short list is established.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if the financial evaluation would take place during the\nRFQ process, to which the Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded in the\naffirmative.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if there will be a Request for Proposals (RFP)\nprocess, to which the Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded in the\nnegative; stated staff is not recommending an RFP process.\nIn response to Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the Chief Operating Officer -\nAlameda Point stated developers are being asked to submit a project description,\ninstead of detailed site plans or architectural renderings and drawings; a qualified\ndeveloper will have completed, actual successful projects comparable to Alameda Point\n; staff recommends entering into an ENA with the selected developer for an aggressive\nsix-month schedule which includes two potential milestones: a Disposition and\nDevelopment Agreement (DDA) and a Development Plan (Plan), which both require\nCouncil approval at the end of the six-month ENA period.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired what happens if the Council does not approve the\nDDA and Plan at the end of the ENA period.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded staff will make a\nrecommendation to the Council about how to proceed based on the experience of the\nsix months; stated the community will have an opportunity to go through an extensive\nprocess to review the detailed plan; the ENA period is essentially a test relationship with\na compact schedule to allow a decision to be made about whether or not to continue the\nrelationship; ultimately, there is no obligation for the Council to approve the DDA or\nPlan.\nMayor Gilmore stated based on previous experience, developers are completely\nunfamiliar with the property when they submit renderings; during the ENA process, the\ndeveloper realizes the expense for the projects depicted in the renderings is higher than\nanticipated and delivery falls short; the Council and the public end up feeling very\ndisappointed.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that she respectfully disagrees with Mayor Gilmore; the City\nalready has form based zoning and entitlements in place; without renderings, there is no\nunderstanding of how projects will look; the AMP Operations and Engineering Assistant\nGeneral Manager stated that he needs to know what buildings will be on Alameda Point\nbefore moving on to the next phase; renderings are an important reality check for the\nCouncil, staff and the community.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nApril 15, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-04-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-04-15", "page": 11, "text": "Mayor Gilmore stated the mistake Council has made in the past is choosing a developer\nbased on renderings, not financial capabilities.\nCouncilmember Tam referenced the Charles Company; stated the Council tried to\nevaluate the company's financial viability without renderings for six months.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she takes exception to disqualifying applicants for\nsubmitting drawings; the Council, staff, and selection panel should be able to assess\napplicants on more than renderings; there are safeguards in place; she is concerned\nwith the way the proposal is configured; that she would like a fuller picture of the project\nfrom the beginning.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he supports the RFQ approach; the project contours\nare specified, developers and land use planners can take ideas and elaborate to create\na more detailed plan during the ENA process.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point continued the presentation.\nThe City Manager clarified that staff is not suggesting the RFQ not include drawings;\nstated photos, drawings and plans of completed projects are welcome; staff would like\nto see photos of what the applicant has already done, not what they are proposing to\ndo.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated staff can infer, based on similar projects an applicant\nhas done in the past, what they are capable of doing for future projects.\nThe City Manager stated factors other than renderings need to be considered in the\nselection process.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with the City Manager; stated that she takes\nexception to the language in the RFQ which states an applicant will be disqualified from\nthe process if they submit renderings.\nThe City Manager stated that he insisted the language be included.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated it can be made clear that renderings will not determine\nthe selection.\nThe City Manager stated an RFQ becomes a public document after being submitted,\nwhich may expand the public's expectations.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Alameda has experience; the public should be given\nmore credit regarding realistic expectations.\nThe City Manager stated the issue is the renderings have little or no basis in economic\nreality; until a developer has site control during the ENA period; renderings are a\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nApril 15, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-04-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-04-15", "page": 12, "text": "distraction and poison the process.\nCouncilmember Tam stated Lawrence Berkeley National Labs (LBNL) is a good\nexample; the renderings did not poison the discussion or prevent the Council from\nascertaining the viability of the project.\nThe City Manager stated the LBNL project is a different case with a known end-user\nwith financial backing from the State, University of California, and Department of Energy\nwho knew the exact project specifications; the finance issue was off the table; the end-\nusers of the Alameda Point development are still unknown.\nMayor Gilmore concurred with the City Manager; stated the community was not\nweighing in on what the LBNL project would look like, moreso the community wanted\nLBNL to come to Alameda; the Alameda Point project has a mix of uses and tenants;\nLBNL was a specific end user.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like to give the public an opportunity to\npossibilities; requested that current photos and drawings be submitted to see if projects\nhave stood the test of time.\nCouncilmember Chen stated that he likes the aggressive, compact timeline and\nselection process involving community members; inquired whether the RFQ is a\nstandard industry procedure, to which the Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point\nresponded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Chen stated the required $150,000 down payment is low; inquired\nwhether the amount can be increased.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded the down payment can be\nincreased; stated the developers would have to pay planning fees in addition to the\ndown payment.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how staff determined the down payment amount and\nwhat would be planning fee costs.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded that increasing the down\npayment to $250,000 would be okay; the down payment is to defray staff time, legal\ncosts, and transaction costs; a $30,000 to $40,000 deposit for planning fees is required\nand could be replenished; staff wants investment in design.\nThe City Manager suggested increasing the deposit for Site A to $250,000; stated the\ndeveloper would have six months of control on a huge, single property which will be a\ngreat deal of cost; for Site B, the deposit amount should depend on the size of proposal.\nCouncilmember Chen inquired how the mixed-use areas of Site A will be divided.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nApril 15, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-04-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-04-15", "page": 13, "text": "The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded Site A is approximately 30 net\nacres; stated the average density would be 25 dwelling units per acre; as a comparison,\nBayport has 7 dwelling units per acre and Del Monte is proposed to have 27 dwelling\nunits per acre.\nIn response to Councilmember Chen's inquiry, the Chief Operating Officer - Alameda\nPoint stated single-family homes are prohibited on Site A; the Town Center would be\nused to concentrate housing near transit.\nThe City Manager stated the main issue is the Navy's constraint of 1425 units, 200 of\nwhich are already allocated to the Alameda Point Collaborative, leaving 1225 units; staff\nproposed only 800 units to have flexibility to deal with more difficult historic buildings\nwhere the only use that makes economic sense is residential rehabilitation.\nIn response to Councilmember Chen's inquiry, the City Manager stated the Planning\nBoard and Council approved a dense, transit-oriented development in Site A.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated 800 units is fine; Bayport has 590 units; the area\ntowards the main gate is better suited for lower density; 400 units in the lower density\narea leaves plenty of space.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated staff's determination of 800 units needs to be justified;\nthat she is concerned about giving a finite number to prospective developers; staff made\na significant decision and the item has not gone to the Planning Board; staff should\nproceed carefully and with transparency; that she would like input from the Planning\nBoard.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point clarified that the Town Center plan does\nnot have a unit count and is primary a form-based code; the Planning Board is not being\nasked to endorse a number of units; the Board is being asked to endorse the form, for\nexample, the building height requirements, the massing, and the street walls.\nThe City Manager addressed the Vice Mayor, stated he is confident she is not\ninsinuating staff is acting outside of transparency in the process.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated it was not her intention to offend the City Manager; that\nshe just wanted an explanation of how the 800 units in the RFQ was determined.\nThe City Manager inquired how many units are contemplated at the Bachelor Enlisted\nQuarters (BEQ) and Bachelor Officer's Quarters (BOQ).\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded 200 units have been assigned\nto the historic district for redevelopment of the BEQ and the BOQ, there are 200 existing\nunits and another 200 for the Main Street neighborhood.\nThe City Manager stated the impacts of the Main Street neighborhood and Town\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nApril 15, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-04-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-04-15", "page": 14, "text": "Center/Transit Village have been extensively discussed by the Planning Board and set\nforth in the EIR, the Zoning Plan, and the General Plan Amendments; there is no lack of\ntransparency, the 800 units is an attempt by staff to suggest a way to operate within\nconstraints, balance issues and maintain a modest, flexible, and financially sound\napproach to the redevelopment of the former Base.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether adding more housing units would be precluded in the\nfuture.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded there are many steps in the\nprocess; stated the Council has discretion, at numerous points during the process, to\naddress the number of units planned at the site.\nThe City Manager stated the order in which the 1,400 units are developed would\ndetermine who has to pay the Navy premium; the EIR may need to be amended, the\nissue is who will pay.\nMayor Gilmore stated the Navy premium is particularly important regarding historic\nstructures that are hard to rehabilitate even without the Navy premium; stated the\npremium should not be assigned to historic structures.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the 68 buildable acres in Site A include the\nplume, to which the Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded in the\naffirmative.\nIn response to Councilmember Tam's inquiry, the Chief Operating Officer - Alameda\nPoint stated the density is an average of 25 dwelling units per acre.\nCouncilmember Chen stated the 800 units in Site A is the ceiling; the high density\nhousing and commercial development would be a jump start; that he supports the\nprocess; commended staff.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he looks forward to seeing what consultants and\npartners would comprise a development team.\nThe City Manager stated the RFQ asks applicants to identify who they will be working\nwith; a team could be comprised of more than one developer group.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the RFQ contemplates how the developers\nwill attract retail shoppers to the retail outlet sites in Parcel B.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded developers would be asked to\nprovide information of their experience dealing with similar issues on past projects; staff\ncan be explicit by requiring a transportation strategy to the retail outlets.\nStated the RFQ makes planning decisions that have not been discussed; assumptions\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nApril 15, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-04-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-04-15", "page": 15, "text": "in the RFQ are not explained; 800 units were not discussed with AC Transit; that he is\nnot suggesting not going forward with the RFQ; Site A tells developers what they are\ngoing to deliver; suggested numbers be reviewed or more flexible: John Knox White,\nAlameda.\nStated that she is excited to see project more forward; the property is positioned to take\nadvantage of exciting market to attract a Class A developer; the project is focused on\ncommercial and housing is a component; 800 units is a good number; retail at Parcel B\nis an important component: Karen Bey, Alameda.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the Alameda Point project has many constraints,\nincluding environmental, traffic, and regulatory, which affect density; the project cannot\nreach the density needed to make a transit oriented development work.\nCouncilmember Chen stated that he is skeptical there will be any interest; suggested\ntesting the waters to see what happens.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Alameda Point has already attracted exciting tenants\nand interest; the stakes are higher; the assigned 800 unit number could be problematic\nbecause existing infrastructure is not being supported; the project is feasible with the\nright combination; more flexibility on the number of housing units is needed; that she\nprefers a floor of 800 units.\nCouncilmember Tam stated Alameda is competing with other cities; the market should\nbe allowed to inspire; the most flexibility should be given to the developer to help pencil\nout transit oriented infrastructure with the number of units needed to make the project\nwork; more constraints should not be added.\nCouncilmember Chen stated that he cannot support a floor of 800 units; he does not\nsee an issue with the density; the proposal is attractive enough already.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated going from 25 units per acre to 31 units per acre will not\nhave a significant impact on the transit oriented infrastructure; supports starting with 800\nunits; if a future developer wants to go beyond 800 units, it is on their dime.\nCouncilmember Tam stated every commercial development Alameda has been involved\nwith has required waivers and subsidies; inquired what is the level of commitment to a\ntransit oriented development.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the commitment is to build the best transit oriented\ndevelopment within all the constraints facing Alameda Point.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Alameda Point is going to develop over 25 to 30 years,\nat some point the ceiling of 1,425 is not going to be a problem; the first project should\ntake advantage of the interest in residential development and let the developer\ndemonstrate what has been done in other areas with higher density; that she does not\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nApril 15, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-04-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-04-15", "page": 16, "text": "want to give up on a transit oriented development.\n*\n(14-151) Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of considering the Akerman\ncontract [paragraph no. 14-152] after 10:30 p.m.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote:\nAyes: Councilmembers Chen, Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft and Mayor Gilmore - 1. Noes:\nCouncilmember Tam - 1.\n* *\nCouncilmember Chen left the dais at 10:00 p.m. and returned at 10:02 p.m.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Council has to have vision and is well positioned to\nmove forward; that she does not want to compromise; there is no harm in allowing\nflexibility.\nCouncilmember Tam left the dais at 10:50 p.m. and returned at 10:52 p.m.\nCouncilmember Chen stated the entire allotment of units should not be used in 30 acres\nof space; suggested assessing a $50,000 per unit premium for any units above 800.\nMayor Gilmore stated that she concurs with Councilmember Chen; the fees could be\nused to help the historic district; she is concerned that historic district structures will\nremain vacant while the rest of Alameda Point flourishes because the costs are so great\nto rehabilitate the historic buildings; Council made a promise to the community to focus\non jobs; the discussion has been on housing.\nCouncilmember Tam stated Council is focused on jobs and a viable job center;\nAlameda is competing with cities like San Francisco when discussing transit oriented\ndevelopment; Site A is an attractive site for a job center which would be subsidized by\nhousing; any job center requires sales tax breaks; potential future costs should be\nfactored in.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired what a developer would pay for infrastructure impact\nfees for 800 to 1000 units on Site A.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded $91 million for Site A,\nincluding estimates of site grading and demolition.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if the $91 million is for the entire Site A, to which the\nChief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded in the affirmative; stated the\namount includes $17 million in parks and open space.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether Site A would be $1.3 million per acre, to which\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nApril 15, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-04-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-04-15", "page": 17, "text": "the Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded in the affirmative; stated the\ndeveloper's fair share is actually $1 million per acre, excluding site grading and\ndemolition costs; the developer would actually be paying above their fair share with the\ninfrastructure package.\nIn response to Councilmember Tam's inquiry, the Chief Operating Officer - Alameda\nPoint stated about 55 acres of the full 68 acres can be developed; the total is $71 million\nfor infrastructure plus site grading cost, which is $16 million more than the developer's\nfair share.\nThe City Manager stated the value of the view has always been considered; an acre on\nthe seaplane lagoon is more valuable than an acre in the middle of the adaptive reuse\narea.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he wants to make sure Council and staff understand\nthe economics of the fee, which might make more units unfeasible.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point concurred with Councilmember Daysog;\nstated if the fee structure is not be feasible, the developer may not propose more units;\nexpressed concern about discussing feasibility questions which become property\nnegotiations; $91 million for Site A is a lot of money; the higher burdens are placed on\nresidential uses instead of commercial uses.\nCouncilmember Chen stated the Council has one chance to add the fees; the developer\ncan offset the cost with the total number of residential units they will build.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the community's main concern is traffic; jobs and housing\ncreate traffic; there has to be viable transit to deal with traffic issues; further stated if the\npenalty for going over 1,425 units is financially viable, it does not preclude the developer\nfrom going over.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated staff has been coordinating with AC\nTransit as part of the Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDM); with the project\ndescription in the EIR, AC Transit may be able to add a new transit line for Alameda\nPoint; the TDM also proposes having shuttles running to BART during peak hours; free\nEasy Passes paid by special taxes will also be provided to all employees and residents\nof Alameda Point.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated in addition to adding new lines, frequency of service\nshould also be considered; inquired whether a developer building 1,000 units on Site A\nwould still be viable.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded that she does not know; there\nare different factors that affect the viability which is part of the infrastructure burden;\nthere are negotiations to be had on land value.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nApril 15, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-04-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-04-15", "page": 18, "text": "Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the $50,000 per unit fee seems punitive.\nThe City Manager stated the fee is effective banking against a future penalty.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated remaining flexible is important; there is less concern\nwith the number of units at Site A as long as additional money will be assessed.\nMayor Gilmore stated the concern is not necessarily about the number of units, but the\nburden on future development; the historic structures would be the least able to carry\nthe $50,000 per unit penalty.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he is ready to move forward and wants to be clear\nthat building beyond the 1400 units is not within Council's scope.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of staff recommendation with the\nmodification that the RFQ will assign at least 800 units for Site A with the stipulation that\nany number units above 800 would include a $50,000 per unit fee; and RFQ submittals\nare not to include site plans or renderings at this stage.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion.\nCouncilmember Chen requested an amendment to the motion to amend the $150,000\ndeposit to $250,000.\nVice Chair Ezzy Ashcraft suggested $200,000 deposit as a compromise.\nCouncilmember Chen agreed to a $200,000 deposit.\nMayor Gilmore summarized the motion to approve the staff recommendation with the\namendments of a $200,000 deposit on Site A, a $50,000 premium on units over 800,\nand the stipulation that site plans and renderings are not to be submitted at this stage.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(14-152) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Enter into a Three-year\nContract with Akerman, LLP for Federal Legislative Services in the Amount of $7,500\nper Month, Not to Exceed $270,000, with an Option, Requiring Action of the City\nCouncil, to Renew After Two Years and Six Months.\nThe Assistant City Manager gave a Power Point presentation.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired a staff person is related to a former Oakland\nCouncilmember Dixon, to which the Assistant City Manager responded in the\naffirmative.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how wide are the six attorneys spread.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nApril 15, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-04-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-04-15", "page": 19, "text": "The Assistant City Manager responded the firm currently has 12 clients.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired what type of reporting can be expected.\nThe Assistant City Manager responded a monthly report would be provided; the firm\nbuilds plans geared toward obtaining funds instead of just informing the City about\navailable funds.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether the funds proposed for the Akerman contract are\nstructured differently than Senator Perata's contract.\nThe Assistant City Manager responded in the negative; stated the funds are structured\nthe same; there will be more lobbying in Sacramento at the State level instead of at the\nfederal level.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired what type of funding Akerman secured for the Port of\nOakland.\nThe Assistant City Manager responded in 2009, Akerman secured $30 million to\nimprove barge traffic and reduce air pollution at the Port; since 2003, Akerman secured\n$175 million for dredging projects working with US Army Corp of Engineers.\nCouncilmember Chen inquired how much the Port of Oakland paid Akerman per year,\nto which the Assistant City Manager responded that he did not ask the Port for that\ninformation.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\n(14-153) The City Manager introduced the new Economic Development Manager;\nannounced a workshop would be held next Tuesday to address parking in the business\ndistricts; commented on the fabulous public policy discussion tonight.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\nNone.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nApril 15, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-04-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-04-15", "page": 20, "text": "COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(14-154) Councilmember Tam announced the Alameda Police Officer's Association\nconducted a successful Easter Egg Hunt at Woodstock Child Development Center and\nwould hold one at the Midway Shelter next Tuesday.\nADJOURNMENT\n(14-155) There being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at\n11:21 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\nApril 15, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-04-15.pdf"}