pages: CityCouncil/2013-11-05.pdf, 14
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2013-11-05 | 14 | The City Manager responded an RFP is not going to help if the City is looking for innovation and a mix of uses; stated the site is challenging and does not have infrastructure in place; an RFP produces ideas that are not economically implementable, which sets up a series of unrealistic expectations. Mayor Gilmore stated that she was hearing two different things: 1) the Council needs more information about the developer entity before deciding to enter into an ENA, and 2) there needs to be a process to determine whether or not a particular proposal fits where Council thinks it should. Councilmember Tam outlined the process proposed by Planning Board Member John Knox White; stated Mr. Knox White suggests that staff identify the specific special innovative use that would be brought to the Council; the first meeting would be an open session so the public would be afforded an opportunity to comment on whether the proposed use is desired, appropriate, and what conditions should be considered; the Council would vote whether or not to go into closed session to discuss the specifics and determine whether to hold the hearing on the ENA; then, a second open session would be held to vote on an ENA. The City Manager stated having staff bring a project with a secret developer to the Council in an open session is a very odd twist on transparency; staff has to identify the developer if the matter goes into closed session; that he does not think a developer would bring an innovative idea to be presented publicly without their name attached to it. Councilmember Daysog stated residents need to see the rationale behind why one company is selected over another to enter an ENA; an RFP could be structured very specifically; an ENA process is acceptable to him; the public needs to be involved in the process. Mayor Gilmore cautioned Councilmember Daysog about presupposing that companies he wants to do business with are public companies; stated that she does not want to prevent the opportunity of doing business with a private company because they are not publicly traded and their financial information is not available; reviewed Councilmember Daysog's spreadsheet on the process; inquired what the Blue Ribbon Task Force would do that the Planning Board is not already set up to do. Councilmember Daysog responded for a project as complex as Alameda Point, there should be many more eyes on the project before an ENA; the Planning Board would be involved after an ENA process. (13-511) Recommendation to Approve Evaluation Criteria for Alameda Point Development Proposals. The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point gave a brief presentation. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 14 November 5, 2013 | CityCouncil/2013-11-05.pdf |