body,date,page,text,path
CityCouncil,2014-07-15,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY--JULY 15, 2014- -7:00 P.M.
Mayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 7:28 p.m. Councilmember Daysog led the
Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers Chen, Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Tam
and Mayor Gilmore - 5.
Absent:
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
(14-302) Mayor Gilmore announced that the resolution commending Captain Boersma
[paragraph no. 14-305 would be heard after Special Orders; the resolution approving
the Jean Sweeney Park Master Plan [paragraph no. 14-316 would be heard first under
Regular Items; and both Exclusive Negotiation Agreements [paragraph nos. 14-323 and
14-324 would be continued to July 29, 2014.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(14-303) Presentation by the Park Street Business Association on the Annual Art and
Wine Faire.
Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association announced the upcoming event and
presented the Council with tokens.
(14-304) Alameda Recreation and Park Department Annual Report for Fiscal Year
2013-14.
The Recreation and Parks Director gave a Power Point presentation.
Mayor Gilmore commended the Recreation and Parks Director and staff for their hard
work and commitment.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft echoed the Mayor's comments.
The Assistant City Manager acknowledged the Recreation and Parks Director for her
hard work.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEM
(14-305) Resolution No. 14952, ""Commending Alameda Police Department Captain
David Boersma for His Contributions to the City of Alameda."" Adopted.
The resolution was adopted by consensus.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 15, 2014",CityCouncil/2014-07-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2014-07-15,2,"Mayor Gilmore read the resolution and presented it to Captain Boersma.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(14-306) Ruth Abbe, Alameda County Sustainable Recycling Campaign, discussed
compensation for recycling workers; urged Council to request a report which identifies
potential impacts to Alameda ratepayers if recycling workers' wages are increased.
(14-307) Irma Garcia, Protect Alameda Campaign, urged the Council to have CalTrans
enforce a policy to prohibit Anti-Terrorism Contraband Enforcement Team (A-TCET)
activity through the tubes.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Gilmore announced that the replacement of six Police Department vehicles and
one motorcycle [paragraph no. 14-310]; the replacement of a Fire Engine and two Fire
Department staff vehicles [paragraph no. 14-311]; the ordinance adopting the Initiative
Measure [paragraph no. 14-321]; and the fiscal responsibility ordinance [paragraph no.
14-322 were removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph
number.]
(*14-308) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings Held on June 17,
2014. Approved.
(*14-309) Ratified bills in the amount of $1,707,231.69.
(14-310) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager, or His Designee, to Enter
into Purchase Agreements not to Exceed $235,000 for the Replacement of Six Police
Department Vehicles and One Police Motorcycle.
Councilmember Tam stated spending almost $1 million on replacement vehicles reflects
the highest priority to provide the equipment and technology necessary for the safety of
Police and Fire officers.
Councilmember Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
5.
(14-311) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager or His Designee to Negotiate
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 15, 2014",CityCouncil/2014-07-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2014-07-15,3,"and Execute a Lease-Purchase Agreement and Enter Into a Financing Agreement Upon
Terms Acceptable to the City Attorney for an Amount Not to Exceed $673,799 (Principal
Amount) for the Replacement of a Fire Engine; and Enter into Purchase Agreements for
an Amount not to Exceed $74,000 for Two Fire Department Staff Vehicles. Accepted.
Refer to the replacement of six Police Department vehicles and one motorcycle
[paragraph no. 14-310 for the discussion and motion.
(*14-312) Recommendation to Reject the Sole Bid and Authorize a Call for Rebid for the
Shore Line Drive/Westline Drive/Broadway Bikeway Project. Accepted.
(*14-313) Recommendation to Accept the Work of Rosas Brothers Construction for the
Repair of Concrete Sidewalk, Curb, Gutter, Driveway, and Minor Street Patching, FY13-
14, Phase 14, No. P.W. 05-13-05. Accepted.
(*14-314) Recommendation to Award a Contract in the Amount of $171,931, Including
Contingencies, to JJR Construction, Inc. for Raised Median and Curb Bulb-out
Improvements on Grand Street at Wood School, No. P.W. 03-14-16. Accepted.
(*14-315) Resolution No. 14953, ""Declaring Intention to Establish a Community
Facilities District and to Authorize the Levy of Special Taxes - Community Facilities
District No. 14-1 (Marina Cove II). Adopted.
(*14-316) Resolution No. 14954, ""Authorizing the City Manager to Submit a Grant
Application to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission for $2,520,104 to Design
and Construct the Cross Alameda Trail through Jean Sweeney Open Space Park from
Sherman Street to Webster Street and to Execute All Necessary Documents.' Adopted.
(*14-317) Ordinance No. 3098, ""Amending Alameda Municipal Code Chapter XXVII,
Section 27-3 (Citywide Development Fees) and Adding Section 27-4 (Alameda Point
Development Impact Fees). Finally passed.
(*14-318) Ordinance No. 3099, ""Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending
Charter XXVII (Development Fees) by Repealing Section 27-2 (Police and Fire Fee
Requirements) in Its Entirety and by Amending Chapter III (Finance) by Repealing
Section 3-60 (Residential Dwelling Unit Tax) in Its Entirety.' Finally passed.
(*14-319) Ordinance No. 3100, ""Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City Manager to
Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of The First Lease Amendment
with Environmental Management Services for Twelve Months in a Portion of Building 7,
Suite 103 and 112 Located at 851 West Midway Avenue at Alameda Point."" Finally
passed.
(*14-320) Ordinance No. 3101, ""Adopting the Alameda Point Waterfront Town Center
Plan. Finally passed.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 15, 2014",CityCouncil/2014-07-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2014-07-15,4,"(14-321) Ordinance No. 3102, ""Adopting Initiative Measure to Amend City of Alameda
General Plan Including the 2007-2014 Housing Element and the Zoning Ordinance to
Classify Approximately 3.899 Acres of Land Adjacent to Mckay Avenue to Open
Space."" Finally passed.
Mayor Gilmore proposed striking Section b) of the Fiscal Responsibility Ordinance to
ensure the General Fund is not at risk; stated Section b) makes reference to the use of
the General Fund to pay for any judgments against the City in the event of a lawsuit.
Councilmember Daysog stated there are limited resources and the Council needs to
prioritize; that he developed Section b) as a third approach; raising property taxes does
not adequately reflect the will of the voters; there may have to be cuts in services to
cover any outstanding fiscal issues; fulfilling the people's wishes is a challenge.
Councilmember Chen inquired how the City would pay for a lawsuit settlement if Section
b) is deleted.
Councilmember Tam noted the Fiscal Responsibility Ordinance states a vote of the
electorate could authorize any new revenues to pay for a judgment associated with a
lawsuit; there are options, including selling the property to a third party, which includes
the East Bay Regional Parks District (EBRPD); in 2008, EBRPD raised funds under
Measure WW to pay for the property and to pay for any judgment.
Councilmember Chen stated he likes the proposed options; inquired whether there is
enough Measure WW money to cover potential liability if the City is sued.
The City Manager responded the City does not know and the question should be posed
to the EBRPD; stated Measure WW has approximately $4.4 million allocated to
Alameda.
Councilmember Chen stated that he would like to ensure there is enough funds in
Measure WW to pay for a judgment in the event of a lawsuit; inquired whether Election
Code Section 9217 directly conflicts with the Fiscal Responsibility Ordinance.
The City Attorney responded a conflict of the Fiscal Responsibility Ordinance would
have to be determined in Court; stated Election Code 9217 provides that the Council
cannot modify or repeal a measure that is put in place by a voter initiative; if the Council
finally approves the initiative tonight, it retains the flavor of being a voter initiative; the
Fiscal Responsibility Ordinance is not a repeal or modification of the initiative, it is
intended specifically as a companion measure and to be consistent; the companion
measure does not do anything and only goes into effect if a lawsuit is brought within 120
days of its effectiveness; at which time the Council would have the ability to take certain
actions; the Fiscal Responsibility Ordinance does not require the Council to take action,
nor does it automatically put provisions into effect; therefore, the Fiscal Responsibility
Ordinance is not inconsistent.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 15, 2014",CityCouncil/2014-07-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2014-07-15,5,"The City Manager noted the EBRPD website for Measure WW lists $6.5 million for
Alameda.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Fiscal Responsibility Ordinance was created to
deal with potential costs associated with a lawsuit without decimating the budget; there
are three possible sources set forth in Sections a), b), and c); Section d) allows any
combination of a), b), and c); the Council needs to be able to rely on all the possibilities.
Councilmember Tam stated the Fiscal Responsibility Ordinance is about full disclosure
and letting the public know the Council's intent, how priorities are set, and how Council
deals with tradeoffs; that she is comfortable eliminating Section b) as proposed by the
Mayor; the companion measure protects the City and nothing changes by virtue of
providing mitigation in the event of a lawsuit.
The City Manager concurred with Councilmember Tam; stated there have been many
emails claiming that a Fiscal Responsibility Ordinance would make it more likely for the
City to be sued; there would be no changes for the federal government or developers as
a result of approval of the companion measure.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the threat is related to items in the Fiscal
Responsibility Ordinance; the City could be sued for inverse condemnation.
Councilmember Tam stated the Fiscal Responsibility Ordinance is a contingency; a
lawsuit is highly unlikely because the developer that has the option to purchase the
property has other interests in town and the federal government is not bound by the
City's zoning ordinance and can allow anything built on the site without City approval;
the risk of being sued by virtue of having a contingency plan is unlikely.
Stated she does not support the Fiscal Responsibility Ordinance; stated the ordinance
encourages a lawsuit from the developer: Lynn O'Connor, Alameda.
Stated anything Council does to affect a citizen's initiative could be construed as a
violation of Elections Code 9217; that she is against including the stay or suspend
language in the Fiscal Responsibility Ordinance and removing Section b): Jane
Sullwold, Alameda.
Stated that she does not support the Fiscal Responsibility Ordinance and considers it
condescending to the citizens; urged Council to end the lawsuit with EBRPD: Irene
Dieter, Alameda.
In response to the City Manager's inquiry, Ms. Dieter stated if the Fiscal Responsibility
Ordinance is enacted, EBRPD and the voters would not know when the open space
would be realized; a lawsuit could linger for a decade; the ""stay or suspend"" option goes
against the voter's intent.
Mayor Gilmore stated neither the EBRPD or the City own the property; the federal
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 15, 2014",CityCouncil/2014-07-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2014-07-15,6,"government owns the property and could decide to do something else with the property
while the City and the EBRPD are litigating in court; the federal government can sell it to
another developer; that she wants to make it clear to the public that the matter being
discussed tonight does not bring EBRPD closer to owning the property.
Stated no one from the Friends of Crown Beach has stated a lawsuit would not occur;
that she does not support the Fiscal Responsibility Ordinance which invites a lawsuit;
inquired whether the Council is trying to defeat the will of the voters: former
Councilmember Karin Lucas, Friends of Crown Beach.
Mayor Gilmore inquired why Ms. Lucas feels the Fiscal Responsibility Ordinance is
more likely to draw a lawsuit from the developer or the federal government.
Ms. Lucas responded the developer has an interest in maintaining the current
residential zoning and the Fiscal Responsibility Ordinance allows the Council to
suspend the open space zoning.
The City Manager stated the citizen's initiative already changes the zoning and creates
the cause of action; inquired what about the Fiscal Responsibility Ordinance creates
more of an incentive for the developer or the federal government to sue the City.
Ms. Lucas responded the City Attorney has stated it would be legal for the Council to
stay or suspend the citizen's initiative.
The City Manager stated that he and Ms. Lucas are not understanding each other; that
he takes issue with Ms. Lucas statement that Council passed zoning of the property into
residential without concern for financial consequences; the property was zoned
residential as part of the Housing Element which was passed because of the State's
threats to pull Alameda's transportation funding; finances were a factor.
Ms. Lucas stated there was no need to include the Neptune Point parcel in the Housing
Element and it has since been excluded.
The City Manager stated the Neptune Point parcel has been excluded since the Council
passed the Housing Element without being penalized; had the Council not passed the
Housing Element when it did, more sites would have had to be included.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she does not believe the Council is trying to defeat
the will of the voters; inquired where funds to pay costs related to a lawsuit would come
from.
Ms. Lucas responded the Council is responsible for managing the City's funds; stated
the voters would like to see the property incorporated into EBRPD's system; the City is
not paying for the EBRPD expenses; the City has Crown Beach for free and the voters
are paying for the property through property taxes.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 15, 2014",CityCouncil/2014-07-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2014-07-15,7,"Mayor Gilmore stated based on Ms. Lucas statement regarding paying through property
taxes, inquired whether the voters are willing to pay for the property twice.
Ms. Lucas responded the voters are not paying twice.
Mayor Gilmore stated the voters passed Measure WW to pay for the property; if the City
is sued and the Council has to find funds to pay the judgment, taxpayers would be
paying for the same property twice.
Ms. Lucas stated EBRPD has funds to acquire the property and to develop it; costs
would not be piled onto the price of the property to make it more expensive than market
value; EBRPD could not buy the property in the event the City acquired the property.
The City Manager stated the $1.5 million price was done by EBRPD's own appraiser, an
objective third party has not determined the value of the property is $1.5 million; the
value of the property is whatever someone is willing to pay for it.
Ms. Lucas stated the value of the property must be less than $3 million because Tim
Lewis Developers would have paid it already.
Councilmember Daysog stated if the combined cost of the land and any outstanding
legal issues cost more than the $6.5 million available through Measure WW, it would be
Council's decision to exercise options to pay for the delta above Measure WW funds.
Ms. Lucas stated the price increase is an attempt to milk EBRPD for available funds; the
$6.5 million includes development of the property; the property value is below $3 million.
The City Manager stated the fact that Tim Lewis Properties has not paid for the property
is not indicative of its value; the City has nothing to gain by using the formula in the
Fiscal Responsibility Ordinance.
In response to Ms. Lucas' inquiry, the City Manager stated the Fiscal Responsibility
Ordinance is needed to protect the City and taxpayer's money.
Ms. Lucas stated the property will not be worth $3 million to anyone without access.
The City Manager stated no one will know the value of the property until the federal
government resolves the access issue.
Stated the Fiscal Responsibility Ordinance increases the risk of litigation, is
unnecessary and misleading; the federal government does not have access to property:
William Smith, Alameda.
Mayor Gilmore noted the federal government does have access to the property.
Urged the Council not to belabor the issue; stated he is concerned about the cost to
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 15, 2014",CityCouncil/2014-07-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2014-07-15,8,"carry on the lawsuit with EBRPD: former Councilmember Doug deHaan, Alameda.
Stated the Fiscal Responsibility Ordinance does not support the citizen's initiative and is
perceived as provocative: Debra Arbuckle, Alameda.
Stated the Fiscal Responsibility Ordinance is a political and strategic signal which
discourages cooperation: Alison Greene, Plan! Alameda.
Stated the Fiscal Responsibility Ordinance is not a solution; urged Council to support
the will of the voters: Gretchen Lipow, Alameda.
***
Councilmember Tam left the dais at 9:15 p.m. and returned at 9:17 p.m.
Mayor Gilmore stated the Council's goal is to make sure Alameda Residents do not pay
for the property twice.
Councilmember Chen stated that he supports the Mayor's proposal to remove Section
b), as long as Measure WW is the single revenue source; inquired whether Council
could still suspend the open space initiative without the language in Section b).
The City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated the Fiscal Responsibility
Ordinance is a measure of transparency and openness; if Section b) language is
removed, Council still has the ability to mitigate to find funds in the event the City is
saddled with a judgment.
In response to Councilmember Chen's inquiry, the City Attorney stated theoretically, the
Council would still have the option outlined in Section b) even if the language is
removed from the Ordinance, but that the Council would have to overcome the fact that
the option was removed.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Councilmember Chen is suggesting the
Council be less clear with the public, to which Councilmember Chen responded in the
negative; stated that he agrees with a speaker who inquired why the language is
included if the Council has the ability to suspend the initiative regardless.
In response to Mayor Gilmore's inquiry, Councilmember Chen stated the companion
measure causes more incentive for the City to be sued because the measure opens the
door to show an escape clause and a loop hole; that he is not comfortable with the
language.
Councilmember Daysog stated his approach is a reflection of the will of the people; to
include the phrase ""suspension or stay"" goes against the will of the people; how
removal of the phrase will be interpreted is up to the people; the City has to have a
companion measure.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 15, 2014",CityCouncil/2014-07-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2014-07-15,9,"Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired what is the property zoning designation after the
Fiscal Responsibility Ordinance is passed.
The City Attorney responded that when the open space initiative is adopted and goes
into effect on August 14, 2014, the site is zoned open space; if the Fiscal Responsibility
Ordinance is modified, it would have to come back on July 29; if the Fiscal
Responsibility Ordinance goes into effect and the City is sued within 120 days, it is up to
the Council whether or not to take action; the Fiscal Responsibility Ordinance does not
require the Council to do anything.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the zoning designation of open space is
upheld if the Council decides to stay and/or suspend the ordinance.
The City Attorney responded in the negative; stated a stay or suspension means
Council has suspended the effectiveness of the open space initiative, the open space
zoning would not apply and the property revert to its existing zoning which is residential.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether language could be added to the Fiscal
Responsibility Ordinance which carries out the intent to ultimately keep the property
zoned as open space.
The City Attorney responded the Council would not do a stay or suspension in order to
retain the open space designation; the Council would only exercise the stay or suspend
option so as not to incur the harm that gives right to the claim until the Council is able to
pay for it.
Councilmember Chen inquired why include the stay or suspend option if Council might
not exercise the option.
Mayor Gilmore responded if the City is sued within 120 days, the Council has to
affirmatively decide whether or not to suspend or stay the open space ordinance, it is
not automatic.
Councilmember Daysog moved final passage of the initiative ordinance.
Councilmember Chen seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(14-322) Final Passage of Alameda open space Fiscal Responsibility Ordinance
Pertaining to the Initiative Measure to Amend City of Alameda General Plan Including
the 2007-2014 Housing Element and the Zoning Ordinance to Classify Approximately
3.899 Acres of Land Adjacent to Mckay Avenue to open space. Amended and
introduced.
Refer to the ordinance adopting the Initiative Measure [paragraph no. 14- 322 for the
discussion.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 15, 2014",CityCouncil/2014-07-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2014-07-15,10,"Councilmember Daysog moved introduction of the ordinance with amendment to strike
the phrase ""including but not limited to suspension or stay of the effectiveness of the
initiative ordinance"".
Councilmember Chen inquired whether Councilmember Daysog would amend the
motion to also delete Section b).
Councilmember Daysog did not agree to amend the motion.
The motion failed due to lack of a second.
Councilmember Tam stated the reason why she did not second Councilmember
Daysog's motion is the findings under Section 2 of the ordinance deal precisely with
Section b); she would like to inform the public that it is not the Council's intent to cut City
services in order to pay a judgment.
Councilmember Tam moved introduction of the ordinance with amendment to strike the
phrase ""including but not limited to suspension or stay of the effectiveness of the
initiative ordinance"" and elimination of Section b).
Councilmember Chen seconded the motion.
In response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry, Councilmember Tam stated there has
been discussion in closed session about the exposure to litigation; it is awkward to have
the same discussion in open session because there is still a pending lawsuit against the
City by the EBRPD; there are a number of offers and mediation, but the inability to settle
has nothing to do with the Council's actions this evening.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Council is bound by law and advised by the City
Attorney; people do not know what the Council has to deal with regarding pending
litigation; the EBRPD issue is separate from tonight's discussion; the City should leave
as many options as possible to pay for potential litigation.
Mayor Gilmore stated she that has great respect for the citizen's initiative; over 6,000
people want the property to be open space; she struggles with the notion of whether the
6,000 people want the open space at the expense of everything else; Council included
the ""suspend or stay"" language in the Fiscal Responsibility Ordinance to be transparent;
removal of the language does not eliminate Council's ability to exercise the option.
Councilmember Daysog stated he included Section b) to deal with any outstanding
fiscal consequences; the option of cutting services has to be on the table; there is a
difference between options and actions; the most important part of the ordinance is the
operative clause, the action taken; one of the options includes raising property taxes,
which is not consistent with will of the people; hopefully, the actions would not come to
pass.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 15, 2014",CityCouncil/2014-07-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2014-07-15,11,"Councilmember Tam stated the clause is a power the Council already has; striking the
clause does not remove Council's authority to take action; the ordinance lets the
community know the Council's intent and priority; having the Fiscal Responsibility
Ordinance is appropriate and clear.
Mayor Gilmore stated Section a) is a tax which would indicate how the citizen's feel
about paying for the open space and the priority; that she made the argument that the
people would be voting to pay for the property a second time because they have
already been taxed under Measure WW; if there is a shortfall, voting to tax themselves
again to pay for the property would be the ultimate will of the people.
Councilmember Tam restated her motion.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:
Councilmembers Chen, Tam and Mayor Gilmore - 3. Noes: Councilmembers Daysog
and Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 2.
***
Mayor Gilmore called a recess at 9:57 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 10:07 p.m.
***
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(14-323) Resolution No. 14955, ""Approving the Jean Sweeney Open Space Park
Mitigated Negative Declaration and Master Plan.' Adopted.
The Recreation and Parks Director gave a Power Point presentation.
***
(14-324) Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of hearing the four remaining
agenda items after 10:30 p.m.
Councilmember Chen seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote:
Ayes: Councilmembers Chen, Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft and Councilmember Gilmore - 4.
Noes: Councilmember Tam - 1.
Mayor Gilmore stated it is exciting that one of the City's own was instrumental in making
land available to Alameda; that she is optimistic funding will be secured.
Councilmember Chen concurred with Mayor Gilmore; commended the Recreation and
Parks Director; stated the Jean Sweeney Open Space Park is the Central Park of
Alameda.
Discussed Jean Sweeney's accomplishments; urged approval of the Master Plan:
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 15, 2014",CityCouncil/2014-07-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2014-07-15,12,"Dorothy Freeman, Alameda.
Submitted and read a letter from Jim Sweeney urging approval of the Master Plan:
Joseph Woodard, Jean Sweeney Open Space Park Fund.
Stated that he supports the design and urged approval of the Master Plan: Bill Delaney,
Recreation and Park Commission/Sweeney Park Design Committee.
Stated that he supports the Master Plan, specifically the Bike Skills Loop; urged
approval of the Master Plan: Aaron Thies, Alameda.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
5.
(14-325) Resolution No. 14957, ""Certifying a Negative Declaration and Approve a
General Plan Amendment to Amend the Housing Element for the Period 2015 through
2023.' Adopted.
The City Planner gave a Power Point presentation.
In response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry, the City Planner stated the Land Use
Element and Housing Element are interconnected to make transit oriented
development.
(14-326) Councilmember Daysog 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 Councilmember Gilmore - 4.
Noes: Councilmember Tam - 1.
Mayor Gilmore stated there were 16 speakers; inquired whether the speaker's time
should be reduced.
Councilmember Chen proposed reducing the speaker time to two minutes.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated often times speakers do not use all three minutes; the
Housing Element is important; that she does not support reducing the speaker's time.
The City Manager stated leases [paragraph no. 14-330 and 14-331 would be continued
to the September 2nd Regular City Council meeting.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 15, 2014",CityCouncil/2014-07-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2014-07-15,13,"The Council agreed not to reduce the speaker's time.
The City Planner stated the packet includes the program recommended by the Planning
Board; the Housing Element does not include the Planning Board program; staff
recommends adopting the General Plan amendment without the Planning Board
program; the City received a letter from the State that the Housing Element
recommended by staff is compliant with State law.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he is concerned about including transit oriented
development in the Housing Element, which has not been included in the previous
Housing Element; rent stabilization and rent control should be contemplated.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she supports a formation of a subcommittee;
issues exist but some residents are not aware of the Rent Review Advisory Committee
(RRAC); any new task force needs to make information readily known.
Councilmember Chen stated that he likes the idea of a task force and is eager to know
the survey results.
Councilmember Tam stated forming the task force is important; Housing Element data
should be used to evaluate trends and housing stock; that she concurs with the City
Manager's comment ""what gets measured gets done, what gets funded happens"".
Councilmember Daysog suggested receiving input from a variety of sources on how to
proceed, including the Housing Authority, the RRAC, and the Social Services Human
Relations Board (SSHRB).
Mayor Gilmore stated including a task force in the Housing Element is a bad idea; that
she does not want to voluntarily invite the State into a local process which affects
Alameda citizens; the first step is to put resources behind the RRAC to help put more
teeth in what they do; funding, scope, and how long the process will take needs to be
clear if Council moves forward with a task force.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with the Mayor; stated a transit oriented
development belongs in the Housing Element.
Discussed the Bay Area real estate market; urged creation of the rent task force: Doyle
Saylor, Renewed Hope.
Stated the Chamber of Commerce Government Relations and Economic Development
Committee supports the Housing Element: Michael McDonough, Chamber of
Commerce.
Stated that she supports the creation of a rent task force: Irma Garcia, Alameda.
Stated that he supports passing the Housing Element and the creation of a rent
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 15, 2014",CityCouncil/2014-07-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2014-07-15,14,"stabilization task force; discussed survey results: William Smith, Renewed Hope
Housing Advocates;
Stated that he supports passing the Housing Element but is concerned with the 50%
increase of housing units; further stated the City seems to be figuring out ways around
Measure A: Jim Smallman, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society.
The City Manager invited Mr. Smallman to talk to the City Planner about his concerns
as some of his information is factually incorrect.
Mayor Gilmore stated showing where housing could be built is a State requirement.
In response to Mr. Smallman's inquiry, the City Planner stated Alameda has to show
there is enough land to accommodate 1,725 units; the Housing Element can
accommodate more than 1,725, but the 1,725 amount gives the City flexibility at each
individual site.
Congratulated staff and the Planning Board on the Housing Element which emphasizes
senior housing and rental issues; that she supports a task force which is not attached to
the Housing Element: Diane Lichtenstein, Alameda Home Team and Housing
Opportunities Make Economic Sense (HOMES).
Stated that she supports the Housing Element, communication on housing in Alameda,
and is impressed by RRAC; submitted letters: Ann DeBardeleben, Alameda Association
of Realtors.
Urged approval of the Housing Element with the Planning Board recommendation:
Amparo Adlao, Alameda.
Stated every city has a rent stabilization problem; that she does not support the plan or
changing Measure A: Debra Arbuckle, Alameda.
Stated Renewed Hope conducted a rent survey; that she supports forming a task force
that is evenly balanced between property owners and tenants: Laura Thomas, Renewed
Hope Housing Advocates.
Inquired whether RRAC members should have term limits; urged spreading the word
about the RRAC: Lois Pryor, Renewed Hope.
Stated that she supports the multi-family overlay and Density Bonus for Affordable
Housing in the plan; proposes the City do a study on the effectiveness of the overlay
and current density bonus incentive; submitted letter: Lynette Lee, Renewed Hope.
Urged the creation of a rent stabilization task force; submitted survey results: Catherine
Relucio, Renewed Hope.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 15, 2014",CityCouncil/2014-07-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2014-07-15,15,"Urged the creation of a rent task force; stated that he has benefitted from Renewed
Hope's services: Nilo Garcia, Alameda.
Stated that she conducted phone surveys regarding rent stabilization; urged creation of
a rent task force: Joy Malloy, Renewed Hope.
Stated that rent issues are both regional and local; that she supports the creation of a
rent stabilization task force: Jeanne Lahaie, Alameda.
Stated that she concurs with Mayor Gilmore regarding keeping a task force at the local
level and not combining it with the Housing Element; urged strengthening the RRAC's
authority: Karen Bey, Alameda.
Stated that he supports staff recommendation regarding the Housing Element; stated he
is against State involvement: Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Chen seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote:
Ayes: Councilmembers Chen, Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft and Mayor Gilmore - 4.
Abstention: Councilmember Tam - 1.
Mayor Gilmore requested the discussion of the task force be placed on a future
meeting.
The City Manager responded staff would bring the matter back in September after
consulting with the Chamber of Commerce, Renewed Hope, SSHRB, RRAC, Housing
Authority and other real estate organizations.
Councilmember Chen requested the exploration include giving the RRAC enforcement.
The City Manager stated staff should not drive the discussion; the task force could
address said matter.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Assistant City Manager compiled information
regarding other cities; requested the report back include said information as well as
information on RRAC cases; suggested developers also be included.
Councilmember Daysog concurred with the City Manager regarding casting the net
widely; stated the City needs to learn from the 2003-04 mass evictions.
Councilmember Tam stated the efforts of the Planning Board and the Renewed Hope
survey are good starting points in discussing the task force matter; stated there is no
need to reinvent everything.
Mayor Gilmore inquired whether there is a consensus that the City Manager and staff
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 15, 2014",CityCouncil/2014-07-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2014-07-15,16,"should go forward and bring the matter back in September.
The City Manager responded the record should reflect that the Council's nodding heads
is affirmative.
Councilmember Daysog requested the survey be included in the minutes.
(14-327) Introduction of Ordinance Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City
Manager to Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a Lease
Amendment with Walashek Industrial & Marine, Inc. for Twelve Months in Building 517
Located at 150 West Trident Avenue at Alameda Point. [Continued to September 2,
2014.]
(14-328) Introduction of Ordinance Approving the First Lease Amendment for Eight
Years with Pacific Fine Foods, Inc. in Building 42 Located at 2480 Monarch Street at
Alameda Point. [Continued to September 2, 2014]
(14-329) Public Hearing to Determine Whether a Majority Protest Exists in the
Proceeding to Increase Assessments in Island City Landscape and Lighting District 84-
2, Proposed Zone 8 (Webster Street); and
(14-329 A) Resolution No. 14956, ""Confirming the Ballot Results and Providing for no
Majority Protest and the Levy of an Annual Assessment for Island City Landscaping and
Lighting Maintenance District No. 84-2 Zone 8 (Webster Street). Adopted.
Councilmembers Daysog and Chen recused themselves and left the dais.
The Public Works Administrative Services Manager gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Gilmore called for the submission of any assessment ballots or replacement
assessment ballots before the close of the public hearing.
There being no submissions, Mayor Gilmore called a recess at 12:23 a.m. to allow the
City Clerk to tabulate the assessment ballots received prior to the close of the public
hearing and reconvened the meeting at 12:37 a.m.
The City Clerk reported the following results: 70 ballots were mailed to business owners
within boundaries of the assessment district; 24 ballots were received prior to the close
of the public hearing; 14 ballots representing $12,343.87 of assessments support the
levy of the proposed assessment within the assessment district; 10 ballots representing
$6,556.80 of assessments opposed the levy of the proposed assessment within the
assessment district; the majority of protest was not received and the Council can
proceed in considering the resolution.
Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved adoption of the resolution declaring the results of the
assessment ballot tabulation, approving the Engineer's Report, increasing assessments
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 15, 2014",CityCouncil/2014-07-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2014-07-15,17,"for Island City Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance Assessment District No. 84-2
Zone 8 (Webster Street), ordering maintenance work therein, confirming the diagram
and assessments and providing for the levy of an annual assessment therein.
Councilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 3.
[Absent: Councilmembers Chen and Daysog - 2.]
(14-330) Recommendation to Approve an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement between
the City of Alameda and Alameda United Commercial LLC for the Bachelors Enlisted
Quarters. [Continued to July 29, 2014]
(14-331) Recommendation to Approve an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement between
the City of Alameda and Alameda United Commercial LLC for an Approximate 5.5-Acre
Site on the Taxiways along the Seaplane Lagoon. [Continued to July 29, 2014]
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 12:45 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
July 15, 2014",CityCouncil/2014-07-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2014-07-15,18,"Attachment to July 15, 2014
Regular City Council Minutes",CityCouncil/2014-07-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2014-07-15,19,"Rent Survey for City of Alameda -Summary of Survey Results as of July 15, 2014
The purpose of this rent survey is to gather data on the extent and impact of rising rents in the City of Alameda.
About Renewed Hope Housing Advocates: This rent survey is administered by Renewed Hope Housing
Advocates, a volunteer nonprofit organization. Since 1998, Renewed Hope has advocated tenant protections
and affordable housing in Alameda. Renewed Hope has achieved a 25 percent affordable housing settlement
for Alameda Point, and has pushed for a revision of the current Housing Element to allow more affordable
housing development.
www.RenewedHopeHousing.org
Contact Renewed Hope Housing: RenewedHopeHousing@gmail.com or Laura Thomas at (510) 522-8901
Survey launched in April 2014
Total # of responses to Date: 189
1. In what neighborhood of Alameda is your home located?
Central Alam
West End
25%
Harbor Bay
Other
East End
20%
Central Alameda
45%
Harbor Bay
3%
West End
East End
Other
8%
2. How long have you lived in your current unit?
5 10 years
Less than 1 year
15%
1 - 2 years
22%
More than 10
3 5 years
3 5 years
32%
5 - 10 years
17%
Less than 1
More than 10 years
15%
1 2 year
Submitted by Catherine Relucio
Re: 6-E -
7-15-14
Rent Survey for City of Alameda - Summary of Survey Results as of July, 15, 2015
1
www.RenewedHopeHousing.or
RenewedHopeHousing@gmail.com
I
Laura Thomas (510)522-8901",CityCouncil/2014-07-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2014-07-15,20,"3. I pay rent to:
Galagher & Li
OMM, Inc. Ma
Harbor Bay Re
1
Lapham
Landlord
65%
Other
Harbor Bay Realty
3%
Galagher & Lindsey
5%
OMM, Inc., Mason Management
5%
Lapham
1%
Landlard
Other
21%
4. What was the amount of your rent increase in the past 12 months?
0% rent increase - 42% of respondents
1 - 5% rent increase - 23% of respondents
6 - 10% rent increase - 19% of respondents
11 - 20% increase - 8% of respondents
21 -30% rent increase - 6% of respondents
30 +% rent increase - 1% of respondents
Unknown - 2% of respondents
5. Concerns about your rent increase
I was one of the 84 tenants evicted from XXX in June 2013. We had no protection contrary to what the
Alameda City Manager stated at a City Council Meeting. We did have financial hardship. The only
benefit we received was an offer to pay for moving expenses not beyond 3 hours. The time over the
three hours was to be paid by the tenant. We only had the use of one elevator either morning or
afternoon. For additional relocating costs and higher deposits I am out $5000+. In addition, what many
of us thought odd was how fast permits were approved for the current demolition and retrofitting. This
is generally not the norm for the permit process in Alameda. Just watch citizens approach the planning
board to improve a personal property and it practically takes an act of Congress. I am personally for
rent control. I am an active citizen who contributes both time and money to many organizations in
Alameda.
I am not yet concerned, but I am aware of the trend in Alameda and have much anxiety due to a limited
income.
Rent Survey for City of Alameda - Summary of Survey Results as of July, 15, 2015
2
www.RenewedHopeHousing.org
I
RenewedHopeHousing@gmail.com
I
Laura Thomas (510)522-8901",CityCouncil/2014-07-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2014-07-15,21,"I wish Alameda would have rent control. I love Alameda but I think I will soon be pushed to Oakland.
But at least Oakland is rent controlled. It's hard to save money to move into a bigger spot when you're
on a fixed income and know you will be getting an increase every year.
Rent is very high for us.
Student and can't afford to pay more and have to look for new apartment also because roommate is
getting married. Can't find affordable housing.
If increases persist in the neighborhood in which I live will change. Community will change.
I don't want rent increase. I am saving up money to send my kids to private school and buy a Mercedes
SUV.
Our landlord tried to illegally raise our rent by $100 three months after we moved in, on a year lease
rental.
in the past two years my rent has increased 300.00
Already high and only lived here less than a year and half. Due to losing my home and fear of
foreclosure was rushed into finding a rental and only could only find a 2 bedroom. My daughter was in
her senior year of high school so that and many reasons we wanted to stay in Alameda as it is HOME.
Increase rent but still does not maintain property. Or respond in timely manner. Ex: Fridge not working
I had to replace. Broken Faucet - I paid for repairs.
We are able to handle the current rate, but have concerns if it should continue annually. My husband
has had a difficult time maintaining employment though he is a professional. His age does not work in
his favor. I am establishing a practice having moved here knowing no one. We market ourselves
constantly, but have concerns regarding our ages. We are both on social security.
Originally my rent was to be increased by 50% ($400.00), but after all the renters of this property having
gone to the Alameda Housing Authority, My rent was cut back by $100.00. That was the lowest they
said they would go. Originally they agreed to a 6 month lease, when it came time to renew the lease,
instead of providing a 1 year lease as was the ""talk"" from representatives for XXX, they siad they were
""extending the original 6 month lease agreement to a year lease. Meaning they only provided me a 6
month lease and not the 1 year lease as was mentioned. This current lease is up at end of July, where I
feel they will try to increase my rent again more than $100.00. If I had not agreed to the 6 month
""extension"" the month to month rent would have been $1300.00 for the studio that I rent.
yes, reason given was that fact that tech people are moving to east bay and rents are increasing,
generally. other words, no good reason.
I've lived here for 8.5 years. I opened a small home daycare in January 2013. August 2013 my landlord
raised my rent by $300. Then he raised it another $300 in March 2014. However, I negotiated with him
on the second increase to $150. So, since Aug 2013 my rent went up $450. He also told me that it will
go up yet again $100 next year. Prior to me opening my daycare, my landlord had not raised my rent.
I'm concerned that he is raising the rent so significantly in order to push me out. He has made several
Rent Survey for City of Alameda - Summary of Survey Results as of July, 15, 2015
3
www.RenewedHopeHousing.org
RenewedHopeHousing@gmail.com
I
Laura Thomas (510)522-8901",CityCouncil/2014-07-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2014-07-15,22,"comments to me over the past year that indicate that he does not like my home daycare business. He
also has said that he wants market rate rent for my unit. However, it is also noteworthy to mention that
in
the entire time I've lived here, he has not made any improvements and there are a number of
problems. Such as, dry-rotted front porch and steps, dry-rot fence, chipping house paint, hole in my
ceiling and water damage due to upstairs leak, leaking roof and mold.
Neighbor across hall just had rent increased $ 500.00 a month. I will be next but can't afford it & can't
find safe space for cheaper so I will leave East Bay.
Afraid of spike increase when my lease is up. Pet rules are changing and I have a working relationship
w/ dogs. I am concerned about increasing pet rent.
Being Evicted because of Renovation
As units become filled, mgmt feels it can raise rents (supply and demand) to 'what the mrkt will bear'
I lived previously on San Jose Avenue in a townhouse where my rent was raised $100.00 a month
yearly from $950.00 to $1800.00 with no repairs done. Now where I live nothing is repaired cleaned up,
or fixed yet landlord is taking another increase. I pay 50 percent of my monthly income to rent.
Although I receive rental assistance from the Housing Authority, the owners seem to be feel like they
can increase the rent as much as they want. The housing authority doesn't advocate against this - their
attitude is either pay the increase or move. The reason I am on housing is because of low-income so
picking up and moving is not financially an option. We need someone who can help fight for our rights.
I think they are going to do major repair on my unit but won't give me any information.
Something funny is happening at my apartment. I live in a Victorian house split into 4 units. Upstairs
one unit became vacant the other was not. The owners gave the non-vacant unit resident (who has
lived here 10 years) a month and half to move claiming his son was going to take the apartment. A
month after that he put a sign on my door saying that he would be entering with an inspector to prepare
for major renovations. I called him and asked him to give me more information and he emailed me and
said he didn't have any yet. I was home when they came and I asked again and he said they were
going to take the ceilings off and raise them """"soon."""" I said what does that mean? He said I will tell you
later.
The 10 year evicted tenant said he thought the owner was going to add a third floor. I am on the bottom
not the second where everyone has been evicted or vacated. This property belongs to XXX. I was
raised in Alameda, left the area for school and came back. I have moved in here last November. Less
than a year and I have a year lease. I don't see how I can live here if they are raising the ceiling. I have
no information other than that and that it is happening soon. There is an engineer coming by. I certainly
do not want to be stuck with only a month and half to move in this market. Can they claim their son is
moving in to evict tenants and then have him move in and out to make repairs? XXX
Please advise on what I can do to get more real information and where I can learn about my rights.""
Rent Survey for City of Alameda - Summary of Survey Results as of July, 15, 2015
4
www.RenewedHopeHousing.org
RenewedHopeHousing@gmail.com
Laura Thomas (510)522-8901",CityCouncil/2014-07-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2014-07-15,23,"I am saddened on how this has really affected my budget the last past 12 months. I can't seen to save
any money with the way our economy is still below percentage for jobs and resources to improve
employment status.
Currently unemployed. No income. Paying rent from savings. Cannot afford another rental increase.
Where will I move?
""NO REAL CONCERN BEYOND NORMAL. LANDLORD USALLY HAS ASKED ME IF I COULD
AFFORD A RENT INCREASE? SOME TIMES HE DOES NOT INCREASE'S IT. 3% IS Fair. I LIVE
IN A GOOD AREA OF ALAMEDA. ALAMEDA IS WORTH MORE TO LIVE HERE.
COMPARED TO S.F. SAFER THAN NEIGHBORING TOWN'S. I PAY ELECTRIC ONLY.
I SEE CITY VARIOUS BUSINESS FEE'S GOING UP. I SEE IN THE NEWS THAT PROPERTY TAX'S
ARE GOING UP.LANDLOARD PAY'S ACI, EBMUD AND PG&E. LANDLOARD SAY'S LOAN IS ON A
VARIABLE %.
Greater than 10% increase in single month.
This landlord purchased the two buildings 2 months before I moved in. ALL the tenants save 2 have
moved out because she increased the rent by $200 if not more. One tenant was an 85 yr old SICK
woman who ran out of money & had to move into state run home- she died after being there 4 days! All
the tenants who moved in after me are paying $1650 & over. After a fire in one unit & subsequent
construction ( still ongoing), landlord is trying to get $1850 + for 1 bedroom apts. I'm sure she will raise
my rent at end of lease in November.
We are mostly concerned about the reasons for the increase: HOA dues, parcel tax increase, and other
increased expenses. The dues we discovered increased by only 11.00 and if there we are asked to
vote on parcel tax increase, we now feel we'd be charged for those increased expenses so it's
pressured us to offer a negative vote regardless of the issue.
I'm disabled and my social security disability is my only source of income because I receive my benefit
on the 2nd Wednesday of the month I am always late and pay a $100 fee. In addition I locked myself
out and he onside manager charged me $50 to unlock my door! I am paying 90 percent of my income
on rent
My husband and I live in a studio apartment that we moved into when I was on a contract job and he
was just starting a new job because we figured in 6 months or a year when our employment situations
stabilized, we would move to a 1 bedroom, which was going for about $1200 at the time, I would say.
They have gone up so much that we consider something in the $1400-1500 range a bargain, but not a
good enough price to consider moving. Meanwhile we are in fear of our rent going up to what a 1
bedroom was when we first came to Alameda just over 1 year ago.
The building I have called home for the last seven years recently changed hands and the rent was
increased. The increase was uneven and I believe illegally applied. This is a five unit converted
Victorian with 4 one bedroom units and a studio. Two of the one bedrooms have a small bonus space,
maybe big enough for an office or a nursery, with a window and a door but no closet. When XXX was
managing the building they said they did not qualify as bedrooms.
Rent Survey for City of Alameda - Summary of Survey Results as of July, 15, 2015
5
www.RenewedHopeHousing.org
RenewedHopeHousing@gmail.com
Laura Thomas (510)522-8901",CityCouncil/2014-07-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2014-07-15,24,"When the building was sold and the rents were raised to """"market value"" those two units were raised
to $1600 while the other two units, one of them mine, were only raised to $1400. This seemed unfair to
me, we all had the same rental descriptions when we moved in. My unit went up $350 theirs went up
$475
One other (a studio) had to vacate due to pending construction.
I cannot find anywhere else to live and will have to stay during a foundation replacement and feel it may
be unsafe, but what are you going to do? This island is railroading existing tenants out with huge rent
increases and pulling in the highest bidders. The two tenants who just left chose to leave the state and I
am considering the same option. In the last 90 days I've only seen two decent units at the $1200 price
point, I and many others applied, there just aren't any vacancies at a reasonable price.
Who can afford a 30 to 60 percent housing price hike on short notice? Gotta love gentrification, I
thought you should have a record of this situation here as part of your case file.
Although my rent is reasonable, they are now renting these units for nearly $1,700-1,800. I cannot
afford my place (barely), but I cannot move because I will lose this rate. Investigating nearby options,
the price appears to have SKYROCKETED.
I have a decent deal since I am sort of a ""On site manager"" but there's no way I could stay in the bay
area if I lost this place. That said I still think I pay way too much given the blue collar job situation these
days. It's an unfortunate fact that the housing market is predicated on the idea that ""The dumbest tool
with more money than they can handle responsibly wins."". In a nutshell this means that whenever
someone buys a home it's because they out bid a whole lot of much smarter people just because they
could get more financing. That's bullshit and it creates homelessness meaning better people than them
are living on the street. I think we need to lose the idea that property values and housing prices are one
and the same. They aren't. The ""real"" in ""real estate"" means that property values remain stable over
time. The Native Americans didn't believe in property ownership, therefore real estate was worth $0 to
them. There's your ""property value"" right there. It's long overdue for housing prices to get back to
reality. Overpaid yuppies are the problem and I don't allow them in my economy.
We saw a 6 percent increase with no improvements to our unit just after the first year. We spent much
of the year arguing to repair items that we noted were in need within our move in checklist, and the
response that we received was largely that the property owner did not want to invest in the repairs, and
that the unit was in high demand and we could leave if we wanted. We don't feel like valued renters,
""repairs"" are done in a patchwork manner if at all, and yet even still we have to watch as the rent
continues to increase. We're worried about future planning as there are no standards, for all we know it
could continue to increase by 6% annually, thus pricing us out of Alameda (where we own a small
business and is important to us to stay).
I think it's an outrageous increase. I have no storage, I pay all the utilities, I have no parking. The
landlords do no gardening. It's all about money with no care for the people who actually live there. I've
live in Alameda all my life, I'm 42, why should I move because money hungry slum lords think they
need more money for a run-down piece of property?
I have been living in my apartment for over 28 years. In January, the property was sold and I received
a $350.00 rent increase. The new landlord will not repaint, fix or do anything to my apartment. My
Rent Survey for City of Alameda - Summary of Survey Results as of July, 15, 2015
6
www.RenewedHopeHousing.or
RenewedHopeHousing@gmail.com
I
Laura Thomas (510)522-8901",CityCouncil/2014-07-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2014-07-15,25,"apartment has not been painted inside except for once where the old landlord paid for the paint and I
had to pay for the painters.
My concern is that with the demand for housing and the proposed development of the del monte
building just a stones throw away, my landlord will continue to raise the rents because of the willingness
of people trying to move to the island to pay more than something is worth to move in. Being month to
month and not on a lease, I fear that any day we can get another increase (that we won't be able to
afford) in order for him to maximize his profits and because other people are willing to pay more.
Knowing how the market has changed so quickly recently, my wife and I are terrified that we will then
be unable to find affordable housing on the island and have to move somewhere less desirable. We are
both small business owners trying to make something out of our lives. This is unfair.
We couldn't afford to move anywhere else in Alameda or in a decent part of Oakland for that matter.
We feel stuck and without options. Our landlord would be happy to have us leave because they can
turn around and rent our $1000 one-bedroom for $1350 to new tenants
I can't afford a private apartment for myself and my son in Alameda because I don't make enough
money working as a teacher's aide for the school district.
I'm concerned of future increases. I'm barely scraping by and an increase would cause me to find
a
smaller place or leave Alameda, which is something I don't want to do. I have lived here all my life.
My husband and I are both on disability, we barely get $2k between the two of us.
I'm not concerned about my rent increase. I understand that my landlord has expenses too.
Our lease will be up in a few months are we are concerned about them raising the rent an
unsustainable amount. I have heard horror stories about rents being raised by hundreds of dollars.
My current landlord ha been completely fair and only raised the rent once in the past 5 years, my
concern is if I have to find another rental in alameda I am completely priced out!
Low supply + high demand = increasing rents.
I've lived in the same address for 17 years. It's a 7 unit bldg. I don't have issues with the rent since
that's the reason I've stayed here for yrs. Privately owned.
It was 10.4 percent and they only gave me 30 days notice. I decided not to push back for a 60 day
notice because I was afraid of retaliation.
I
am on a limited fixed income it is very stressful when my rent is increased. I have taken on cleaning
the laundry room and handling the trash bins in lieu of a reduction in my rent because it was the only
way to make ends meet.
If it continues to increase I may have no place to go. Increases don't mean owners are taking care of
apt bldg or inside of apt. Was told increase was due to people moving to area so the can charge more.
I currently pay slightly more than 45 percent of my monthly income (net) on rent. I realize that this is
partly because I work at a non-profit agency serving seniors and persons with disabilities, but since the
Rent Survey for City of Alameda - Summary of Survey Results as of July, 15, 2015
7
www.RenewedHopeHousing.or
enewedHopeHousing@gmail.com
I
Laura Thomas (510)522-8901",CityCouncil/2014-07-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2014-07-15,26,"agency serves many persons in Alameda (and receives some city funding to do so), I would just like to
stress the need for having livable & affordable housing for those who do this kind of service work. I
also volunteer my time for one of the City's Commissions and try to contribute to the community on a
voluntary basis. I would hate to leave Alameda.
Rent in Alameda is very cheap compared to the rest of the Bay Area.
I'm a single mom. If there's another rent increase, I will have to move to a less safe city, further away
from my job. We've lived here for 18 years.
The rent increase has occurred, but the quality of service from the property manager and/or property
owner has been inconsistent.
I'm always worried I can no longer afford to rent in alameda and real estate pricing has sky rocketed so
the idea of buying a home that I can live with my two kids remains that of a dream
I will eventually have to move out of Alameda.
Very concerned that our rent will go up by a lot after our one-year lease is up
In comparison to other apartments in the same area, the amount is much higher. In addition, I pay an
additional $80-90 per month for trash/sewage that is not included in the rent and based on the overall
use of all tenants. I can't afford a $125 annual increase. In addition, I don't have normal amenities such
as a microwave or dishwasher. Supposedly, the hike was in comparison to other comparable
apartments in the area. Yet we don't have the amenities as other apartments in the area for the same
price. There's other areas as well that have security for the same price. I've had my brand new car
keyed in the very front of the building facing the street.
The concern is that there seems to be no purpose to raise the rents other than across the board greed.
I have no choice but to look to move out of the state of California seeing that my current rent for a one
bedroom apartment is more than most mortgages for a 4 bedroom house outside California. I am
throwing this money away instead of investing in my future.
Landlord thinks he can get 1700.00 for a 2 bed room that has sub par electoral (4 fuses for the hole
house and one plug per room a bathroom that is from the 50s ) has a illegal apartment on the ground
floor ceilings are under 7' and is just a slum lord
No increase in maintenance and upkeep.
I could barely afford this one. If it goes up $100 every year or two, will need to move some place
cheaper, which will mean moving out of Alameda. This seems like a sad reality. Already looking at San
Leandro.
There is 1 elderly adult and 1 disabled adult living in the home with me. We cannot afford to move, and
we cannot afford the outrageous rent increases either. We are very friendly with all the neighbors and
feel like this is home. We cannot afford to buy -- one nearby condo sold for $480,000 recently.
The only concern I have is the landlord or management company may decide to ""market correct"" our
rent. Currently units of a similar size and nature are fetching nearly double what we currently pay. This
Rent Survey for City of Alameda - Summary of Survey Results as of July, 15, 2015
8
www.RenewedHopeHousing.or
RenewedHopeHousing@gmail.com
I
Laura Thomas (510)522-8901",CityCouncil/2014-07-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2014-07-15,27,"has left us in a strange place where we've stopped contacting the management company for anything
other than major repairs. Our policy has been to keep as far below the radar as we can.
We can't afford to live here if our rent increases again next year. My Husband is a temp making only
$14.50/hr at nearby XXX, and I am a contractor, read, not full time employee, at a tech company in
Silicon Valley. Of course no significant upgrades or work has been done to our house, either.
I'm concerned it's going to continue to go up as more affluent people continue to move to the island.
I
know I am very lucky to have a landlord interested in long term retention of tenants. My commitment
to
being here for years was a major factor in them accepting my application.
I received an initial increase from $900 to $1, 150. After attending a meeting with Alameda Housing
Authority, the rent was reduced to $990. Am I to expect a minimum of 10 percent each year.
I moved to a different apartment complex and a smaller apartment after less than a year at my previous
location, because I knew the rent was going to increase from 2095 for a 3 bedroom, at least $150 and
the landlord would not let me move into a smaller apartment, even when my one year lease was up.
I have no concerns - the rent is very reasonable.
I moved in years ago. Now, since Alameda is the place to move, my rent has gone up just so the
manager can pocket profit to keep up at the market rate.
Concerned that the owner will recognize how much they could charge (3000) VS. what they do charge
me! Live month by month waiting for the other shoe to drop
I've been lucky to have a landlord who wants us to stay so hasn't raised the rent but relocation would
be impossible. Too expensive now!
No moderate income housing; no rent control
Unfortunately, continuous increases are the standard, not the exception. This is regardless of the actual
work being done and the market. While the percentage may fluctuate, the increase has become all too
""normal."" I have lived in two units in this complex and even in probably one of the least favorable units
(in terms of location - bottom floor, between units, no view, facing a wall and a studio) increases were
still standard. You are all but forced into a one-year lease if you do not have something ready for move-
in because the shorter term lease options have such a steeper increase. And with the 1-year, they still
try to shave days so you don't even get that rate for a full year.
We moved in December and within just 6 months the rents have skyrocketed! Our rental company said
that if we were to walk in off the street today they would charge almost $800 more o month! This is
ridiculous! They have told us to expect at least a 5%-10% increase in rent when our lease is up
(perhaps more depending on the market).
Our last building was bought and the new owner had everyone leave. The new owner redid the floors
and painted, over doubling the rent. My concern is that I am being pushed out of my city of birth. I have
worked at the same non-profit institution for 30 years, have a Bachelor's degree. My salary is far under
the median. Soon, rents will be at over a third of my income so no one will rent to me. I am concerned
Rent Survey for City of Alameda - Summary of Survey Results as of July, 15, 2015
9
www.RenewedHopeHousing.or
RenewedHopeHousing@gmail.com
I
Laura Thomas (510)522-8901",CityCouncil/2014-07-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2014-07-15,28,"that money is the bottom line for Alameda owners, rather than diversity. I am concerned that I will end
up on the street. There have got to be some housing alternatives in this day and age. I saw the low cost
studios on Park Ave and Central, but seriously, studios? Maybe for the young, but not the majority. This
seems like a sad attempt to pad affordable housing numbers.
It's been ridiculous now for many years at the XXX apartments! A 6% increase one year, 5% the next,
back up to 6% last year, and 6% again this year. We've gone to the Alameda Housing/Rental Board 3
different times up against the property manager and XXX, all to no avail. EVEN THOUGH the Board
has ""strongly recommended"" against these increases, especially since we've lived here since 1997,
AND since certain concessions made by the manager made weren't fulfilled. The property isn't the
oldest in town, but still could use some major improvements and upgrades without the tenants paying
through the nose for them! We are S00000000 sick of hearing, ""Well, you SHOULD be paying us much
more for your apartment/floor plan/view!"" after all these years, this is very frustrating, rude, and even
disrespectful. We've seen this place go so far downhill that it was only approximately 25% occupied at
one time in this 450-unit property! Pet rules/acceptance has come and gone, and is back on at this
time. Our barbecue grills have been removed and tenants are only allowed to have the equivalent of a
camp sized propane stove on patios/balconys. Plants were asked to be removed, but the new (only
part-time, by the way) manager is a bit more lenient. Oh boy, the list goes on, but we feel it is all
reflective in the amount of rent we ALL pay here, even with constant parking garage and car breakins,
thefts and internal burglaries does all this justify the rental increases and poor treatment we get
in
return? We think not.
""My friend looked to get a place here last week. She was quoted $1,969/mo + pet rent for a year in a
JUNIOR one bedroom---not even a one bedroom! She looked into a place here six months ago--I
believe she was quoted - $1,800. She ended up renting at XXX for ~ low $1,750. Rent here has gone
up nearly $200 in six months! Not to mention the theft in the buildings and additional $50/mo for an
extra parking space.
I cannot afford the increase, but I cannot move. Rent has gotten so expensive in alameda, I am
completely stuck. Next year I anticipate moving out of alameda because l'll be priced out of my
apartment.
I am a ferry rider -> SF, an artist that participates in the local art community, and I'm worried I will no
longer get to be a part of this community I love so much. Options are severely restricted because of dog
ownership. Looking online (craigslist), there is nothing available for less than ~$2,000.
6. When I call on maintenance or repair issues, it takes
to receive a response and have it fixed.
24 hours
36%
Never
One week
25%
Other
One month
One month
4%
Never
5%
One week
Other
30%
24 hours
Rent Survey for City of Alameda - Summary of Survey Results as of July, 15, 2015
10
www.RenewedHopeHousing.org
RenewedHopeHousing@gmail.com
|
Laura Thomas (510)522-8901",CityCouncil/2014-07-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2014-07-15,29,"Attachment to July 15, 2014
Regular City Council Minutes",CityCouncil/2014-07-15.pdf