{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-09-16", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY--SEPTEMBER - - 16, 2014- -7:00 P.M.\nMayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 7:22 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 AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(14-372) Presentation of Certificates of Appreciation to the Mayor's Fourth of July\nParade Committee Members.\nMayor Gilmore presented the certificates to Parade Committee members.\n(14-373) Proclamation Declaring the Month of September as Adult Literacy Awareness\nMonth.\nMayor Gilmore read and presented the proclamation to Sue Mark, Alameda Reads\nLiteracy Coordinator.\nCouncilmember Tam left the dias at 7:26 p.m. and returned at 7:28 p.m.\n(14-374) Proclamation Declaring September 20, 2014 as Coastal Cleanup Day.\nMayor Gilmore read and presented the proclamation to Doug Siden, East Bay Regional\nPark District Board Member.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(14-375) Laura Ramirez-Gonzales, Harbor Bay Neighbors, outlined the reasons she is\nopposed to the proposal to move the Harbor Bay Club.\n(14-376) Fred Pecker, Local 6; Jesus Munoz, Alameda County Industries (ACI) worker;\nWilliam Dow, Local 6 Pension Club; Salvador Hernandez, ACI worker; August Ramirez,\nLocal 6; Ruth Abbe, Sierra Club; expressed concern over some ACI workers not being\npaid a living wage and urged supporting the workers joining Local 6; urged Council to\ntake action.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 16, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-09-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-09-16", "page": 2, "text": "(14-377) Vicky Yoshimura, Alameda, expressed concern over speeding on Maitland\nDrive; urged traffic calming, including additional crosswalks and bikelanes.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor Gilmore announced that accepting the work of Fort Bragg [paragraph no. 14-383]\nwas withdrawn from the agenda.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.\nCouncilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by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(*14-378) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings Held on July 15,\n2014; and the Special Joint City Council and City of Alameda Financing Authority\nMeeting Held on July 29, 2014. Approved.\n(*14-379) Ratified bills in the amount of $6,124,432.42.\n(*14-380) Recommendation to Accept a Report on Proposed Changes to the Police\nDepartment's Draft Policy of the Use of Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs).\nAccepted.\n(*14-381) Recommendation to Award a Contract in the Amount of $360,000, to Ellis and\nEllis Sign Systems for Alameda Point Temporary Wayfinding Signage Program.\nAccepted.\n(*14-382) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute an Agreement\nwith CSG Consultants, Inc. for Professional Plan Review Services for the Term of 12\nMonths for a Not to Exceed Contract of $200,000. Accepted.\n(*14-383) Recommendation to Accept the Work of Fort Bragg Electric, Inc. for the\nGroup 1 - Sewer Pump Station Renovations for Reliability and Safety Improvements\nProject, No. P.W. 04-13-11. Not heard.\n(*14-384) Ordinance No. 3104, \"Levying Special Taxes within City of Alameda\nCommunity Facilities District No. 14-1 (Marina Cove II).\" Finally passed.\n(*14-385) Ordinance No. 3105, \"Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City Manager to\nExecute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a First Lease Amendment\nwith Walashek Industrial & Marine, Inc. for Twelve Months in Building 517 Located at\n150 West Trident at Alameda Point.\" Finally passed.\n(*14-386) Ordinance No. 3106, \"Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City Manager to\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 16, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-09-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-09-16", "page": 3, "text": "Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a Lease Amendment with\nPacific Fine Foods, Inc. for Eight Years in Building 42 Located at 2480 Monarch Street\nat Alameda Point.\" Finally passed.\n(*14-387) Ordinance No. 3107, \"Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City Manager to\nExecute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a Lease with Love\nFellowship Church of God in Christ for Eighteen Months in Building 564 Located at 190\nWest Trident Avenue at Alameda Point.\" Finally passed.\n(*14-388) Ordinance No. 3108, \"Approving the Second Amendment to the Lease and\nAuthorizing the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute Documents to Implement the\nTerms of a Second Lease Amendment with Kai Concepts LLC for Twelve Months in a\nPortion of Building 168 Located at 1651 Viking Street, Suite 300 at Alameda Point.\nFinally passed.\n(*14-389) Ordinance No. 3109, \"Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City Manager to\nExecute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a Second Lease\nAmendment with Delphi Productions, Inc. for Twelve Months in Building 117 Located at\n2251 Orion Street at Alameda Point.\" Finally passed.\n(*14-390) Ordinance No. 3110, \"Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City Manager to\nExecute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a Lease with Natel Energy,\nInc. for Three Years with an Additional Three Year Option in Building 400A Located at\n1090 West Tower Avenue at Alameda Point.\" Finally passed.\nNote: Staff provided the final, signed lease.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(14-391) Recommendation to Appoint Julia Park Tracey as Alameda's Poet Laureate.\nThe Library Director gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote\n- 5.\nMs. Park Tracey made brief comments and read a poem about the City: \"Home at the\nEdge of the World.\"\nMayor Gilmore presented a proclamation to Ms. Park Tracey.\n(14-392) Resolution No. 14968, \"Reappointing Michele Bellows as a Member of the\nTransportation Commission.\" Adopted;\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 16, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-09-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-09-16", "page": 4, "text": "Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5.\nThe City Clerk administered the Oath of Office and presented Certificates\nof\nAppointment to Ms. Bellows, Mr. Bertken and Mr. Vargas.\n(14-393) Recommendation to Approve Finalists for an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement\n(ENA) to Develop Site B at Alameda Point.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point gave a presentation.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the financial teams need to be reviewed; private equity\ninvestors might have certain expectations of return rates which could affect what the\nCity wants; during the vetting process, staff should assess whether the financial teams\nreally understand the project.\nMayor Gilmore who the City would be working with is known from the start if the\ndeveloper is self-funding.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated both sites have one developer that\nwould be self-funding and one that needs to seek outside capital; having choices is\ngood; the ENA does not allow transfers or assignments; the developers should have\nsufficient funds to fund the cost of the ENA period and have access to the capital to\nfund the project; during the ENA period, the City would be entering into agreement with\na developer and their investors as a team.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is excited to be moving forward and would like\nto focus on the corporate user; the project needs to attract high level jobs for employees\nto be able to support family and live in the Bay Area; Alameda should set high\nstandards and not settle; inquired what happens if the City does not feel any proposals\nare a fit for Alameda.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded the ENA is structured with no\nobligation to approve the Development Plan or the Disposition and Development\nAgreement (DDA); stated staff would work toward a mutually agreeable solution, but the\nCouncil has the ultimate decision to approve or not to approve a proposal.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 16, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-09-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-09-16", "page": 5, "text": "Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how the proposal would be vetted to the public.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded the public process is the\nDevelopment Plan review; the plan has to be consistent with all the documents put\nforward the last 24 months; the Plan is the next level of detail to implement the Town\nCenter Plan and zoning, which is a Planning Board driven process; a subcommittee of\nthe Planning Board would be established to work with staff; there will be a community\noutreach process to engage the major stakeholders on all entitlement processes and\nengage the public to understand what is being proposed for the project; the City\nManager can grant an extension beyond six months.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether Councilmembers could be a part of the\nPlanning Board subcommittee.\nThe City Attorney responded in the negative; stated the Council is a higher body over\nthe Planning Board; the Planning Board should not have fettering from the Council while\nundertaking its duties and obligations; the Planning Board has Charter and Code-\ndirected authority; the Council receives recommendations from the Planning Board and\ntakes actions after the work has been done; the Council will not be unaware of what is\ngoing on.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he does not want the Planning Board to accuse\nCouncil of not being involved in the planning; inquired whether there are ways to\nprovide guidance to the Planning Board in setting policy.\nThe City Attorney responded the Council has already had the opportunity to provide\npolicy direction.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point concurred with the City Attorney; stated\nCouncil created a strict envelope; the Development Plan is the next level, which has to\nbe consistent with the envelope; Council could approve the business transaction and\nhave the final word.\nCouncilmember Tam stated lessons from history help guide the process; Council will\nhave specific knowledge that the Planning Board will not have, such as finances which\nmay drive design; the project must have a net benefit for all of Alameda; regarding fiscal\nneutrality, proceeds have to stay at Alameda Point.\nCouncilmember Chen inquired what staff was referring to when stating the CIM Group\nwithdrew due to the uncertainty of the market.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded the CIM Group based their\ndecision on the current market in Alameda and withdrew because they did not feel\nAlameda was strong enough to support an investment decision; the Request for\nProposals (RFQ) process was done to test the market; the housing market is very\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 16, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-09-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-09-16", "page": 6, "text": "strong and there were more residential than commercial responses; housing is a little\nmore definitive in terms of the market demand; San Francisco has a higher commercial\ndemand; Harbor Bay has more job intensive uses.\nCouncilmember Chen inquired whether the potential developers would parcel off 82\nacres into sub groups.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded both developers are proposing\na master developer approach to development.\nCouncilmember Chen stated receiving only three qualified submissions through the\nRFQ is disappointing.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated staff would not have to come to\nCouncil if the developers were not qualified; staff did not feel pressured to go forward\njust to provide Council with a recommendation.\nThe City Manager stated different values have been articulated by each\nCouncilmember; the most important issue for staff is fiscal neutrality; if the goal is to\ndevelop Alameda Point as quickly as possible, the market could fund that right now;\nSite B being purely residential does not serve Alameda's needs and does not solve\nrevenue generation over time; there has to be a balance; if a quality proposal is not\navailable, the City would be better served by not developing Alameda Point than doing it\nwrong.\nIn response to Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry regarding land banking, the Chief\nOperating Officer - Alameda Point stated the term sheet will require a phasing and\nmilestone schedule in the DDA; the term sheet will be attached to the ENA indicating\nthat the City does not want the developer to land bank.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested a definition of land banking.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated land banking is when a developer\ninvests in the land, but holds the land without developing it; having a developer hold\nland for a public entity does not make financial sense, as the City could hold the land for\nno cost.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the two finalists have a good track record; inquired\nwhether it is possible that both developers would end up working on Site B, to which the\nChief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded it is too early to tell.\nThe City Manager noted having both developers at Site B is a possible outcome, but not\nprobable.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 16, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-09-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-09-16", "page": 7, "text": "Councilmember Daysog stated having one developer drop out is their issue; having an\nindustrial commercial market is not Alameda's vision; instead, Alameda's process has\nyielded two prospects that will fulfill the City's expectation.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point concurred with Councilmember Daysog;\nstated the developers are familiar with infrastructure development and know what they\nare getting into; the developers have worked on similar difficult infrastructure projects\nand are going in with eyes open; introduced the developers.\nSteve Buster, Catellus and Seth Hamalian, Mission Bay Development Group made brief\ncomments.\nDiscussed how employee wages differ at different hotel; encouraged a card check\nneutrality or labor peace agreement: Ty Hudson, Local 2850.\nMayor Gilmore stated when the RFQ was issued, it was made known to all the\ndevelopers that they would be subject to a project stabilization agreement.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether Mayor Gilmore is suggesting project neutrality\nlanguage be included in a potential future DDA or ENA.\nMayor Gilmore responded that she does not know whether project neutrality language\ncould be included, but that Council should make expectations loud and clear.\nThe City Attorney stated staff send out a policy message moving forward.\nCouncilmember Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Chen seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n***\nMayor Gilmore called a recess at 9:03 p.m. and recomvened the meeting at 9:10 p.m.\n***\n(14-394) Recommendation to Establish a Housing Costs and Rents Task Force to\nProvide Information on the State of Housing and Rental Pricing in Alameda and Prepare\na Final Report for City Council Consideration.\nThe Community Development Director gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that she received emails indicating people seem to think\nthe formation of a task force would lead the City to rent control or rent stabilization; a\ntask force would be formed for fact finding only, not for mediation; that she hopes the\ncommunity member can help describe what he has done and what are the expected\noutcomes from stakeholders.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 16, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-09-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-09-16", "page": 8, "text": "Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired what staff means by stating there would not be a\nrecommendation unless consensus is reached on preferred outcome.\nThe Community Development Director responded the language was proposed by the\nPlanning Board with the intent that the task force would work to achieve consensus for\nany recommendations; staff tried to adhere to the Planning Board proposal.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Aschraft stated the Council has a lot of communication from Alameda\ncitizens; the proposed seven task force members are from different bodies or groups;\ninquired whether the groups were also recommended by the Planning Board.\nThe Community Development Director responded the Planning Board wanted\nstakeholders included, staff created the best stakeholder list; the groups agreed to\nparticipate on task force.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the issues of considering the state of the residential\nmarket in Alameda should include the risk of closure and mass evictions.\nIn response to Councilmember Chen's inquiry regarding staff adhering to Planning\nBoard recommendation, the Community Development Director stated the Planning\nBoard made a recommendation to the Council; when Council charged staff with\ncreating a task force, staff looked to the language that the Planning Board\nrecommended to the City Council.\nMayor Gilmore stated Council received a lot of comments which centered around the\ncomposition and necessity of a task force; people assumed defacto there would be rent\ncontrol; the scope of the issues are not known; rising rents is a big issue; creating a task\nforce is a way to start the discussion that the community wants; there is no\npredetermined outcome.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the task force is one alternative; letters received from\nproperty management and tenant groups indicate they have been meeting externally to\ndiscuss the same issues; that she would like to understand the efforts going on outside\nof Council discussion; inquired what the discussions have been like, who is involved,\nthe scope, and the expected outcome, and whether the meetings are more inclusive\nand allow free flowing discussion, rather than a structured and constrained task force.\nJeff Cambra responded that he provided a report to Councilmember Chen regarding the\noutside efforts; stated that he suggests having a community discussion model; the\ndiscussion would not be a mediation, although mediation techniques can be used at an\nimpasse; parties are already in agreement on concepts; the issue is complex and there\nis not one solution.\nMayor Gilmore inquired how long the process would take before being brought back to\nCouncil.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 16, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-09-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-09-16", "page": 9, "text": "Mr. Cambra responded whether there is chance for success would be known after two\nmeetings; stated the measure would not be the number of people, but the dynamic\nbetween the stakeholders at the first meeting.\nMayor Gilmore stated that she is concerned people will discuss events that are more\negregious, which does not help Council understand if the experiences being discussed\nrepresent a widespread issue or are just a few bad apples.\nMr. Cambra stated the discussions will be qualitative and not quantitative; the questions\nwould not be how many landlords are increasing rents by 25%, but if there are rents\nbeing increased by 25%.\nMayor Gilmore stated that she would want the answer to both questions; inquired\nwhether the questions in the staff report may not be answered by the process.\nMr. Cambra responded if he receives Council direction to answer the questions, he\nwould inform the stakeholders to answer the questions within their scope of ability to do\nso.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired what was the resolution of discussions regarding the\nhistoric Alameda High School.\nMr. Cambra responded the stakeholders requested information regarding the square\nfootage needs the School District foresaw over the next five to 10 years and a detailed\nreport on the cost to renovate 16 other school sites; an initial report indicated 17 school\nsites required over $94 million worth of work to bring them up to standard.\nIn response to Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, Mr. Cambra stated the historic\nAlameda High School renovation was part of a larger problem the stakeholders were\nnot tasked to do; the group was not able to get information from the jurisdiction.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is concerned taking the matter out of City staff\nhands would take the process longer and be repetitive; questions would have to be\nanswered in another forum; the City should not be deferring possible solutions for too\nlong; suggested the East Bay Housing Organizations (EBHO) could bring a regional\nperspective to the table if included as one of the stakeholders; she envisioned a task\nforce similar to the Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) task force, which was a\nvery diverse group of stakeholders; after several meetings, the OPEB task force came\nup with a number of items to vote on; although the OPEB task force never reached\nconsensus, the votes on the proposed solutions were helpful to the Council when\ntackling OPEB issues; the stakeholders configuration in the community group seems\nmore heavily weighted toward landlords; that she favors keeping the matter in City\nhands and moving toward concrete solutions.\nMr. Cambra stated that he hopes the group would be able to reach consensus during\nprioritization and finding solutions; if there is no consensus, every voice would still be\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 16, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-09-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-09-16", "page": 10, "text": "heard; Renewed Hope is the only organized group and expects to get a more diverse\ngroup of tenants.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the proposed task force seems to be equally\nrepresentative of the community; the Rent Review Advisory Committee (RRAC) and the\nSocial Services Human Relations Board (SSHRB) understand individuals facing a\nhousing related crisis; that he would like to see a well-balanced task force and a\nworkable framework for collecting information.\nCouncilmember Chen stated that he is concerned members would be arbitrarily\nappointed to the task force; lots of people are not being represented; suggested\nallowing the public decide who they want to represent the community and stakeholders\nin a task force; the task force is a sensitive issue that should not be rushed.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how the representatives would be decided, to which\nCouncilmember Chen responded Mr. Cambra would have meetings to determine the\ncomposition of the task force.\nMr. Cambra noted realtors have a desire to participate in the process.\nCouncilmember Chen stated the task force seems structured and might be intimidating\nwith three city-appointed board members.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that she is concerned three stakeholders, the Chamber of\nCommerce, the Association of Realtors, and the East Bay Rental Housing Association,\nhave already decided everything is fine and no changes are needed; inquired whether\nthe process would differently answer the questions regarding changes to the RRAC and\nthe Municipal Code.\nMr. Cambra responded it is impossible to answer the questions until there is an\nunderstanding of what the problems are; stated both tenants and landlords understand\nthere are deficiencies in the mechanism; the stakeholders would decide how issues\nwould be addressed after finding about successes and failures.\nCouncilmember Tam stated it is not clear how a community-based process could come\nup with changes in the law.\nMr. Cambra stated if the stakeholder suggestions could be translated into law, in the\nfuture, rental disputes would not have to come before Council.\nIn response to Mayor Gilmore's inquiry, Mr. Cambra stated the questions from the staff\nreport were not originally incorporated in the process, but he would take the questions\nto the stakeholder group and try to get answers for the Council.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he understands the desire to broaden the\ndiscussion to include other voices, but there is danger of empowering Mr. Cambra to\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 16, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-09-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-09-16", "page": 11, "text": "move forward which sends a mixed message about the legitimacy of the task force; a\ntask force including members of legislative bodies appointed by Council provides\nlegitimacy; he could live with broadening the task force.\nCouncilmember Chen stated the Council is not asking the task force to set policy, but to\nidentify issues and bring it back to Council to set policy.\nMr. Cambra stated people have difficulty having a conversation in a task force\nenvironment; when people are affected and are directly involved in a process, the full\nburden of the solution falls on them and they are more committed; the resolution would\nbe more binding than a potential resolution that comes from a task force.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the task force would take testimony as to the\nappropriate measures, not tell people.\nExpressed concern over the rental market not being regulated; urged the City to act:\nDavid Rannefeld, Alameda.\n***\nMayor Gilmore called a recess at 10:14 p.m. and reconvened at 10:20 p.m.\n(14-395) Mayor Gilmore announced that the Watertight Restoration lease [paragraph\nno. 14-397], the Steeltown Winery lease [paragraph no. 14-398 and the Public Hearing\nwould be moved to October 7, 2014.\nCouncilmember Chen moved approval of considering Joint Use Agreement [paragraph\nno. 14-400 and the Ordinance Amending Chapter 30 [paragraph no. 14-401 after\n10:30 p.m.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote:\nAyes: Councilmembers Chen, Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft and Mayor Gilmore - 4. No:\nCouncilmember Tam - 1.\nExpressed concern over rent control: Farhad Matin.\nExpressed support for the community discussion: Ryan Hunt, Alameda.\nExpressed support for the community discussion: Laura Thomas, Renewed Hope\nHousing Advocates.\nExpressed concern over the composition of the task force; stated the broader problem\nis renters' representation: Bill Smith, Renewed Hope.\nSubmitted information and discussed increasing rents and unknown investors\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 16, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-09-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-09-16", "page": 12, "text": "purchasing rental properties: Kathryn Hopping, Alameda.\nUrged action be taken to ensure people do not lose housing and urged tenants to\norganize: Rasheed Shabazz, Alameda.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft thanked all speakers; stated that she favors going forward\nwith the staff proposal with some modifications; City staff brings local laws and\nregulations and should be on the task force; Mr. Cambra's process would just prolong\nthe process; suggested including EBHO on the task force.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated if the task force opens to eight members, the eighth\ncould be a non-voting member.\nCouncilmember Chen stated that he understands the urgency to take action; if a task\nforce is approved, the process would take too long; the community can work faster; for\nthe process to move expeditiously, it has to be outside of government constraint.\nCouncilmember Tam stated she would like to give the alternative process an\nopportunity to respond and get meaningful information before composing a task force.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated a task force takes staff time, but dealing with the\nlivelihood of landlords and tenants is a very important issue; there are not mutually\nexclusive propositions and staff time should not be skimped, as staff brings lots of\ninstitutional knowledge; that she is puzzled by Councilmember Chen's comments that\nthe process would be faster without a task force.\nCouncilmember Chen clarified his comment that the community would be faster than\nCouncil rushing to compose a seven-member task force; urged moving forward on the\nmatter now; Mr. Cambra has been working on the alternative process for months.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he is encouraged by members of community\nfocusing on solutions; suggested involving EBHO as an eighth non-voting member on\nsubstantive issues; stated members should not be removed, just add an eighth\nmember.\nCouncilmember Chen inquired whether staff would have time tomorrow to redo the\ncomposition of task force; and whether staff has the same sense of urgency as the\ncommunity.\nThe City Manager responded staff did its best to create a balanced group; the Chamber\nof Commerce as pro-landlord, the Planning Board members incepted the process, the\nSSHRB as pro-tenant, Renewed Hope to represent tenants, and EBHO to represent\nlandlords; in comparison and as demonstrated by the OPEB task force, there was no\nbenefit to stacking the deck; the OPEB task force was data-driven and did not come\nback with a consensus; staff do not object to Council choosing the community process;\na community process can scope but there will still be the need for staff to prepare data.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 16, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-09-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-09-16", "page": 13, "text": "***\n(14-396) Councilmember Daysog moved approval of continuing past 11:00 p.m.\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.\n***\nMayor Gilmore stated that she is not a proponent of the community process, which\nwould not give her the data needed to make a decision; a community process would be\na slower process as there may have to be another process to get data; no process that\nthe City sets up will work unless people believe the group represents their issues; if\nRenewed Hope is having difficulty finding tenant representatives, it would be hard for\nthe City to find staff to find tenant representatives; that she has doubts the community\nprocess will play out, but thinks Council should give the community group a shot; she\nwill vote in favor of the community process.\nCouncilmember Chen stated both groups want the same result; the community could\nprovide the fastest and most accurate data.\nCouncilmember Tam moved approval of having a community group facilitated by Mr.\nCambra to scope out the process and provide the framework or hard core data that\nneeds to be gathered through some effort with the City; at that point, if a task force is\nnecessary, a city-formed appointed task force could be revisited.\nCouncilmember Tam stated there needs to be clear data to get policy changes; that she\nis not confident the community discussion would produce the data which may need to\nbe handled by staff; the community discussion is needed to help the data-gathering\neffort; a lot of the data would be anecdotal; the community group may not have access\nto needed resources.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether the matter would come back to Council, to which\nCouncilmember Tam responded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Council would task the community group\nwith obtaining statistical data, to which Councilmember Tam responded in the negative;\nstated Council would be tasking the group to scope out data.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the motion does away with a proposed task\nforce, even if it is augmented by EBHO.\nCouncilmember Tam responded the need for a task force would be revisited following\nthe community discussion; if people are not in agreement about the composition of their\ngroup, it is harder for them to come to agreement over tougher issues; it may come\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 16, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-09-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-09-16", "page": 14, "text": "back to the Council based on the group's scoping analysis that a task force needs to be\nformed; Council can then continue the debate over the composition of the task force.\nCouncilmember Chen stated the community group is the same as the task force with\nthe help of staff.\nThe City Manager stated a community process cannot direct staff.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether a community group would answer the\ncorrect questions.\nThe City Manager responded if the questions are not data-based, the community group\ncould answer; data-based questions need to be brought to Council; the City would not\nstaff or run the community process; the Council would dictate policy answers.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he does not support the community forum; the task\nforce is a legitimate entity that would follow guidelines and have experience in core\nsubstantive issues; the community group is too vague.\nMayor Gilmore stated if the composition of the task force could be decided, the task\nforce could be formed and there would not be a need for a community group.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated consensus on the membership is close; the task force\nis a thoughtful recommendation and could be modeled after the City Manager's OPEB\ntask force.\nCouncilmember Chen stated the roles of the community group and task force are the\nsame, only the composition is different; both would have to come back to the Council at\nwhich time the Council can make the policy.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the motion is to give the community forum an opportunity to\nrespond to questions identified in the staff report regarding the residential and rental\nmarket in Alameda and return information to Council.\nCouncilmember Chen seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the list of stakeholders identified in\nMr. Cambra's report seems to be a the task force.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the list is a stakeholders group, not a task force.\nMayor Gilmore stated the difference between the community group and staff's proposal\nis that there are additional, not yet identified stakeholders; the staff proposal clearly\nidentifies the composition of the proposed task force.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 16, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-09-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-09-16", "page": 15, "text": "Councilmember Daysog stated the staff recommendation is clearer and would reach\nresults faster; the community process is improvised and not clear.\nMayor Gilmore concurred with Councilmember Daysog; stated that she is troubled that\ntenant groups have difficulty reaching out to tenant community.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired what it is about the community process that will\nsomehow identify more tenants.\nCouncilmember Tam responded a community group would be viewed by potential\ntenant groups as a safer environment than a formal City entity.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is concerned the community process would\ntake longer.\nCouncilmember Tam stated a time limit before end of the year could be assigned.\nMayor Gilmore stated the matter would have to come to Council no later than the first\nmeeting in December.\nThe City Manager stated the deadline to have the item on the December 2nd agenda\nwould be twelve days prior to the meeting date.\nThe City Clerk noted the deadline date is November 20th.\nMr. Cambra stated he would need to have at least one meeting for the group to come\nup with productive recommendations.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether there were legal issues to be concerned\nabout regarding a community group.\nThe City Attorney responded the community group would be organic and not sanctioned\nby the City; there would be no City involvement.\nCouncilmember Tam stated she has no objection to putting a timeline on having the\ncommunity group come back to Council at its December 2nd meeting.\nCouncilmember Chen seconded the motion.\nThe City Clerk read the motion as: Councilmember Tam moved giving a community\nforum opportunity to respond to questions identified in the staff report and return\ninformation to Council by December 2.\nOn the call for the carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Chen and\nTam and Mayor Gilmore - 3. Councilmembers Noes: Councilmembers Daysog and\nEzzy Ashcraft - 2.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 16, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-09-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-09-16", "page": 16, "text": "(14-397) Introduction of Ordinance Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City\nManager to Negotiate and Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a\nLease with Watertight Restoration, Inc. for Three Years in a Portion of Building 43\nLocated at 2440 Monarch Street, Suite 200 at Alameda Point. Continued to October 7,\n2014.\n(14-398) Introduction of Ordinance Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City\nManager to Negotiate and Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a\nLease with Steeltown Winery LLC for Ten Years with Two Additional Five-Year Options\nin a Portion of Building 43, Located at 2440 Monarch Street, Suite 100 at Alameda\nPoint. Continued to October 7, 2014.\n(14-399) Public Hearing to Consider Amendments to the Fiscal Years 2008-2014\nCommunity Development Block Grant Action Plans, and Authorize the City Manager to\nNegotiate and Execute Related Documents, Agreements, and Modifications. Continued\nto October 7, 2014.\n(14-400) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Enter into a Joint Use\nAgreement with Alameda Unified School District for the Operation and Maintenance of\nthe District Swimming Pools until February 28, 2015.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5.\n(14-401) Introduction of Ordinance Amending Chapter 30 of the Alameda Municipal\nCode regarding Commercial Recreational Uses, Arcades, Ground Floor Office Uses,\nand the Definition of Family. This Action is Categorically Exempt pursuant to California\nEnvironmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15305, Minor Alterations in Land\nUse Limitations. Introduced.\nThe Community Development Director gave a brief presentation.\nStated the Park Street Business Association (PSBA) agrees with the amendments:\nRobb Ratto, PSBA.\nStated the Chamber of Commerce supports the staff recommendation: Michael\nMcDonough, Chamber of Commerce.\nStated the Pinball Museum supports the recommendation: Michael Schiess, Pinball\nMuseum.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 16, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-09-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-09-16", "page": 17, "text": "Stated that he supports the staff recommendation: Jim Strehlow, Alameda.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved introduction of the ordinance.\nCouncilmember Chen seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\n(14-402) The City Manager announced Alameda Point development team candidates\nwill hold a meet and greet on September 29th\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\nNone.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(14-403) Councilmember Tam announced that she attended the League of California\nCities Annual Conference on September 3rd to 5th; labor negotiations and pension costs\nwere discussed; she voted, on behalf of the City, that a summit be convened to deal\nwith environmental impacts for marijuana grows in the north coast area.\n(14-404) Councilmember Gilmore announced that she attended an awards ceremony\nfor Alameda Municipal Power's power box art.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 11:49 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\nSeptember 16, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-09-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-09-16", "page": 18, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND\nPUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD MEETING\nTUESDAY--SEPTEMBER 16, 2014- -6:00 P.M.\nMayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 6:05 p.m.\nRoll Call - Present:\nCouncilmembers Chen, Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Tam and\nMayor Gilmore; and Board Members Hamm, McCormick,\nRusso, and President Deaton - 9.\nNote: Councilmember Tam left the meeting at 7:42 p.m.\nAbsent:\nBoard Member Sutter - 1.\nThe meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(14-368) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (54956.9); Case Name:\nVectren Communications Services V. City of Alameda; U.S. District Court, Northern\nDistrict of California; Case No. 08-03137-SI\n(14-369) 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(14-370) 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)\nFollowing the Closed Session the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Gilmore\nannounced that regarding all items, 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\nSeptember 16, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-09-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-09-16", "page": 19, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL\nAND SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE COMMUNITY\nIMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (SACIC) MEETING\nTUESDAY- -SEPTEMBER - 16, 2014- -7:01 P.M.\nMayor/Chair Gilmore convened the meeting at 7:12 p.m. Boy Scout Troop 1015 led the\nPledge of Allegiance.\nRoll Call -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers/Agency Members Chen, Daysog,\nEzzy Ashcraft, Tam and Mayor/Chair Gilmore - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nOral Communications\nNone.\nConsent Calendar\nAgency Member Tam moved approval of the consent calendar.\nAgency Member 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(*14-009 SACIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and Successor Agency to\nthe Community Improvement Commission Meetings Held on March 18, 2014 and June\n3, 2014. Approved.\nAgenda Item\n(14-371 CC/14-010 SACIC) SUMMARY: Approval of Actions to Refund Certain\nOutstanding Bonds of the Former Community Improvement Commission of the City of\nAlameda.\n(14-010 A SACIC) Resolution No. 14-1, \"Approving the Issuance of Refunding Bonds in\nOrder to Refund Certain Outstanding Bonds of the Former Community Improvement\nCommission of the City of Alameda, Approving the Execution and Delivery of an\nIndenture of Trust, Escrow Agreements and a Bond Purchase Agreement Relating\nThereto, Requesting Oversight Board Approval of the Issuance of the Refunding Bonds,\nRequesting Certain Determinations by the Oversight Board, and Providing for Other\nMatters Properly Relating Thereto.\" Adopted; and\n(14-371 A CC) Resolution No. 14967, \"Approving Continuing Disclosure Procedures.\"\nAdopted.\nJoint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and Successor Agency\nto the Community Improvement Commission\nSeptember 16, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-09-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-09-16", "page": 20, "text": "The Interim Finance Director gave a brief presentation.\nIn response to Vice Mayor/Agency Member Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the Interim Finance\nDirector stated bond insurance used to be quite common, but is not as common since\nthe recession; only two agencies sell bond insurance; closer to the time of the sale, staff\nand the team will review whether there are any advantages and determine whether\npurchasing insurance would produce better pricing and more savings.\nVice Mayor/Agency Member Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether bond insurance\nguarantees the rate, to which the Interim Finance Director responded the insurance\nguarantees the bond holders would be paid if the City defaults.\nVice Mayor/Agency Member Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the General Fund savings\ncould be applied to the Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB) trust fund.\nThe Interim Finance Director responded the Council could make a policy decision to do\nso; staff is not making any recommendations at this time; the matter could be addressed\nas part of the budget.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the bonds were issued when two redevelopment areas\ncombined in 2003; joining the areas provided funds for the movie theater; one area had\nreached the end of its life; that he supported the issuance in 2003 and would support\nthe staff recommendation tonight.\nCouncilmember/Agency Member Daysog moved adoption of the resolutions.\nVice Mayor/Agency Member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor/Chair Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 7:21\np.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger, City Clerk\nSecretary, SACIC\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nJoint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and Successor Agency\nto the Community Improvement Commission\nSeptember 16, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-09-16.pdf"}