{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-11-18", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- -NOVEMBER 18, 2014- -6:00 P.M.\nMayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 6:03 p.m.\nRoll Call - Present:\nCouncilmembers Chen, Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Tam and\nMayor Gilmore - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nThe meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(14-457) Conference with Real Property Negotiators (54956.8); Property: Site A,\nAlameda Point; City Negotiators: John Russo, City Manager and Jennifer Ott, Chief\nOperating Officer - Alameda Point; Organizations Represented: Alameda Point Partners\nand Brookfield Homes; Issue Under Negotiation: Real Property Negotiations Price and\nTerms of Payment. Not heard.\n(14-458) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (54956.9); Case Name:\nNew Cingular V. City of Alameda, et al.; Superior Court of California, County of Los\nAngeles Case No. BC 462270\n(14-459) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Significant exposure to\nlitigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9; Number of cases: One (As\nDefendant - City Exposure to Legal Action)\nFollowing the Closed Session the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Gilmore\nannounced that regarding Existing Litigation, the Council gave direction to staff; and\nregarding Anticipated Litigation, the Council authorized the City Manager to execute a\nSettlement Agreement with Alameda United Commercial (\"AUC\") to avoid litigation of\ncertain disagreements that have arisen between the City and AUC regarding the\nExclusive Negotiation Agreement (ENA) for the proposed Taxiway Project at Alameda\nPoint; the key terms of the settlement are: the ENA for the proposed Taxiway Project\nwill terminate immediately and in exchange the City will refund AUC's deposit.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 6:52 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\nNovember 18, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-11-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-11-18", "page": 2, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL\nAND SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE COMMUNITY\nIMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (SACIC) MEETING\nTUESDAY- -NOVEMBER 18, 2014- -6:59 P.M.\nMayor/Chair Gilmore convened the meeting at 7:08 p.m. Councilmember/Agency\nMember Daysog led the Pledge 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\nVice Mayor/Agency Member Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the consent calendar.\nCouncilmember/Agency 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(14-460 CC/14-015 SACIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and SACIC\nMeeting Held on October 21, 2014. Approved.\n(14-016 SACIC) Recommendation to Accept the Fourth Quarter Financial Report for the\nPeriod Ending June 30, 2014. Accepted.\n(14-017 SACIC) Resolution No. 14-2, \"Approving the Form and Authorizing Distribution\nof a Preliminary Official Statement in Connection with the Offering and Sale of Tax\nAllocation Bonds to Refund Outstanding Bonds of the Former Community Improvement\nCommission of the City of Alameda and Approving Related Documents and Actions.\"\nAdopted.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor/Chair Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 7:09\np.m.\nJoint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and Successor Agency to\nthe Community Improvement Commission\nNovember 18, 2014\n1", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-11-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-11-18", "page": 3, "text": "Respectfully 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 to\nthe Community Improvement Commission\nNovember 18, 2014\n2", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-11-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-11-18", "page": 4, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY--NOVEMBER - 18, 2014- -7:00 P.M.\nMayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 7:10 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(14-461) The City Manager introduced the new Housing Authority Executive Director.\nThe Housing Authority Executive Director made brief comments.\n(14-462) Presentation by Alameda County Concerning Construction on the High Street\nand Park Street Bridges.\nJames Chu, Alameda County, gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether the 8:30 p.m. bridge closures would impact\nmovie theater and restaurant traffic.\nMr. Chu responded the contractors work an eight-hour shift from 8:30 p.m. to 5:30 a.m.\nin order to reopen the bridge before the morning commute.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the work shift is Monday through Friday,\nwhich would avoid weekend traffic impacts.\nMr. Chu responded he would need to confirm that the work shift would either be Sunday\nthrough Thursday, or Monday through Friday.\nIn response to Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, Mr. Chu stated construction work\nwould start in 2015.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the eight week deck repair and three week\nvehicle restraint barrier construction on Park Street would be done concurrently, to\nwhich Mr. Chu responded in the negative.\nIn response to Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, Mr. Chu stated AC Transit will be\nnotified when the construction schedule is finalized by the contractor.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nNovember 18, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-11-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-11-18", "page": 5, "text": "Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the eight week construction on Park Street\nBridge would be consecutive, to which Mr. Chu responded in the affirmative.\nIn response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry, Mr. Chu stated there will be a two\nweek notice advising motorists of date of bridge work; he has been in contact with the\nPark Street Business Association (PSBA) Director and will send the schedule to be\ndistributed to PSBA members.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated more than two weeks' notice would be preferred.\nMr. Chu stated the County will continue to meet with City staff to provide updates.\nIn response to Mayor Gilmore's inquiry, Mr. Chu stated electronic signs on the\nNorthbound and Southbound Interstate 880 in advance of the Alameda exits will inform\nmotorists of the bridge closures and detour routes.\nCouncilmember Chen inquired how long the bridges were closed during the seismic\nretrofitting in 2009.\nMr. Chu responded the 2009 closure had a similar time frame.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she appreciates the work the County is embarking\non, requested Mr. Chu stay in close communication with City staff.\nMr. Chu stated the County has a good working relationship with City staff and will\ncontinue to meet regularly.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(14-463) Arnold Brillinger, Alameda, expressed concern over the Commission on\nDisability Issues meeting being canceled and still appearing on the City calendar.\n(14-464) Janet Gibson, Alameda, stated agenda items cannot be addressed under oral\ncommunications; urged the Sunshine Ordinance be revised to allow agenda items to be\ndiscussed under Oral Communications.\n(14-465) Kurt Peterson, Alameda, urged that the Site A matter [paragraph no. 14-479\nbe pulled from the agenda.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor Gilmore announced that award of the BFK Engineers contract [paragraph no. 14-\n468 and the resolution amending the Management and Confidential Employees\nAssociation salary schedule [paragraph no. 14-473 were removed from the Consent\nCalendar for discussion.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nNovember 18, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-11-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-11-18", "page": 6, "text": "Councilmember 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(*14-466) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings Held on October 7\nand 21, 2014. Approved.\n(*14-467) Ratified bills in the amount of $5,694,813.64.\n(*14-468) Recommendation to Award a Contract in the Amount of $148,000, Including\nContingency, to BKF Engineers for the Design of the Cross Alameda Trail, Main Street\nto Webster Street.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the Cross Alameda Trail moving forward is good news;\ninquired about the 70 foot width.\nThe Transportation Coordinator responded 70 feet is the swath of the City's public land;\nonly 35 feet would be used for the trails; the remaining feet would be used for a bus\nlane.\nCouncilmember Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote\n- 5.\n(*14-469) Recommendation to Amend the Contract in the Amount of $11,643.04 and\nAccept the Work of JJR Construction, Inc. for Raised Median and Curb Bulb-out\nImprovements on Grand Street at Wood School, No. P.W. 03-14-16. Accepted.\n(*14-470) Recommendation to Award a Contract in the Amount of $160,997.70,\nIncluding Contingency, to Placeworks for the Central Avenue Complete Street Plan.\nAccepted.\n(*14-471) Resolution No. 14977, \"Approving the Final Map and Accepting Easements\nfor Tract 8132 (Alameda Landing Residential). Adopted.\n(*14-473) Resolution No. 14978, \"Authorizing Execution of the State Standard\nAgreement for the Housing Related Parks Grant from the State Department of Housing\nand Community Development for Estuary Park Athletic Fields.\" Adopted.\n(14-473) Resolution No. 14979, \"Amending the City of Alameda Management and\nConfidential Employees Association (MCEA) Salary Schedule Establishing the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nNovember 18, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-11-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-11-18", "page": 7, "text": "Classifications of Public Works Project Manager I, Public Works Project Manager II,\nPublic Works Project Manager III, and Public Information Officer.' Adopted; and\n(14-473) A) Resolution No. 14980, \"Approving Workforce Changes in the Public Works\nDepartment, the Community Development Department, and the City Manager's Office.\"\nAdopted.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated there are lots of positions and changes packed into\none item; that she would like more time to discuss the Resiliency Coordinator position.\nThe Human Resources Manager stated the purpose of the position is not technical, the\nintention is for the person to develop community engagement and outreach, facilitate\ndialogue and conduct a needs assessment for residents.\nThe Assistant City Manager noted the Resiliency Coordinator is one-half of the position,\nthe other half are duties currently performed by a part-time person.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how will the half-time position be coordinated with\npublic safety aspect in the Emergency Operations Center (EOC).\nThe Assistant City Manager responded the employee would be expected to have safety\nskills and would work closely with the Police and Fire Departments.\nIn response to Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the Assistant City Manager stated\nstaff plans to bring the Resiliency Plan to Council in the Spring.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired why the Resiliency Plan was not brought to the\nCouncil tonight, to which the Assistant City Manager responded the Resiliency\nCoordinator position is needed to help develop the plan.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated she would like the Public Information Officer position\nfleshed out and brought back to the Council for more discussion.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether pushing back the two positions would delay\npresenting the plan, to which the Assistant City Manager responded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated more notice is better than less; that she would like to\nget community input on Public Information Officer position.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that she was involved in a civic engagement process last\nyear with the Assistant City Manager; the Public Information Position was created to\naddress the lack of public involvement in discussions.\nCouncilmember Tam moved adoption of the resolutions.\nCouncilmember Chen seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote:\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nNovember 18, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-11-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-11-18", "page": 8, "text": "Ayes: Councilmembers Chen, Daysog, Tam and Mayor Gilmore - 4. Noes: Vice Mayor\nEzzy Ashcraft - 1.\n(14-474) Ordinance No. 3114, \"Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Repealing in\nits Entirety Section 18-5 (Abatement of Improper Sewer Connections), Repealing in its\nEntirety Section 18-6 (Sewer Lateral Testing) and Adding a New Revised Section 18-5.\"\nFinally passed.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(14-475) Resolution No. 14981, \"Honoring Former City Councilmember Hadi Monsef for\nHis Many Contributions to the City of Alameda.\" Adopted.\nMayor Gilmore read and presented the resolution to Jan Mason, OMM Property\nManagement.\nCouncilmember Tam moved adoption of the resolution.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote\n- 5.\n(14-476) Resolution No. 14982, \"Amending Master Fee Resolution 12191 to Add and\nRevise Recreation and Park Fees.\" Adopted.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director gave a Power Point presentation.\nIn response to Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the Recreation and Parks Director\nstated scholarships are offered and funded by the Recreation and Parks Department,\nthe Alameda Friends of the Park Foundation, and the Bay View Women's Club; no child\nin need has been denied.\nIn response to Councilmember Chen's inquiry regarding facility rentals, the Recreation\nand Parks Director stated the percent used by non-profit organizations is small; most\nfacility rentals are weddings or private parties; that she always negotiates discounts with\nnon-profits and there are approximately eight or nine organizations which receives\ndiscounts.\nCouncilmember Chen stated that he does not want new non-profits unaware of\ndiscounts to be turned off by the fee increase.\nMayor Gilmore expressed gratitude for Recreation and Park Commission.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the increased rate for group oriented activities is great;\nthe City has made a commitment to keep costs down; commended the Recreation and\nParks Department for a great job.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nNovember 18, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-11-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-11-18", "page": 9, "text": "Councilmember Tam stated she was impressed with the partnerships and grants; all\nRecreation Department projects have been successful; increases were done fairly; if the\ndrought continues, there would be another 14% increase in water bills; that she\nsupports the fee schedule.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved adoption of the resolution.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5.\n(14-477) Recommendation to Approve an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement (ENA)\nbetween the City of Alameda and Pacific Pinball Museum, a California Corporation, for\nBuildings Known as the Carnegie Library and the Adjacent Children's Library Located at\n2264 Santa Clara Avenue.\nCouncilmember Daysog recused himself and left the dais.\nThe Economic Development Division Manager gave a brief presentation.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether improvements can begin once the tenant\ndeposits $3.5 million, to which the Economic Development Division Manager responded\nin the affirmative.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether tenant improvements include Americans\nwith Disabilities Act (ADA) improvements, to which the Economic Development Division\nManager responded in the affirmative.\nIn response to Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry Economic Development Division\nManager stated acoustics would be a tenant improvement specific to their use and has\nnot been itemized as part of the capital investment.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Section 6.1 of the ENA states architectural and\nconstruction plans would be submitted to, and approved by, the City Manager on behalf\nof the City; inquired why the City Planner would not be the one to review and approve\nthe plans.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded the ENA makes a distinction between the dual\nrole of the City; stated Section 6.1 says the City Manager as the landlord only would\nreview what the tenant is doing; Section 6.2 provision states all regulatory processes\nwill be complied with, including approvals by the Planning Board.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Section 6.5 states a ground lease will not be placed on\nthe agenda until tenant improvement plans are approved; inquired who would approve\nthe tenant improvement plans.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nNovember 18, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-11-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-11-18", "page": 10, "text": "The Assistant City Attorney responded both the City Manager, as the landlord, and the\nPlanning Board would approve the plans.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested language be specified in the ENA to clarify the\nroles of the City Manager and the Planning Board with regard to the review and\napproval of the tenant improvement plans.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated staff would clarify the language.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the City Attorney would also be involved in\nthe determination of the proposed ground lease being placed on the Council agenda, to\nwhich the Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated the City Attorney's\nOffice and Community Development Department will negotiate the ground lease; once\na\nmutually beneficial agreement is reached between the tenant and the City, the City\nManager can decide to place it on the Council agenda.\nIn response to Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the Assistant City Attorney stated the\nmuseum would take over insuring the building at the execution of the ground lease.\nIn response to Councilmember Tam's inquiry, the Assistant City Attorney stated the\nENA is broken into three parts; the first 12 months will be to meet a financial milestone\nof $2.1 million; an additional 12 months to reach the second financial milestone of $3.5\nmillion; the last six months will be the bulk of negotiations; by the final part, the City\nwould know the tenant is capable of funding the improvements; the lease would be\n$1.00 per year, plus the capital improvements which would be negotiated as part of the\nground lease; the regulatory entitlement process would also happen in the last six\nmonths.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether a ground lease agreement requires four votes of\nthe Council, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Gilmore noted that an ENA only requires three votes.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there is a County agency in the old\nchildren's library, to which the Economic Development Division Manager responded in\nthe negative; stated the agency vacated the building last year.\nLarry Zartarian and Michael Schiess, Pacific Pinball Museum, gave a Power Point\npresentation and showed a movie.\nCouncilmember Chen moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote\n- 1. [Absent: Councilmember Daysog - 1.]\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nNovember 18, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-11-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-11-18", "page": 11, "text": "(14-478) Recommendation to Approve an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement (ENA) with\nAlameda Point Partners for Development of Site A at Alameda Point. Approved.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point gave a Power Point presentation.\nIn response to Mayor Gilmore's inquiry, the Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point\nstated the overall cost for backbone infrastructure, trails, park improvements, and\nextensive protected bikeways is $600 million, which translates to approximately $1\nmillion per acre; the cost for the Site A base infrastructure package and land payments\nis $103 million.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether there was strong opposition from the community\non the planning guide, to which the The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point\nresponded the negative; stated the community appreciated the plan, which focused on\njobs and deemphasized housing.\nJoe Ernst, Alameda Point Partners (APP), gave a brief presentation.\nUrged the matter be delayed: Mayor Elect Trish Spencer, Alameda.\nOutlined details not included in the proposed ENA that he would like to see addressed,\nwhich justify waiting for the new Council: Councilmember Elect Frank Matarrese,\nAlameda.\nUrged the Council to continue to conduct business and vote on the matter:\nCouncilmember Elect Jim Oddie, Alameda.\nExpressed concern over not having an emergency water supply: Joe Cloren, Alameda.\nUrged approval of the ENA; discussed the Base Reuse Plan; expressed support for\nAPP: Helen Sause, Alameda Home Team.\nStated that he works for Whole Foods; there is need for a food entrepreneurship center,\nwhich could be located at Building 9: Harv Singh, Alameda.\nStated the Chamber supports the staff recommendation: Michael McDonough, Chamber\nof Commerce.\nExpressed concern over the infrastructure problem, business interest and traffic; urged\nthe matter be postponed until other development projects are complete: Michael\nKaravasilis, Alameda.\nStated the Council and staff have been great supporters of parks; urged approval of the\nENA: Bill Delaney, Recreation and Park Commission.\nUrged moving forward: Brock Grunt, Alameda.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nNovember 18, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-11-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-11-18", "page": 12, "text": "Expressed concern over the total development creating transportation life-safety issues;\nstated the matter should be delayed to address said issue: Jesus Vargas, Alameda.\nExpressed support for APP; stated Joe Ernst can attract businesses; urged moving\nforward: Robert Doud, Alameda.\nUrged moving forward with the ENA: Cheryl Zook, Alameda Point Studios.\nUrged Council not to take action tonight; read a letter from his neighbors Gary and Lola\nBrown: Brian Schumacher, Alameda.\nUrged the matter be delayed: Patricia Gannon, Alameda.\n***\nCouncilmember Chen left the dais at 9:59 p.m. and returned at 10:01 p.m.\n***\nExpressed support for the ENA: Michael Karp, Alameda.\nStated that she would like to move her business back to Alameda and expressed her\nsupport for Joe Ernst and moving forward: Alexandra Cohn, Jeff Cohn Cellars.\nStated the Chamber Board unanimously voted to support the ENA: Mark Sorensen,\nChamber of Commerce.\nUrged the ENA be tabled; stated moving forward is not acting in good faith with the\ncommunity: Paul Foreman, Alameda.\n***\nCouncilmember Tam left the dais at 10:05 p.m. and returned at 10:08 p.m.\nUrged the matter be tabled for the new Council to address: Leland Traiman, Alameda.\nExpressed concern over traffic; stated that he has not seen a reasonable transit plan;\nurged the matter be tabled: Simon Kim, Alameda.\nStated the process has been outlined; urged the process be continued: Kari Thompson,\nChamber of Commerce Past President.\nStated the West End is diverse; progress has been made and needs to be continued;\noutlined the opposition to previous projects: Nick Cabral, Alameda.\nSubmitted information; urged the ENA be tabled; stated that she is confident the matter\nwill still move forward; discussed empty retail space: Pat Lamborn, Alameda.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nNovember 18, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-11-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-11-18", "page": 13, "text": "Expressed support for the staff recommendation: Marty Frates, Teamster Local 70.\nUrged approval of the ENA: John McNulty, MBH Architects.\nExpressed support for moving forward and the need for infrastructure; stated removing\nthe residential component would require complete reevaluation of the funding\nmechanism: John McManus, Cushman and Wakefield.\nUrged approval of the ENA, which is the latest step in a long process: Lois Pryor,\nAlameda.\nExpressed concern over traffic; stated 800 housing units is far too many for Alameda\nPoint: Gretchen Lipow, Alameda.\nUrged moving forward with the ENA, which is reasonable and favorable to the City;\noutlined reasons for the urgency: Doug Biggs, Alameda Point Community Point\nPartners.\nStated the Alameda Association of Realtors (AAR) urges approval of the staff\nrecommendation; expressed her personal support for moving forward: Anne\nDeBardeleben, AAR and Alameda resident.\nStated any delay would lead to unintended consequences; urged moving forward with\nthe ENA: Bruce Knopf, Alameda.\nUrged the Council to approve the ENA with APP; outlined what she likes about the team\nand project: Karen Bey, Alameda\nStated, as an architect, she was excited to be asked to be involved with the APP; urged\nmoving forward with the ENA: Veronica Hinkley Reck, Alameda.\nStated housing is needed at Alameda Point to provide a place for people to live\nadjacent to work; urged the Council to move forward: Jon Spangler, Alameda.\nUrged moving forward; outlined the need for affordable housing: Laura Thomas,\nRenewed Hope Housing Advocates.\nExpressed support of the Council moving forward: Lynette Lee, Renewed Hope\nHousing Advocates.\nSubmitted comments; outlined the need for housing; read a statement from her friend\nAngela: Annette Zielinski, Alameda.\nUrged Council to defer to the incoming Council; expressed concern over contamination\nat Alameda Point: George Humphreys, Alameda.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nNovember 18, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-11-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-11-18", "page": 14, "text": "(14-479) Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of continuing the meeting past\n11:00 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.\nStated that he understands Site A being a catalyst, but is concerned about the rest of\nthe development proceeding; expressed concern over the allocation of housing units:\nFormer Councilmember Doug deHaan, Alameda.\nMayor Gilmore noted the taxiway development is no longer on the table.\nStated the election was about development and the direction of the City, which shows\nthere is major opposition: Travis Wilson, Alameda.\nUrged approval of the staff recommendation: Michael John Torrey, Alameda.\n***\nMayor Gilmore called a recess at 11:02 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 11:11p.m.\n***\nMayor Gilmore stated the need for housing at Alameda Point is a topic which causes\nlangst in the community; requested an explanation of the rationale behind housing.\nJames Edison, Wildan Financial Services, responded there is a lot of demand for\nhousing and people are willing to pay for it; housing developers have more money to\nbuild infrastructure to support improvements; commercial development in Alameda is a\ntougher sell because of constraints; financial capacity is built into the development by\nhousing allowing for infrastructure.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether the development can lead with commercial and retail.\nMr. Edison responded Alameda would have to take on a significant debt burden to pay\nfor infrastructure with the commercial approach; staff decided to proceed in finding a\ndeveloper that will pay for the infrastructure up front so the City does not have to pay.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated redevelopment projects no longer\nhave tax increment financing; Alameda depends on private capital to finance the\nproject; two Request for Qualifications (RFQs) were done to test the market: one for\nmixed-use residential and one for commercial; one of the four qualified commercial\ndevelopers dropped out because of uncertainty in Alameda's market and the other two\nwere not willing to commit to any upfront infrastructure; the residential RFQ received\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nNovember 18, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-11-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-11-18", "page": 15, "text": "nine responses; not having new infrastructure is a major liability; major infrastructure\nissues make it difficult to retain existing businesses and attract new commercial\ndevelopment.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether existing leases can pay for infrastructure, to\nwhich the Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded in the negative; stated\nthe current leases at Alameda Point are market industrial rents at $0.40 per square foot,\nwhich does not support the infrastructure need.\nJohn McManus, Cushman and Wakefield, stated when parcels are sold, there is a\nminimum price per acre the City needs to achieve to pay the per-acre fair share;\ninfrastructure expenses would be an unfair burden for the existing tenants and Alameda\nwould lose the tenants.\nThe City Manager concurred with Mr. McManus; stated Alameda Point would no longer\nbe market competitive; if the burden of new infrastructure is added and tenants are\nasked to make improvements, they would leave; the current infrastructure is degrading\nand needs to be replaced; the only way is to begin selling parcels at a rate that supports\nnew infrastructure.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she met with both teams and has received emails\nsuggesting to delay the vote; it is a tough decision, but stalling is not the answer; there\nwill be opportunity for public input if the ENA is approved this evening; the public\ndeserves to be informed about the project by more than campaign slogans; the proposal\naddresses traffic concerns raised in the election; Council has heard that priorities should\nbe creating jobs and that residents want parks and open space; she is concerned about\ndoing what is right for the citizens of Alameda; she is prepared to approve entering into\nthe ENA.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he was on the governing board that voted for the\nCommunity Reuse Plan of 1996; he supports moving forward with Alameda Point; the\nWest End cannot continue to languish; there is argument to allow council elects to have\nsubstantive input and another argument not to undo the substantial work of the current\nCouncil; the ENA did not happen over only the past 18 months; there are lessons that\ncan be drawn from SunCal; Alameda Point has a way to go and Council needs to be\ninvolved during the coming months; the ENA protects all parties but must also be\nexplicit, whatever other boards do has to be at the direction of the City Council; there\nhas to be language that involves the developer; there needs to be more discussion\nabout retail development in terms of economics; there also needs to be language that\nprotects Alameda against situations like Mammoth Lakes and Half Moon Bay where the\ndeveloper sued the city; that he is ready to move forward but would like further\ndiscussion.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the Half Moon Bay and Mammoth Lakes visions were\nexplicitly considered when Council looked at the ENA with SunCal; it is important to\nrespect and honor the process and move forward; that she inherited the ENA with\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nNovember 18, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-11-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-11-18", "page": 16, "text": "Alameda Point Community Partners (APCP) in 2006; because of the downturn in\neconomy, APCP withdrew from the project and the City ended up with a whole different\nprocess; each Council learns a lot of lessons from the prior Council; the Council\nreviewed the cumulative impacts of all the various projects in Alameda; with regard to\nthe emergency water supply, Alameda saw a reduction of 10,000 people when the\nmilitary left; East Bay Municipal Utilities District (EBMUD) spent $9 million and was able\nto accommodate the supply; when a water main breaks at Alameda Point, there is still\nadequate supply; however, the system does not help provide emergency preparedness,\nthere needs to be a working conveyance system; the issues are not going to improve\nwithout some infusion of capital; the project needs to move forward to address urgency\nneeds of failing water, sewer, and electricity systems; issues need to be corrected soon.\nCouncilmember Chen stated speakers were not against the plan, and just want to delay\nit, which gives him hope the ENA will work; attracting developers is hard; the Council\nand the community are committed; that he is looking forward to a healthy vibrant mixed\nuse; staff made the right recommendation with Alameda Point Partners.\nMayor Gilmore stated that she is proud of the community for being the best in civic\nengagement; thanked everyone for their participation.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Daysog requested further discussion to propose amendments.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft withdrew the motion.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he would like to add language on Page 2 of the\nENA, Section 4, Negotiations of the DDA: \"subject to guidance of City Council\" after the\nsentence, \"the DDA shall include a development plan for the project as more fully\ndescribed in Alameda Municipal Code 30-4.13 development plan.\"\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated staff would add the language.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated Section 6.3 discusses the Alameda Point Transportation\nDemand Management; he would like the developer to be part of the situation in the\nevent the TDSM does not work; suggested language be included which states, \"which\nwill also discuss options in the event TDSM does not live up to expectations\".\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated the TDSM has goals stated in the\nGeneral Plan; suggested the language, \"the strategy will address how the developer will\naddress the situation in the event that the TDM goals are not being met.\"\nCouncilmember Daysog concurred; stated the language recognizes the specifics are\nsubject to negotiation.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n13\nNovember 18, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-11-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-11-18", "page": 17, "text": "Mr. Ernst stated his group would agree to the language to the extent they have control\nover the TDM, but that the TDM is supposed to be a Citywide program.\nThe City Manager stated Council cannot negotiate the DDA tonight; the vote is on the\nENA; the discussions are exactly what the ENA process needs to flesh out; suggests\nCouncil use language which states: \"consideration will be given to develop a\ncontingency plan for an appropriate payment as part of the project in the event the TDM\nplan does not meet goals.\"\nCouncilmember Daysog concurred with the City Manager on the appropriate language.\nIn response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry, the Chief Operating Officer - Alameda\nPoint stated the pro forma could include a break-down of retail uses by product type.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he is satisfied with the amendments.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested a report regarding the Planning Board and\nPlanning Board Subcommittee's conclusions and recommendations be brought to\nCouncil before May.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated staff would provide the report;\ninquired whether the request is Council direction or should be added to the ENA.\nThe City Attorney responded staff has heard Council direction.\nMayor Gilmore concurred with the City Attorney; stated Council always has the ability to\ndirect staff at any time.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the ENA is a contractual document and that he is\nsatisfied if direction is included in the ENA.\nThe City Manager stated a process details how the Planning Board works; proposed\nthat staff provide a public report every 6 weeks during the process; if issues arise\nregarding the terms of the DDA, there would be a public airing of the issues; Council\ncan provide direction to staff.\nCouncilmember Daysog concurred with the City Manager's suggestion.\nMr. Ernst stated that he has no objection to giving Council updates; inquired whether\nCouncil already has the right to direct boards and commissions.\nThe City Manager responded Council is giving staff direction on a periodic nature of a\npublic report on the status of the process.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n14\nNovember 18, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-11-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-11-18", "page": 18, "text": "The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point inquired whether the request for the report\nshould be part of the ENA, to which the City Manager responded in the negative; stated\nthe request is just Council direction.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the ENA with Alameda Point Partners for\ndevelopment of Site A at Alameda Point.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion with the amended language, [Section 4,\nadd: \"subject to guidance of City Council\"; and Section 6.3, add: \"consideration will be\ngiven to develop a contingency plan for an appropriate payment as part of the project in\nthe event the TDM plan does not meet goals.\"] which carried by unanimous voice votes\n- -5.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\nNone.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 12:06 a.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\n15\nNovember 18, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-11-18.pdf"}