2014-11-18 Regular MinutesMINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- -NOVEMBER 18, 2014- -7:00 P.M.
Mayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 7:10 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers Chen, Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Tam
and Mayor Gilmore – 5.
Absent: None.
AGENDA CHANGES
None.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(14-461) The City Manager introduced the new Housing Authority Executive Director.
The Housing Authority Executive Director made brief comments.
(14-462) Presentation by Alameda County Concerning Construction on the High Street
and Park Street Bridges.
James Chu, Alameda County, gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the 8:30 p.m. bridge closures would impact
movie theater and restaurant traffic.
Mr. Chu responded the contractors work an eight-hour shift from 8:30 p.m. to 5:30 a.m.
in order to reopen the bridge before the morning commute.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the work shift is Monday through Friday,
which would avoid weekend traffic impacts.
Mr. Chu responded he would need to confirm that the work shift would either be Sunday
through Thursday, or Monday through Friday.
In response to Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft’s inquiry, Mr. Chu stated construction work
would start in 2015.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the eight week deck repair and three week
vehicle restraint barrier construction on Park Street would be done concurrently, to
which Mr. Chu responded in the negative.
In response to Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft’s inquiry, Mr. Chu stated AC Transit will be
notified when the construction schedule is finalized by the contractor.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 18, 2014 1
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the eight week construction on Park Street
Bridge would be consecutive, to which Mr. Chu responded in the affirmative.
In response to Councilmember Daysog’s inquiry, Mr. Chu stated there will be a two
week notice advising motorists of date of bridge work; he has been in contact with the
Park Street Business Association (PSBA) Director and will send the schedule to be
distributed to PSBA members.
Councilmember Daysog stated more than two weeks’ notice would be preferred.
Mr. Chu stated the County will continue to meet with City staff to provide updates.
In response to Mayor Gilmore’s inquiry, Mr. Chu stated electronic signs on the
Northbound and Southbound Interstate 880 in advance of the Alameda exits will inform
motorists of the bridge closures and detour routes.
Councilmember Chen inquired how long the bridges were closed during the seismic
retrofitting in 2009.
Mr. Chu responded the 2009 closure had a similar time frame.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she appreciates the work the County is embarking
on, requested Mr. Chu stay in close communication with City staff.
Mr. Chu stated the County has a good working relationship with City staff and will
continue to meet regularly.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(14-463) Arnold Brillinger, Alameda, expressed concern over the Commission on
Disability Issues meeting being canceled and still appearing on the City calendar.
(14-464) Janet Gibson, Alameda, stated agenda items cannot be addressed under oral
communications; urged the Sunshine Ordinance be revised to allow agenda items to be
discussed under Oral Communications.
(14-465) Kurt Peterson, Alameda, urged that the Site A matter [paragraph no. 14-479]
be pulled from the agenda.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Gilmore announced that award of the BFK Engineers contract [paragraph no. 14-
468] and the resolution amending the Management and Confidential Employees
Association salary schedule [paragraph no. 14-473] were removed from the Consent
Calendar for discussion.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 18, 2014 2
Councilmember Tam moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote
– 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph
number.]
(*14-466) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings Held on October 7
and 21, 2014. Approved.
(*14-467) Ratified bills in the amount of $5,694,813.64.
(*14-468) Recommendation to Award a Contract in the Amount of $148,000, Including
Contingency, to BKF Engineers for the Design of the Cross Alameda Trail, Main Street
to Webster Street.
Councilmember Daysog stated the Cross Alameda Trail moving forward is good news;
inquired about the 70 foot width.
The Transportation Coordinator responded 70 feet is the swath of the City’s public land;
only 35 feet would be used for the trails; the remaining feet would be used for a bus
lane.
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote
– 5.
(*14-469) Recommendation to Amend the Contract in the Amount of $11,643.04 and
Accept the Work of JJR Construction, Inc. for Raised Median and Curb Bulb-out
Improvements on Grand Street at Wood School, No. P.W. 03-14-16. Accepted.
(*14-470) Recommendation to Award a Contract in the Amount of $160,997.70,
Including Contingency, to Placeworks for the Central Avenue Complete Street Plan.
Accepted.
(*14-471) Resolution No. 14977, “Approving the Final Map and Accepting Easements
for Tract 8132 (Alameda Landing Residential).” Adopted.
(*14-473) Resolution No. 14978, “Authorizing Execution of the State Standard
Agreement for the Housing Related Parks Grant from the State Department of Housing
and Community Development for Estuary Park Athletic Fields.” Adopted.
(14-473) Resolution No. 14979, “Amending the City of Alameda Management and
Confidential Employees Association (MCEA) Salary Schedule Establishing the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 18, 2014 3
Classifications of Public Works Project Manager I, Public Works Project Manager II,
Public Works Project Manager III, and Public Information Officer.” Adopted; and
(14-473 A) Resolution No. 14980, “Approving Workforce Changes in the Public Works
Department, the Community Development Department, and the City Manager’s Office.”
Adopted.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated there are lots of positions and changes packed into
one item; that she would like more time to discuss the Resiliency Coordinator position.
The Human Resources Manager stated the purpose of the position is not technical, the
intention is for the person to develop community engagement and outreach, facilitate
dialogue and conduct a needs assessment for residents.
The Assistant City Manager noted the Resiliency Coordinator is one-half of the position,
the other half are duties currently performed by a part-time person.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how will the half-time position be coordinated with
public safety aspect in the Emergency Operations Center (EOC).
The Assistant City Manager responded the employee would be expected to have safety
skills and would work closely with the Police and Fire Departments.
In response to Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft’s inquiry, the Assistant City Manager stated
staff plans to bring the Resiliency Plan to Council in the Spring.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired why the Resiliency Plan was not brought to the
Council tonight, to which the Assistant City Manager responded the Resiliency
Coordinator position is needed to help develop the plan.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated she would like the Public Information Officer position
fleshed out and brought back to the Council for more discussion.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether pushing back the two positions would delay
presenting the plan, to which the Assistant City Manager responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated more notice is better than less; that she would like to
get community input on Public Information Officer position.
Councilmember Tam stated that she was involved in a civic engagement process last
year with the Assistant City Manager; the Public Information Position was created to
address the lack of public involvement in discussions.
Councilmember Tam moved adoption of the resolutions.
Councilmember Chen seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote:
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 18, 2014 4
Ayes: Councilmembers Chen, Daysog, Tam and Mayor Gilmore – 4. Noes: Vice Mayor
Ezzy Ashcraft – 1.
(14-474) Ordinance No. 3114, “Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Repealing in
its Entirety Section 18-5 (Abatement of Improper Sewer Connections), Repealing in its
Entirety Section 18-6 (Sewer Lateral Testing) and Adding a New Revised Section 18-5.”
Finally passed.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(14-475) Resolution No. 14981, “Honoring Former City Councilmember Hadi Monsef for
His Many Contributions to the City of Alameda.” Adopted.
Mayor Gilmore read and presented the resolution to Jan Mason, OMM Property
Management.
Councilmember Tam moved adoption of the resolution.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote
– 5.
(14-476) Resolution No. 14982, “Amending Master Fee Resolution 12191 to Add and
Revise Recreation and Park Fees.” Adopted.
The Recreation and Parks Director gave a Power Point presentation.
In response to Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft’s inquiry, the Recreation and Parks Director
stated scholarships are offered and funded by the Recreation and Parks Department,
the Alameda Friends of the Park Foundation, and the Bay View Women’s Club; no child
in need has been denied.
In response to Councilmember Chen’s inquiry regarding facility rentals, the Recreation
and Parks Director stated the percent used by non-profit organizations is small; most
facility rentals are weddings or private parties; that she always negotiates discounts with
non-profits and there are approximately eight or nine organizations which receives
discounts.
Councilmember Chen stated that he does not want new non-profits unaware of
discounts to be turned off by the fee increase.
Mayor Gilmore expressed gratitude for Recreation and Park Commission.
Councilmember Daysog stated the increased rate for group oriented activities is great;
the City has made a commitment to keep costs down; commended the Recreation and
Parks Department for a great job.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 18, 2014 5
Councilmember Tam stated she was impressed with the partnerships and grants; all
Recreation Department projects have been successful; increases were done fairly; if the
drought continues, there would be another 14% increase in water bills; that she
supports the fee schedule.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote –
5.
(14-477) Recommendation to Approve an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement (ENA)
between the City of Alameda and Pacific Pinball Museum, a California Corporation, for
Buildings Known as the Carnegie Library and the Adjacent Children’s Library Located at
2264 Santa Clara Avenue.
Councilmember Daysog recused himself and left the dais.
The Economic Development Division Manager gave a brief presentation.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether improvements can begin once the tenant
deposits $3.5 million, to which the Economic Development Division Manager responded
in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether tenant improvements include Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA) improvements, to which the Economic Development Division
Manager responded in the affirmative.
In response to Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft’s inquiry Economic Development Division
Manager stated acoustics would be a tenant improvement specific to their use and has
not been itemized as part of the capital investment.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Section 6.1 of the ENA states architectural and
construction plans would be submitted to, and approved by, the City Manager on behalf
of the City; inquired why the City Planner would not be the one to review and approve
the plans.
The Assistant City Attorney responded the ENA makes a distinction between the dual
role of the City; stated Section 6.1 says the City Manager as the landlord only would
review what the tenant is doing; Section 6.2 provision states all regulatory processes
will be complied with, including approvals by the Planning Board.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Section 6.5 states a ground lease will not be placed on
the agenda until tenant improvement plans are approved; inquired who would approve
the tenant improvement plans.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 18, 2014 6
The Assistant City Attorney responded both the City Manager, as the landlord, and the
Planning Board would approve the plans.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested language be specified in the ENA to clarify the
roles of the City Manager and the Planning Board with regard to the review and
approval of the tenant improvement plans.
The Assistant City Attorney stated staff would clarify the language.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the City Attorney would also be involved in
the determination of the proposed ground lease being placed on the Council agenda, to
which the Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated the City Attorney’s
Office and Community Development Department will negotiate the ground lease; once a
mutually beneficial agreement is reached between the tenant and the City, the City
Manager can decide to place it on the Council agenda.
In response to Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft’s inquiry, the Assistant City Attorney stated the
museum would take over insuring the building at the execution of the ground lease.
In response to Councilmember Tam’s inquiry, the Assistant City Attorney stated the
ENA is broken into three parts; the first 12 months will be to meet a financial milestone
of $2.1 million; an additional 12 months to reach the second financial milestone of $3.5
million; the last six months will be the bulk of negotiations; by the final part, the City
would know the tenant is capable of funding the improvements; the lease would be
$1.00 per year, plus the capital improvements which would be negotiated as part of the
ground lease; the regulatory entitlement process would also happen in the last six
months.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether a ground lease agreement requires four votes of
the Council, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Gilmore noted that an ENA only requires three votes.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there is a County agency in the old
children’s library, to which the Economic Development Division Manager responded in
the negative; stated the agency vacated the building last year.
Larry Zartarian and Michael Schiess, Pacific Pinball Museum, gave a Power Point
presentation and showed a movie.
Councilmember Chen moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote
– 1. [Absent: Councilmember Daysog – 1.]
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 18, 2014 7
(14-478) Recommendation to Approve an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement (ENA) with
Alameda Point Partners for Development of Site A at Alameda Point. Approved.
The Chief Operating Officer – Alameda Point gave a Power Point presentation.
In response to Mayor Gilmore’s inquiry, the Chief Operating Officer – Alameda Point
stated the overall cost for backbone infrastructure, trails, park improvements, and
extensive protected bikeways is $600 million, which translates to approximately $1
million per acre; the cost for the Site A base infrastructure package and land payments
is $103 million.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether there was strong opposition from the community
on the planning guide, to which the The Chief Operating Officer – Alameda Point
responded the negative; stated the community appreciated the plan, which focused on
jobs and deemphasized housing.
Joe Ernst, Alameda Point Partners (APP), gave a brief presentation.
Urged the matter be delayed: Mayor Elect Trish Spencer, Alameda.
Outlined details not included in the proposed ENA that he would like to see addressed,
which justify waiting for the new Council: Councilmember Elect Frank Matarrese,
Alameda.
Urged the Council to continue to conduct business and vote on the matter:
Councilmember Elect Jim Oddie, Alameda.
Expressed concern over not having an emergency water supply: Joe Cloren, Alameda.
Urged approval of the ENA; discussed the Base Reuse Plan; expressed support for
APP: Helen Sause, Alameda Home Team.
Stated that he works for Whole Foods; there is need for a food entrepreneurship center,
which could be located at Building 9: Harv Singh, Alameda.
Stated the Chamber supports the staff recommendation: Michael McDonough, Chamber
of Commerce.
Expressed concern over the infrastructure problem, business interest and traffic; urged
the matter be postponed until other development projects are complete: Michael
Karavasilis, Alameda.
Stated the Council and staff have been great supporters of parks; urged approval of the
ENA: Bill Delaney, Recreation and Park Commission.
Urged moving forward: Brock Grunt, Alameda.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 18, 2014 8
Expressed concern over the total development creating transportation life-safety issues;
stated the matter should be delayed to address said issue: Jesus Vargas, Alameda.
Expressed support for APP; stated Joe Ernst can attract businesses; urged moving
forward: Robert Doud, Alameda.
Urged moving forward with the ENA: Cheryl Zook, Alameda Point Studios.
Urged Council not to take action tonight; read a letter from his neighbors Gary and Lola
Brown: Brian Schumacher, Alameda.
Urged the matter be delayed: Patricia Gannon, Alameda.
***
Councilmember Chen left the dais at 9:59 p.m. and returned at 10:01 p.m.
***
Expressed support for the ENA: Michael Karp, Alameda.
Stated that she would like to move her business back to Alameda and expressed her
support for Joe Ernst and moving forward: Alexandra Cohn, Jeff Cohn Cellars.
Stated the Chamber Board unanimously voted to support the ENA: Mark Sorensen,
Chamber of Commerce.
Urged the ENA be tabled; stated moving forward is not acting in good faith with the
community: Paul Foreman, Alameda.
***
Councilmember Tam left the dais at 10:05 p.m. and returned at 10:08 p.m.
***
Urged the matter be tabled for the new Council to address: Leland Traiman, Alameda.
Expressed concern over traffic; stated that he has not seen a reasonable transit plan;
urged the matter be tabled: Simon Kim, Alameda.
Stated the process has been outlined; urged the process be continued: Kari Thompson,
Chamber of Commerce Past President.
Stated the West End is diverse; progress has been made and needs to be continued;
outlined the opposition to previous projects: Nick Cabral, Alameda.
Submitted information; urged the ENA be tabled; stated that she is confident the matter
will still move forward; discussed empty retail space: Pat Lamborn, Alameda.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 18, 2014 9
Expressed support for the staff recommendation: Marty Frates, Teamster Local 70.
Urged approval of the ENA: John McNulty, MBH Architects.
Expressed support for moving forward and the need for infrastructure; stated removing
the residential component would require complete reevaluation of the funding
mechanism: John McManus, Cushman and Wakefield.
Urged approval of the ENA, which is the latest step in a long process: Lois Pryor,
Alameda.
Expressed concern over traffic; stated 800 housing units is far too many for Alameda
Point: Gretchen Lipow, Alameda.
Urged moving forward with the ENA, which is reasonable and favorable to the City;
outlined reasons for the urgency: Doug Biggs, Alameda Point Community Point
Partners.
Stated the Alameda Association of Realtors (AAR) urges approval of the staff
recommendation; expressed her personal support for moving forward: Anne
DeBardeleben, AAR and Alameda resident.
Stated any delay would lead to unintended consequences; urged moving forward with
the ENA: Bruce Knopf, Alameda.
Urged the Council to approve the ENA with APP; outlined what she likes about the team
and project: Karen Bey, Alameda
Stated, as an architect, she was excited to be asked to be involved with the APP; urged
moving forward with the ENA: Veronica Hinkley Reck, Alameda.
Stated housing is needed at Alameda Point to provide a place for people to live
adjacent to work; urged the Council to move forward: Jon Spangler, Alameda.
Urged moving forward; outlined the need for affordable housing: Laura Thomas,
Renewed Hope Housing Advocates.
Expressed support of the Council moving forward: Lynette Lee, Renewed Hope
Housing Advocates.
Submitted comments; outlined the need for housing; read a statement from her friend
Angela: Annette Zielinski, Alameda.
Urged Council to defer to the incoming Council; expressed concern over contamination
at Alameda Point: George Humphreys, Alameda.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 18, 2014 10
***
(14-479) Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of continuing the meeting past
11:00 p.m.
Councilmember Chen seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote:
Ayes: Councilmembers Chen, Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft and Mayor Gilmore – 4. Noes:
Councilmember Tam – 1.
***
Stated that he understands Site A being a catalyst, but is concerned about the rest of
the development proceeding; expressed concern over the allocation of housing units:
Former Councilmember Doug deHaan, Alameda.
Mayor Gilmore noted the taxiway development is no longer on the table.
Stated the election was about development and the direction of the City, which shows
there is major opposition: Travis Wilson, Alameda.
Urged approval of the staff recommendation: Michael John Torrey, Alameda.
***
Mayor Gilmore called a recess at 11:02 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 11:11p.m.
***
Mayor Gilmore stated the need for housing at Alameda Point is a topic which causes
angst in the community; requested an explanation of the rationale behind housing.
James Edison, Wildan Financial Services, responded there is a lot of demand for
housing and people are willing to pay for it; housing developers have more money to
build infrastructure to support improvements; commercial development in Alameda is a
tougher sell because of constraints; financial capacity is built into the development by
housing allowing for infrastructure.
Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the development can lead with commercial and retail.
Mr. Edison responded Alameda would have to take on a significant debt burden to pay
for infrastructure with the commercial approach; staff decided to proceed in finding a
developer that will pay for the infrastructure up front so the City does not have to pay.
The Chief Operating Officer – Alameda Point stated redevelopment projects no longer
have tax increment financing; Alameda depends on private capital to finance the
project; two Request for Qualifications (RFQs) were done to test the market: one for
mixed-use residential and one for commercial; one of the four qualified commercial
developers dropped out because of uncertainty in Alameda’s market and the other two
were not willing to commit to any upfront infrastructure; the residential RFQ received
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 18, 2014 11
nine responses; not having new infrastructure is a major liability; major infrastructure
issues make it difficult to retain existing businesses and attract new commercial
development.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether existing leases can pay for infrastructure, to
which the Chief Operating Officer – Alameda Point responded in the negative; stated
the current leases at Alameda Point are market industrial rents at $0.40 per square foot,
which does not support the infrastructure need.
John McManus, Cushman and Wakefield, stated when parcels are sold, there is a
minimum price per acre the City needs to achieve to pay the per-acre fair share;
infrastructure expenses would be an unfair burden for the existing tenants and Alameda
would lose the tenants.
The City Manager concurred with Mr. McManus; stated Alameda Point would no longer
be market competitive; if the burden of new infrastructure is added and tenants are
asked to make improvements, they would leave; the current infrastructure is degrading
and needs to be replaced; the only way is to begin selling parcels at a rate that supports
new infrastructure.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she met with both teams and has received emails
suggesting to delay the vote; it is a tough decision, but stalling is not the answer; there
will be opportunity for public input if the ENA is approved this evening; the public
deserves to be informed about the project by more than campaign slogans; the proposal
addresses traffic concerns raised in the election; Council has heard that priorities should
be creating jobs and that residents want parks and open space; she is concerned about
doing what is right for the citizens of Alameda; she is prepared to approve entering into
the ENA.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he was on the governing board that voted for the
Community Reuse Plan of 1996; he supports moving forward with Alameda Point; the
West End cannot continue to languish; there is argument to allow council elects to have
substantive input and another argument not to undo the substantial work of the current
Council; the ENA did not happen over only the past 18 months; there are lessons that
can be drawn from SunCal; Alameda Point has a way to go and Council needs to be
involved during the coming months; the ENA protects all parties but must also be
explicit, whatever other boards do has to be at the direction of the City Council; there
has to be language that involves the developer; there needs to be more discussion
about retail development in terms of economics; there also needs to be language that
protects Alameda against situations like Mammoth Lakes and Half Moon Bay where the
developer sued the city; that he is ready to move forward but would like further
discussion.
Councilmember Tam stated the Half Moon Bay and Mammoth Lakes visions were
explicitly considered when Council looked at the ENA with SunCal; it is important to
respect and honor the process and move forward; that she inherited the ENA with
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 18, 2014 12
Alameda Point Community Partners (APCP) in 2006; because of the downturn in
economy, APCP withdrew from the project and the City ended up with a whole different
process; each Council learns a lot of lessons from the prior Council; the Council
reviewed the cumulative impacts of all the various projects in Alameda; with regard to
the emergency water supply, Alameda saw a reduction of 10,000 people when the
military left; East Bay Municipal Utilities District (EBMUD) spent $9 million and was able
to accommodate the supply; when a water main breaks at Alameda Point, there is still
adequate supply; however, the system does not help provide emergency preparedness,
there needs to be a working conveyance system; the issues are not going to improve
without some infusion of capital; the project needs to move forward to address urgency
needs of failing water, sewer, and electricity systems; issues need to be corrected soon.
Councilmember Chen stated speakers were not against the plan, and just want to delay
it, which gives him hope the ENA will work; attracting developers is hard; the Council
and the community are committed; that he is looking forward to a healthy vibrant mixed
use; staff made the right recommendation with Alameda Point Partners.
Mayor Gilmore stated that she is proud of the community for being the best in civic
engagement; thanked everyone for their participation.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Daysog requested further discussion to propose amendments.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft withdrew the motion.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he would like to add language on Page 2 of the
ENA, Section 4, Negotiations of the DDA: “subject to guidance of City Council” after the
sentence, “the DDA shall include a development plan for the project as more fully
described in Alameda Municipal Code 30-4.13 development plan.”
The Chief Operating Officer – Alameda Point stated staff would add the language.
Councilmember Daysog stated Section 6.3 discusses the Alameda Point Transportation
Demand Management; he would like the developer to be part of the situation in the
event the TDSM does not work; suggested language be included which states, “which
will also discuss options in the event TDSM does not live up to expectations”.
The Chief Operating Officer – Alameda Point stated the TDSM has goals stated in the
General Plan; suggested the language, “the strategy will address how the developer will
address the situation in the event that the TDM goals are not being met.”
Councilmember Daysog concurred; stated the language recognizes the specifics are
subject to negotiation.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 18, 2014 13
Mr. Ernst stated his group would agree to the language to the extent they have control
over the TDM, but that the TDM is supposed to be a Citywide program.
The City Manager stated Council cannot negotiate the DDA tonight; the vote is on the
ENA; the discussions are exactly what the ENA process needs to flesh out; suggests
Council use language which states: “consideration will be given to develop a
contingency plan for an appropriate payment as part of the project in the event the TDM
plan does not meet goals.”
Councilmember Daysog concurred with the City Manager on the appropriate language.
In response to Councilmember Daysog’s inquiry, the Chief Operating Officer – Alameda
Point stated the pro forma could include a break-down of retail uses by product type.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he is satisfied with the amendments.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested a report regarding the Planning Board and
Planning Board Subcommittee’s conclusions and recommendations be brought to
Council before May.
The Chief Operating Officer – Alameda Point stated staff would provide the report;
inquired whether the request is Council direction or should be added to the ENA.
The City Attorney responded staff has heard Council direction.
Mayor Gilmore concurred with the City Attorney; stated Council always has the ability to
direct staff at any time.
Councilmember Daysog stated the ENA is a contractual document and that he is
satisfied if direction is included in the ENA.
The City Manager stated a process details how the Planning Board works; proposed
that staff provide a public report every 6 weeks during the process; if issues arise
regarding the terms of the DDA, there would be a public airing of the issues; Council
can provide direction to staff.
Councilmember Daysog concurred with the City Manager’s suggestion.
Mr. Ernst stated that he has no objection to giving Council updates; inquired whether
Council already has the right to direct boards and commissions.
The City Manager responded Council is giving staff direction on a periodic nature of a
public report on the status of the process.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 18, 2014 14
The Chief Operating Officer – Alameda Point inquired whether the request for the report
should be part of the ENA, to which the City Manager responded in the negative; stated
the request is just Council direction.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the ENA with Alameda Point Partners for
development of Site A at Alameda Point.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion with the amended language, [Section 4,
add: “subject to guidance of City Council”; and Section 6.3, add: “consideration will be
given to develop a contingency plan for an appropriate payment as part of the project in
the event the TDM plan does not meet goals.”] which carried by unanimous voice votes
– 5.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
None.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
None.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 12:06 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 18, 2014 15