body,date,page,text,path
CityCouncil,2016-02-02,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - FEBRUARY 2, 2016- -5:30 P.M.
Mayor Spencer convened the meeting at 6:03 p.m.
Roll Call -
Present:
Councilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie
and Mayor Spencer - 5.
Absent:
None.
The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(16-039) Conference with Conference with Labor Negotiators (Pursuant to Government
Code § 54957.6) City Negotiator: Elizabeth D. Warmerdam Employee Organizations:
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1245 (IBEW), Electric Utility
Professional Association of Alameda (EUPA), Alameda City Employees Association
(ACEA), Alameda Police Officers Association Non-Sworn Unit (PANS), Alameda
Management and Confidential Employees Association (MCEA), Executive Management
(EXME), and Alameda Municipal Power Unrepresented Management Employees
(AMPU) UNDER NEGOTIATION: Salaries and terms of employment.
Following the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Spencer
announced direction was given to staff.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 6:22 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
February 2, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-02-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-02-02,2,"MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - FEBRUARY 2, 2016--7:00 P.M.
Mayor Spencer convened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese,
Oddie and Mayor Spencer - 5.
Absent:
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
None.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(16-040) Mayor Spencer read the Season of Non Violence word of the day.
(16-041) The Interim City Manager introduced the new Human Resources Director,
Nancy Bronstein and the Community Development Director introduced the new
Economic Development Manager, Lois Butler.
(16-042) Mayor Spencer announced there is a housing provider vacancy on the Rent
Review Advisory Committee; encouraged anyone interested to apply.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(16-043) John Klein, Alameda, discussed undercover officers being at the January 5,
2016 meeting, which had an impact on the trust being built with the City; the officers
were there because there was safety complaints; in response to his record request, he
received over 140 emails and there was only one complaint from a landlord and board
member, Doug Smith; read the email.
Mayor Spencer commented that she was really proud of the community at the January
5, 2016 meeting for conducting themselves in a professional manner.
(16-044) Robb Ratto, Downtown Alameda Business Association, thanked the Public
Works Department for responding to a tree falling on Park Street, removing another tree
that probably would have fallen, and for reopening the sidewalk on a portion of Park
Street, including removing rivets and putting the fence back up twice.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the Consent Calendar.
Vice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
February 2, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-02-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-02-02,3,"[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph
number.]
(*16-045) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings Held on January 5,
2016. Approved.
(*16-046) Ratified bills in the amount of $3,873,910.46.
(*16-047) Resolution No. 15115, ""Amending the Electric Utility Professionals
Association of Alameda (EUPA) Salary Schedule to Establish the Classification
of
Media Coordinator.' Adopted; and
(*16-047A) Resolution No. 15116, ""Approving Workforce Changes at Alameda
Municipal Power."" Adopted.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(16-048) Public Hearing to Consider Approving the Housing and Community
Development Needs Statement for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Annual Plan for Fiscal Year 2016-17.
The Housing Programs Manager gave a Power Point presentation.
Outlined the needs which the Social Service Human Relations Board (SSHRB) is
focusing on and provided a history of the changes in types of services; stated the focus
is now safety net services: Doug Biggs, SSHRB.
Stated Building Futures runs the Midway Shelter, leads the Domestic Violence Task
Force and homeless prevention, and runs 52 units on the former Base; CDBG funds are
used to leverage other funds; the services could not be done without the CDBG funds,
as well as City staff and community support: Liz Varela, Building Futures.
Outlined services offered by 2-1-1; provided an example of a call received: Alison
DeJung, Eden I&R.
Outlined Echo Housing's services; noted presentations are given to educate tenants
and landlords: Marjorie Rocha, Echo Housing.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated getting data from Echo Housing would be beneficial;
stated that he would like Council to consider giving direction to do so.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for the recommendation.
Mayor Spencer requested information be forwarded to staff.
Outlined legal services offered; stated Legal Assistance for Seniors (LAC) might be able
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
February 2, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-02-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-02-02,4,"to offer the City assistance with rental issues: James Treggiari, LAS.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft thanked the organizations that help the vulnerable
citizens; stated that she supports the proposal.
Councilmember Oddie thanked the SSHRB members and all the other organizations for
their work; requested that staff work towards acquiring more funding to do more for the
vulnerable citizens; urged Councilmembers to not just say they would like to do more,
but to actually do more.
Councilmember Daysog thanked the service providers for all that they provide for the
residents of Alameda.
Vice Mayor Matarrese requested follow up once implementation of the proposal has
been decided; suggested the three housing providers assist the City in addressing the
vulnerable population related to current rental issues; stated that he would like a plan to
have the ability to adjust to the current crisis as needed.
Mayor Spencer thanked the SSHRB and the providers for their critical work; stated that
she supports the issue coming back to Council in the future regarding the allocation of
funds to further support the community.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the Housing and Community
Development Needs Statement for the CDBG Annual Plan for Fiscal Year 2016-17.
Vice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote
-
5.
(16-049) Public Hearing to Consider Call for Review and Adoption of Resolution
Upholding the Planning Board Resolution PB-16-01 to Deny Use Permit File No.
PLN15-0440 to Allow the Sale of Beer and Wine at a Convenience Store (76 Gas
Station) Located at 1716 Webster Street. Not adopted. [The proposed amendment is
categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines Section 15270 - Projects Which Are Disapproved.]
Councilmember Daysog recused himself and left the dais.
The Planning Services Manager gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the request for a variance is being made for the
first time and whether the Planning staff recommended approval at the Planning Board
hearing; to which the Planning Services Manager replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Oddie requested clarification on what the basis of the decision was.
The Planning Services Manager clarified the purpose included in the General Plan.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
February 2, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-02-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-02-02,5,"Councilmember Oddie inquired if there was data from the police department to support
the complaints from the citizens.
The Planning Services Manager responded in 2012, data was downloaded from the
Police database for incidents in the neighborhood vicinity.
In response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry, the Planning Services Manager stated
the report pulled alcohol related incidents in the neighborhood.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the 2012 staff report indicated restrictions could
be placed on businesses if needed, if there were concerns raised from alcohol.
The Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Spencer inquired if staff would describe the conditions the Alcoholic Beverage
Control (ABC) would put on the license.
The Planning Services Manager responded that the City would impose the conditions.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether ABC has some conditions on licenses already.
The Planning Services Manager responded as part of the liquor license, there are some
State regulations that the business owner would need to follow.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the City has an opportunity to weigh in on some
of the restrictions.
The Planning Services Manager responded the City could impose additional conditions.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether a letter to ABC could be written stating the City
granted a conditional use permit and would like specific conditions.
The Planning Services Manager responded ABC has its own set of restrictions related
to businesses and alcohol; in addition to the State's standard regulations, the City can
impose additional restrictions.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether ABC can conduct investigations and impose
further restrictions if it receives complaints from neighbors.
The Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative; clarified the City's use
permit process could also contain restrictions.
The Planning Services Manager continued the presentation.
Councilmember Oddie stated the City issued a permit to a big box retailer adjacent to a
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
February 2, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-02-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-02-02,6,"neighborhood; it seems inconsistent to have one set of rules for big box retailers and
another set of rules for small businesses.
Mayor Spencer added that Target is another big box in the neighborhood that has a
beer and liquor license.
The City Planner clarified Safeway Gas is on the Gateway Site and Safeway grocery
store is on Alameda Landing site; stated there were vested zoning rights under the
Master Plan; grocery stores have a vested right to sell alcohol; the entitlements and
vesting rights did not apply to the Gateway Site, i.e., Safeway Gas; Safeway Gas was
built one year after the Council had unanimously denied the sale of alcohol on the
Gateway Site; the City felt the policy was established and did not pursue changes.
Councilmember Oddie inquired if Target was also a part of the Master Plan, to which
the Community Development Director responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Spencer inquired why there was no change when the issue came back to the
Planning Board.
The City Planner responded there is a change in the environment and more
competition.
Mayor Spencer inquired about the change in the availability of alcohol.
The City Planner responded the change is the availability of alcohol does not change
the underlining findings of the City Council in 2012 or the reasons it was turned down;
stated whether the Council cited the primary factors for the denial were an over
concentration and a large number alcohol related Police incidents in that neighborhood;
the Planning Board referred to said conditions as having no change.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether out of the 54 active off-sale licenses, 16 were issued
after 2012, which is a 30% increase Citywide; question with so many licenses being
issued, how can denying the use permit not be looked at as some sort of discrimination
against this retailer.
The Planning Services Manager responded issuance depends on the type of business;
spirits alley and Alameda Point have off-sale licenses; there are also businesses that
can obtain an on-sale license without a use permit.
Mayor Spencer clarified that she was referring to off-sale licenses only.
The Planning Services Manager stated on-sale licenses allows people to take a bottle of
wine home.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether 41 new on-sale license issued in the same time period
which is a 26% increase across the City; questioned how does denial, not look
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
February 2, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-02-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-02-02,7,"discriminatory or personal against this one particular vendor.
The City Planner responded the City does not issue ABC licenses
The Planning Services Manager clarified that on-sale licenses are generated differently;
a new business coming to town will apply for a business license and go through zoning
review; restaurants can serve alcohol under the ABC rules; generally off-sale licenses
require conditional use permits; an increase on-sale licenses reflects other types of
permitted use allowed in the zoning.
The City Planner stated the item before Council is a use permit; the findings are
documented conditions in the neighborhood; the City cannot be arbitrary about the
issue; there have to be clear reasons why the City is saying yes to some people and no
to others.
Mayor Spencer stated at one of the Planning Board meetings it was stated that there
are no beer and wine sales at gas stations; requested for clarification.
The Planning Services Manager stated there are currently three.
Mayor Spencer stated beer and wine sales have been allowed at Valero since 2001, at
Chevron since 1993 and AM/PM since 1988; representations that the City does not do
so even though it has been allowed since 1988, is a change that could be a finding that
contradicts the prior findings.
The City Planner responded that the City has never made a finding in a written
document that the City does not sell alcohol from a gas station; it is the Council's
prerogative to decide whether the City has different priorities and then apply that to all
businesses.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she was on the Planning Board in 2012 when
the Board denied the application; the application was denied because of community
input regarding public drunkenness, loitering, littering and crimes being committed.
Councilmember Oddie inquired where the off-sale licenses have been issued
in
Alameda since the original application was denied in 2012.
The Planning Services Manager responded that there were numerous locations such as
spirits alley, WalGreens on Park Street, Bonfare Market and Neptune Plaza on Webster
Street.
Councilmember Oddie inquired if the location on Webster Street is in close proximity to
the gas station.
The Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative; stated that Bonfare
Market and Neptune Plaza would be considered a grocery store; outlined the difference
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
February 2, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-02-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-02-02,8,"between a grocery and a convenience store.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the permit was issued on May 12, 2015 and
whether the issue date was before or after the rules were changed for grocery stores.
The Planning Services Manager responded it was issued before 2015 in mid-2012.
Councilmember Oddie questioned whether the point that the area is saturated is valid if
licenses have been issued in the area.
Clarified that the original entitlement for Alameda Landing specifically prohibited grocery
stores in the area, the MOU was subsequently changed and Safeway and Target were
built; urged Council to approve the use permit application by Circle K; stated there are
currently three gas stations on Park Street that have been selling beer and wine for
several years; the Circle K is not a freeway location, it is a neighborhood location and
most of Mr. Liu's customers are residents of Alameda; Mr. Liu and his brother invested
time and money to build Circle K; allowing Circle K to sell beer and wine will allow them
to increase their sales: Sandip Jariwala, West Alameda Business Association (WABA).
Stated that he owns the building adjacent to the Circle K and he and his tenants are
opposed to the proposal: David Franklin, Alameda.
Urged Council to allow Circle K to sell beer and wine; stated that he has been working
with Mr. Liu from day one to support and train him on how to be a responsible retailer
for the community; clarified Circle K is not a typical convenience store; the focus is
healthy, gourmet foods and gluten free alternatives; the loiterers and trouble makers do
not typically shop for beer at Circle K; the beer and wine will give Circle K the
competitive edge that it needs; staff goes through an extensive sales training program
that is more restrictive than ABC or Police requirements: Mike Faquiryan, Circle K
Stores.
Urged Council to approve the beer and wine license use permit; addressed
Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft's concerns that if a license for Circle K is approved they
would have to approve one for the Chevron and the Shell gas stations also; stated
Chevron and Shell are auto shops with a snack shop, not convenience stores; he spent
close to $1 million to beautify Webster Street; if he knew Safeway gas was going to
build there he would have never built his store; he cannot compete with Safeway gas
without the license to sell beer and wine: Delong Liu, Applicant.
Councilmember Oddie inquired if the applicant would be willing to adhere to restrictions
such as cut off times for the sale of alcohol or hiring a security guard in the evenings.
Mr. Liu responded there is a garbage or recycle pick up at his store every day; he
requires his cashiers to go outside every hour and pick up trash; the restrooms are state
of the art and very clean; the coolers can be locked.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
February 2, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-02-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-02-02,9,"Councilmember Oddie inquired what would be a reasonable restriction to Mr. Liu.
Mr. Liu responded that he would adhere to the Council's recommendations in regards to
the hours.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated he would like to hear from the other speakers on this topic
and then call the applicant back up after the discussion.
Expressed support for allowing the sale of alcohol: Jianhong Lin.
Expressed support for allowing the sale of alcohol: Lap Chi Wong.
Expressed support for allowing the sale of alcohol: Catherina Chen.
Stated that she works at the store; customers support the sale of alcohol: Jessica Zhao.
Stated approving the application would be fair; the Council can approve conditions:
Cynthia Bonta, Alameda.
Stated that issue is fairness and equity for all businesses; questioned why the station
should be prevented from selling beer and wine when others stations are allowed to do
so; urged Council to approve allowing the sale of alcohol: Former Councilmember
Stewart Chen, Alameda.
Stated that he lives near the gas station; the rules were known before the business was
established; the previous Council decision should not be allowed to be revisited; people
gather at the liquor store across the street: Keith Weitzen, Alameda.
Stated the West End is turning an important corner; that she is concerned with the
oversaturation of liquor stores; gave a recent example of a drunk driver hitting three
cars; stated that she is fighting for a safe neighborhood: Karen Bey, Alameda.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Circle K station was approved without the beer
and wine license; she met with the WABA board members, spoke with the Police Chief
and with neighbors to balance competing arguments; she feels the Planning Board
made a good decision, which she will support; Webster Street has been transitioning
and she would like to see it continue to transition in a positive way.
Councilmember Oddie stated that he called the item for review because he does not
think the applicant had a fair hearing; concerned with the Mayor that the conditions have
changed; stated that he does not believe there will be a saturation of liquor licenses in
the City; he feels it is incongruent to allow it for some and not others; if the applicant is
willing to abide by some reasonable conditions, he would vote to overturn the decision
and support the application; he informed the neighbors that if they have a complaint
regarding loitering, the ABC takes complaints seriously, conduct hearings and can place
restrictions on the license; he would like to see the Council approve the license with the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
February 2, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-02-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-02-02,10,"restrictions that take into account the concerns of the neighbors.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated the three gas stations on Park Street already had a liquor
license and operate without use permits; the Planning Board decided to allow the
operation to continue and legalized it with use permits; the City has not granted a liquor
license since 1995; it is not in line with the General Plan; the use permit would go with
the land so if Mr. Liu sells the property a new owner might not be as conscientious as
Mr. Liu; the conditions could be hard to enforce.
Vice Mayor Matarrese moved uphold approval of upholding the Planning Board
decision.
Mayor Spencer inquired if the Bonfare Market's license stays with the location.
The Community Development Director responded that Bonfare has been there for a
long time and the 40 new licenses were a transfer from the old owner to the new owner;
when a business is sold a new license has to be issued by ABC.
Mayor Spencer inquired if the license stays with the land.
The Community Development Director responded that the use permit stays with the
land and the license stays with the business.
Mayor Spencer stated the handout the Council received states the original issue date of
the license for Bonfare Market was on May 2015; she plans to support the use permit;
she disagrees that the findings are arbitrary and capricious; since the City continues to
issue licenses, she feels it appears to be discrimination against this one business.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated there are an even number of Councilmembers;
inquired what would happen in a two-two vote.
The City Attorney responded that the Planning Board decision stands.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated that he disagrees with the comments about the decision
being arbitrary or capricious; the distinctions people have brought up with him were the
ability to pump gas, purchase a beer then immediately get back into the car.
Vice Mayor Matarrese moved approval upholding the Planning Board decision.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft second the motion; stated that the volunteer Boards and
Commissions put a lot of time and effort into the decisions they make.
Mayor Spencer noted the vote at the Planning Board was not unanimous.
On the call for the question, the motion failed by the following voice vote: Ayes:
Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft and Matarrese - 2. Noes: Councilmember Oddie and
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
February 2, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-02-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-02-02,11,"Mayor Spencer - 2.
Mayor Spencer moved approval of issuing the use permit.
The motion failed for a lack of second.
***
Mayor Spencer called a recess at 9:00 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:08 p.m.
***
(16-050) Introduction of Ordinance Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City
Manager to Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a 5-Year Lease
with Dreyfuss Capital Partners, a California Limited Liability Company, for Building 29
Located at 1701 Monarch Street at Alameda Point. Introduced.
The Assistant Community Development Director gave a brief presentation.
Stated that he has a small workspace and supports Peter Dreyfuss and the lease;
Dreyfuss Partners provides reasonable and affordable rent: Tim Laistico, Building 29.
Stated having to move is disruptive and expensive; a five year lease is critical; small
businesses operate on narrow margins, so the reasonable rent is critical: Wolfgang
Brinck, Building 29 Tenant and Alameda resident.
In response to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, Mr. Brinck stated that he builds
kayaks.
Stated that he is a steel sculpture; most tenants make a living doing machining work;
responded to concerns raised in the Sierra Club letter: Peter Dreyfuss, Lessee.
Urged Council to let tenants keep the amazing collaborative environment in Building 29:
Andrea Johannessen, Alameda Wooden Trailers.
Stated that he has found a real home in Building 29 and the community; he wants to
employ people from the community and stay in Alameda: Thomas Bianco, Alameda
Wooden Trailers.
Stated there is rich, craftsman culture in Building 29; Building 29 craftsmen offer
something meaningful to the Alameda community, both culturally and economically;
urged Council to approve a five year lease: Joan Boucher, Alameda.
Stated that he runs a business out of Building 29 and employees other people; there is
a lot of wildlife outside the building; the raptor's that the Sierra Club is referencing also
perch on all the buildings in the area; removing the building will not change that; the
building houses businesses that manufacture things for people in the community and
beyond; urged Council to approve the 5 year lease: Chris Hirneisen, Vectorpickle.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
February 2, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-02-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-02-02,12,"Stated that the building is his livelihood; relocating is easy for a big business but is hard
for a small business; he is concerned with Google coming into the area; big companies
come in and take over; invited the community and Councilmembers to come out and
see his space and work; stated low rent from Mr. Dreyfuss keeps him in the area; urged
Council to extend their time in Building 29: Sean Hibma-Cronan, 1701 Monarch.
Requested City Council shorten the lease of the tenants in Building 29 and for the City
to assist in finding them a new home; stated tenants should receive first choice in any
available space at Alameda Point; the tenants should not be displaced or moved from
Alameda Point; inquired whether Council has an idea to solidify the De-Pave Park
plans; urged Council to do something to show support for De-Pave Park: Irene Dieter,
Sierra Club.
Stated there is an approved plan but there are also existing tenants; he supports the
tenants staying at Alameda Point; the plan approved in 2014 for the waterfront does not
include Building 29; the lease does not guarantee the tenants will remain there because
a clause in the lease states the tenant or landlord can retract the lease; the approved
plan states that the building can be torn down once funding is available for the park;
urged tenants to start looking for another building now: Richard Bangert, Alameda.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated that he would like the businesses to stay at Alameda Point
and also would like the park; the plan that was approved by the City does not include
Building 29; he would like the Council to consider the 5 year lease to accomplish both
the goals; the lease would generate $250,000 over the 5 years; the cost to demolish
Building 29 is approximately $300,000; he feels 2 years is an unrealistic time frame and
supports the 5 year lease; the 5 year lease would give the City enough time to
accomplish both goals; inquired whether staff can work on the goals of relocating the
tenants and removing Building 29 to expand the wetlands and whether the lease
revenues from the building could be set aside for the demolition of the building.
The Assistant Community Development Director responded relocating existing tenants
is always a priority; stated the best economic strategy is to retain businesses; the City is
currently working with a developer who creates these types of spaces; there is a
shortage of stock because of the redevelopment at Alameda Point; the tenants require
spaces because of the type of work they do; in response to Vice Mayor Matarrese's
inquiry, stated the City is continuing to prioritize finding a space for these tenants; the
City is trying to build more creative spaces at Alameda Point possibly within the next 5
years.
In response to the question regarding taking the proceeds from the 5 year lease to
demolish Building 29, she believes the funds are already spoken for; there are some
significant priorities in the area of parks which staff has already been directed to ensure
are happening; De-Pave park is added to that list; there is only so much the City can do
with the limited resources and time.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
February 2, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-02-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-02-02,13,"Vice Mayor Matarrese responded that he believes the horizon for executing De-Pave
Park and the wetlands is a long one; the plan commits the City to the park; he would like
to get the ball rolling to put the City on the path to get the park; execution of the plan
depends on the building going away.
The Interim City Manager stated that she will ask the Chief Operating Officer - Alameda
Point and the Community Development Director to look into reallocating the $250,000;
stated that it would mean the money would not go into the Base Reuse department and
something else would have to come off the table; Council would have to decide if this is
a priority; the matter can be brought back at budget time.
Councilmember Oddie stated that he does not think this is the time for said discussion;
he feels the lease should be considered on its own; he would like to defer the
discussion regarding the money; he does not see anything that would want to make him
vote against the lease; he supports approving the lease.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he feels the type of activity in the building is
something Alameda wants to encourage; small, artisanal, craft manufacturing needs the
appropriate space; Building 29 houses like-minded individuals that can work with each
other; encouraged Vice Mayor Matarrese or Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft to craft
referrals on how to implement De-Pave Park; he supports the 5 year lease.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Council is worried about the loss of jobs in the
face of development; she does not see the De-Pave Park plan and a 5 year lease for
Building 29 as mutually exclusive; the work will be done in phases; she supports the
staff recommendations; lease revenues are spoken for; the matter is for a future Council
discussion; she cannot support eliminating jobs and loss of revenue; she supports the
ordinance and the 5 year term; suggested staff organize a tour of the building and the
tenants open their doors for the community to see what they are doing.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether staff could take steps to make the area more
accessible to the public.
The Assistant Community Development Director responded staff is in the process of
removing the gates to allow cars to go through.
Mayor Spencer inquired if the community will be allowed to take pictures, which is a
complaint heard frequently.
The Assistant Community Development Director responded currently, people can walk
through the gate; stated the fencing was put in place to prevent vandalism and car
shows; staff hears the public and Council and are working to make the area more
accessible.
Mayor Spencer stated saying the building has to be demolished to give the public more
access to the area is not true; staff is working on giving more accessibility to the area;
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
February 2, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-02-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-02-02,14,"suggested that the tenants hold an open house and the City does not necessarily need
to be involved; steps to move forward with the park is a separate issue; moving forward
with the lease does not mean that the City is not committed to De-Pave Park; it is very
important to look for new space for the tenants; stated she supports the 5 year lease
and having the tenants stay in the building until it is demolished.
Vice Mayor Matarrese inquired how staff should pass on the sentiment that the building
is not going to be there forever; he would like a report back and progress towards the
goal of relocating the tenants within the 5 year window.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether would be the issue in the form of a Council referral;
stated that she feels there are not three Councilmembers who want to prioritize
demolishing a building ahead of building De-Pave Park.
The Interim City Manager clarified Vice Mayor Matarrese wants to make sure the
tenants know their lease is going to end.
Vice Mayor Mataresse reiterated that the building is not in the plan.
The City Attorney noted a provision in the lease allows either party to terminate the
lease on 12 months' notice; stated the tenants clearly heard the Council and
understand; the Assistant Community Development Director is working on relocating the
tenants; staff will come back to report on the progress; a Council referral is not needed.
Vice Mayor Matarrese responded that he supports the 5 year lease; he would like to
know how staff would make the matter a priority.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether Vice Mayor Matarrese is questioning how to prioritize
demolishing the building, to which the Vice Mayor Matarrese responded in the
affirmative.
Mayor Spencer stated that she does not believe there are three votes to prioritize
demolishing a building ahead of when the building would need to be demolished; she
does not want to demolish a building just to demolish it and have it be ahead of the
plans for De-Pave park; she stated if that is the question, a Council referral would need
to be done.
Vice Mayor Matarrese responded that if there is a 5 year lease and there is no plan for
what happens after the lease is up, the lease will be pushed out again and the park gets
pushed out with it; the building is next to the wetland, removal of the building is key in
getting outside funding to expand the wetland.
The Interim City Manager stated the discussion is veering too far off of the agenda.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated that there will be a Council referral.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
13
February 2, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-02-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-02-02,15,"Councilmember Oddie moved introduction of the ordinance.
Vice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
5.
(16-051) Recommendation to Approve the AC Transit Service Expansion Plan's Buena
Vista Avenue/Line 19 Alternative.
The Transportation Coordinator gave a Power Point presentation.
***
Mayor Spencer left the dais at 10:05 p.m. and returned at 10:06 p.m.
Vice Mayor Matarrese inquired whether the Measure BB monies are Alameda City
designated monies.
The Transportation Coordinator responded AC Transit has enough money for a 14%
increase districtwide, which provides one additional bus line in Alameda running at 30
minute frequencies.
Vice Mayor Matarrese inquired whether the money provided is Alameda's portion, to
which the Transportation Coordinator responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Matarrese inquired whether the new service would start in the summer
cycle, to which the Transportation Coordinator responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Matarrese inquired whether Council has to vote now to make the window
and not defer to the fall cycle, to which the Transportation Coordinator responded in the
affirmative.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether Vice Mayor Matarrese and Councilmember Daysog
serve on the liaison committee and were able to weigh in on the plan, to which the
Transportation Coordinator responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated both he and Councilmember Daysog were at the meeting
when AC Transit requested to make a decision on the three options; staff arranged it so
the Transportation Commission could review and make recommendations so that it
could come to Council to meet the AC Transit deadline of March and be included in the
summer cycle; route changes are in the summer and the fall; if the window is missed,
the City misses out on the 14% of Measure BB money for six months.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the recommended line is Vice Mayor Matarrese and
Councilmember Daysog's recommendation, to which Vice Mayor Matarrese responded
in the affirmative.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
14
February 2, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-02-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-02-02,16,"Councilmember Daysog thanked the various agencies involved; stated he agrees with
staff's recommendation; the area is underserved when it comes to bus transit and there
needs to be reliable transportation; questioned if the 19 line is redone will it relieve the
developers of projects in the area from providing a physical shuttle and have them
contribute to a renewed line 19; inquired whether there are any calculations on what it
would take to get to a 15 minute headway if line 19 is renewed.
The Transportation Coordinator responded the developers have demand management
and transit requirement's; stated instead of providing their own shuttle, they could
contribute to improving the AC Transit route; using the money provided for the shuttle,
the City could get 20 minute frequency.
Councilmember Daysog stated the 15 minute headway is something to consider if there
is funding; inquired whether line 19 will go up Webster Street or up Constitution, to
which the Transportation Coordinator responded the request to AC Transit is to have
line 19 run through Marina Village to capture more development money and
requirements; stated a goal is to keep the connection between the College of Alameda
and the College of Alameda annex.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated the City was cautioned not to tweak the plans, the hearing
is to pick one.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft referenced the staff report regarding development funds
increasing frequency to 20 minutes; stated that she places huge stock in what the
Transportation Commission and the Councilmembers on the liaison committee are
recommending; she supports the recommendation for restoring line 19.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the estuary shuttle would go away.
The Transportation Coordinator responded the estuary shuttle goes between Lake
Merrittt Bart, West Alameda, Marina Village and Wind River; Wind River contributes
$20,000 a year; a majority of the funding coming from grants; the solution is not good
long term due to lack of funding from the Air District; line 19 would be very similar and
would capture those riders; the Wind River money would go into increasing the
frequency of line 19.
Councilmember Oddie inquired if the Wind River money would contribute the $20,000.
The Transportation Coordinator responded Wind River is required to contribute $20,000
a year to the City; stated the City decides how to use the money.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether contributions from the developer and Wind
River would not cost less for AC Transit.
The Transportation Coordinator responded the AC Transit has enough money to fund
one additional bus line; stated if there are developer monies would improve the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
15
February 2, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-02-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-02-02,17,"frequency during peak periods.
Councilmember Oddie stated the ferry terminal is not being served; inquired what is AC
Transit willing to commit to the terminal.
Robert Del Rosario, AC Transit, stated AC Transit can only commit to one additional
route; that he is happy to look into other revenue sources with the City.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether AC Transit is taking into consideration staff's
request to commit funding for the cross island connection.
Mr. Del Rosario responded the operating funds do not cover three options; Council is
being asked to pick just one.
In response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry, Mr. Del Rosario stated AC Transit is
always in communication with the City on planning efforts and are committed to actively
planning routes; however, there are not enough operating dollars to have a bus on the
road.
The Transportation Coordinator stated the City is looking into how to generate money
and will brainstorm with AC Transit on options.
Councilmember Oddie stated funding should be a priority of AC Transit if the City is
going to restore line 19.
Councilmember Daysog expressed concern for ferry commuters with regards to the
buses being on time.
(16-052) Mayor Spencer stated a motion is needed to consider the remaining items:
Alameda Point environmental clean-up [paragraph no. 16-053]; the resolution regarding
conveyance [paragraph no. 16-055]; direction to staff regarding rent [paragraph no. 16-
056]; the referral regarding the Airport Operations Committee [paragraph no. 16-058];
and the referral regarding the clean water, pollution prevention, and habitat restoration
ballot measure [paragraph no. 16-059].
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of considering the remaining items.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Oddie inquired how many items were mandatory.
The Interim City Manager responded a consultant is present for the environmental
clean-up; conveyance needs to be done and rent stabilization needs to be done if
Council wants to continue on February 16th
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
16
February 2, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-02-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-02-02,18,"On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he is tracking how long it takes to get through the
Posey tube; it is important for people taking mass transit to get the benefit of Webster
Street.
Mayor Spencer inquired if the busses will connect to the Bart or the ferry.
Mr. Del Rosario responded in the affirmative; stated it will connect to both.
Mayor Spencer stated someone inquired why the bus has to go all the way across the
Island and why there are not shorter routes.
Mr. Del Rosario responded in Alameda, the route plan is to go from East to West
instead of North to South to be more efficient.
Mayor Spencer stated there is a need to find a way to connect to the ferry because of
the shortage of parking spaces; thanked the Councilmembers for serving on the
committee.
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
(16-053) Presentation on Status Report of Environmental Conditions and Clean-up at
Alameda Point.
Peter Russell, Russell Resources, gave a Power Point presentation.
Councilmember Daysog stated the process is important.
Vice Mayor Matarrese inquired if there is funding from the Navy or Department of
Defense to pay for the sediment management that is required in the seaplane lagoon;
stated there are three levels of insurance for the clean-up, but costs for the
sedimentation plan are additional.
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded that there will be a minimal
cost associated with managing the sediment; stated the City is designing the terminal to
ensure there will be no need to dredge because of the high cost.
Councilmember Daysog stated the Maritime Administration (MARAD) is reviewing their
options regarding dredging; which would have ramifications for the City because
MARAD is a large customer of Alameda Municipal Power.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
17
February 2, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-02-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-02-02,19,"The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated the MARAD ships are large and
require a certain depth; the lagoon has very little to no shoaling; benefits in the lagoon
that are different; the City does not anticipate MARAD ships in the lagoon, only ferrys
and recreational boating.
Mayor Spencer thanked Mr. Russell for his work; encouraged the community to attend
the Restoration Advisory Board meetings.
***
(16-054) Mayor Spencer stated a motion is needed to continue the meeting past 10:00
p.m.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of continuing the meeting.
Vice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
5.
***
(16-055) Resolution No. 15117, ""Authorizing the City Manager to Accept, on Behalf of
the City, Certain Surplus Federal Property, and to Accept, Execute, and Record
Conveyance Documents in Substantial Conformance with Certain Phase 2 Property and
Conveyance Documents from the United States of America, Acting by and through the
Department of the Navy, to Implement the Economic Development Conveyance
Agreement for the Former Naval Air Station, Alameda (Phase 2 Alameda Point
Conveyance). Adopted.
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point gave a Power Point presentation.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he met with the Chief Operating Officer - Alameda
Point and the Assistant City Attorney to question whether the Navy is responsible for
remediation since the Navy caused contamination following conveyance; the answer
was yes; questioned what would happen if there is disagreement as to the cause of
contamination discovered later to which the answer was it would fall on the facts of the
discovery; staff has procured insurance in the event the City is found liable.
Vice Mayor Matarrese inquired whether the developer would be required to acquire
insurance when the property is conveyed.
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded in the affirmative; stated the
City also has its own insurance.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft thanked Mr. Russell and staff for their work.
Mayor Spencer thanked staff; stated that she looks forward to obtaining the property
from the Navy.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
18
February 2, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-02-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-02-02,20,"Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved adoption of the resolution authorizing the City
Manager to accept, on behalf of the City, Certain Surplus Federal Property, and to
Accept, Execute, and Record Conveyance Documents in Substantial Conformance with
Certain Phase 2 Property and Conveyance Documents from the United States of
America, Acting by and through the Department of the Navy, to Implement the
Economic Development Conveyance Agreement for the Former Naval Air Station,
Alameda (Phase 2 Alameda Point Conveyance).
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
5.
(16-056) Provide Direction to Staff Regarding Certain Elements of a Proposed Rent
Stabilization and Tenant Protection Ordinance.
***
Mayor Spencer called a recess at 11:12 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 11:20 p.m.
***
The Community Development Director gave a Power Point presentation.
Urged Council to put restrictions on evictions; stated more than 53% of Alamedan's are
renters: Eric Strimling, Alameda.
Stated mom and pop landlords are concerned with being able to sustain their business;
cost of repairs might be greater than the 5% threshold: Keith Weitzen, Landlord.
Stated Alameda is a very tight community; landlords pay parcel tax to support the
School District; restricting rent control in one format will penalize mom and pop
landlords: Phoebe Yu, Landlord.
Stated he is a mom and pop landlord; 5% increase are too small to make necessary
repairs; there are tenants that are not compliant with the rules; no just cause evictions
helps landlords: Kevin Ye, Landlord.
Stated the 5% increase does not cover costs for mom and pop landlords to make
repairs; it is difficult to refinance when under market value: Amanda Yee, Landlord.
Requested certain exemptions for the proposed ordinance; stated rent control should be
income based: Frannie Mok, Landlord.
Stated he is a mom and pop landlord; stated he makes very small rent increases;
requested clarification on the RRAC process and who will be required to pay for the
process; stated if he has to sell his properties, he would like to get market value: Don
Scellato, Landlord.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
19
February 2, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-02-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-02-02,21,"Read points outlined in the letter submitted by Alameda Renters Coalition (ARC):
Catherine Pauling, ARC.
***
Mayor Spencer called a recess and reconvene 12:02 a.m. and reconvened at 12:06
a.m.
Stated rent comes in on one hand and goes right out for costs; when the economy is
bad, no one helps landlords recoup the vacancy cost; he is against rent control:
Malcolm Lee, Landlord.
Stated rent control started at 8% and now it is at 5%; landlords have a lot of expenses;
urged Council to have consideration for landlords: Tony Charvet, Landlord.
Mayor Spencer stated the proposal is not a 5% cap, it is a trigger to require going to the
RRAC.
Expressed how imposing a cap when the market is good is not fair; suggested Council
look at how other cities handle rent control; stated Redwood City has incentives for
landlords who have volunteer rent control: Chunchi Ma.
Stated more time is needed; urged using the RRAC; suggested going case by case;
stated rent control will put the mom and pop landlords out of business: Lester Cabral,
Alameda.
Inquired who would pay the cost of arbitration, the landlord or tenant; stated costs for
repairs are high: Dan Wang, Alameda.
Questioned how rent control would affect tax revenue; stated having more laws and
restrictions makes it hard to run a business: Meina Young, Landlord.
Stated property owners should not be guaranteed a raise every year; she will not get a
10% raise every year: Tristen Schmidt, ARC.
Stated mom and pop landlords should get exemptions; rent control should be income
based; historic properties should have an exemption: Rosalinda Corvi, Alameda.
Stated he is a mom and pop landlord and does not think it is fair to be put in the same
category as the large 50 to 100 unit owners; he feels the RRAC works well and should
not be changed: Lawrence Quintero, Landlord.
Stated if he had to do earthquake retrofitting and had to evict the whole building the just
cause eviction would now allow him to do so; rent control should be case by case: Dan
Zhang, Landlord.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
20
February 2, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-02-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-02-02,22,"Stated rent control is unfair for small mom and pop landlords: Margaret Tong, Landlord.
Stated rent control is not fair to landlords, it favors the tenants: Mimi Rohr.
Urged Council to look elsewhere for solutions; stated landlords have a lot of expenses:
Lejla, Landlord.
Stated he does not evict rent paying tenants; he is opposed to rent control: Daniel Lee,
Bay Area Homeowners Network (BAHN).
Councilmember Daysog left the dais at 12:36 a.m. and returned at 12:38 a.m.
***
Stated that she opposes rent control; landlords have a lot of expenses; she does work
on her property to keep costs down: Susan Gao, BAHN.
Stated his tenant makes more money than he does; urged Council to consider all of the
elements, not just the tenants: Stephen Shi, Landlord.
Stated tenants are fearful of speaking to the RRAC for fear of retaliation; urged Council
to use a semi-private mediation process instead of RRAC: Jeff Cambra, Alameda.
Stated mom and pop landlords will be the most impacted from the ordinance; property
values would go down from the ordinance; relocation assistance should be means
tested: Karen Bey, Alameda.
Stated data collection needs to be for all types of units: John Klein, ARC.
Stated rent control creates tension with landlords and tenants: Rita Hui, Landlord.
Urged Council to put a cap on rent increases; stated 65% of the Bay Area CPI is
acceptable: Maria Dominguez, ARC.
Provided and read a handout which provided stories of four renters: Denny, Jillian,
Maria and Seana: Monty Heying.
Urged Council to give exemptions only to owner occupied parcels: Brian McGuire,
Alameda.
The Community Development Director stated there was a question regarding whether
Council wanted to offer one year leases to in place tenants, which is staff's
recommendation.
Councilmember Daysog inquired if the requirement is done in other cities, to which the
Community Development Director responded several cities, including Palo Alto and
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
21
February 2, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-02-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-02-02,23,"Mountain View.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the provision has been effective in addressing
housing issues.
The Community Development Director stated a one year lease exempts all other
requirements regarding relocation in Glendale.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether staff is addressing relocation benefits
yet.
The Community Development Director responded in the affirmative; stated the
recommendation to offer one year leases for tenants' protection and to bring stability;
clarified the only question is whether the Council wants to include in place tenants.
Mayor Spencer inquired if a one year lease would then become month to month.
The Community Development Director responded residential leases typically roll to
month to month.
Mayor Spencer inquired if there is an actual requirement.
The Community Development Director responded that if there is an existing lease, the
new lease would have to be materially the same.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether a tenant who chooses the month to month
instead of a year lease would still only get one increase a year, to which the Community
Development Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the staff recommendation includes the tenant
receiving an option of a one-year lease of one year when a lease expires and whether
the offer is only one time.
The Community Development Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether tenants would be subject to a rent increase
after the year.
The Community Development Director responded in the affirmative; stated the offer
would be the first time there is notice of a rent increase after the ordinance goes into
effect.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether it would only apply to rent increases in the first year
after the ordinance goes into effect.
The Community Development Director responded the ordinance is written to require,
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
22
February 2, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-02-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-02-02,24,"the first time there is a notice of a first rent increase, whether it is a year from now or 24
months from now.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether a tenant does not want to accept a one
year lease and would like to go month to month they would not be penalized, to which
the Community Development Director responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether they would still need to pay the rent increase, to which
the Community Development Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Oddie inquired if month to month tenants would still be protected for the
next year.
The Community Development Director responded that month to month tenants would
get the same protections like the ones provided in a lease.
Councilmember Oddie stated tenants that do not have formal leases or have oral
agreements would get standardized terms.
Councilmember Daysog inquired if staff is suggesting the Glendale model, to which the
Community Development Director responded in the negative.
Mayor Spencer stated that she agrees with staff's recommendation.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated he would like it to stay the same and not have the
provision apply to the existing tenants.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she agrees with staff's recommendation to
offer the lease to existing tenants.
Councilmember Daysog stated he needed more time.
Councilmember Oddie stated that he agrees with staff recommendation.
The Community Development Director stated a majority agree; she stated staff would
capture the one time lease offer for prospective as well as in place tenants.
Mayor Spencer clarified the in place tenants would be when there is a rent increase.
The Community Development Director responded in place tenants with an existing
lease would be offered a new lease 60 days before the current lease expires.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether it would be just once, to which the Community
Development Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated it is important to not have the tenant bear the cost
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
23
February 2, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-02-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-02-02,25,"of arbitration; suggested the fee could be divided; stated the binding hearing process
will be an onerous process; inquired on the time and cost for the entire binding hearing
process.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated binding arbitration and binding hearings do not provide
enough benefit for the cost and the problem; Alameda has a RRAC process that is non-
binding.
The Assistant City Attorney stated that the program fee would cover the cost of the
hearing process; beyond that, the tenant or housing providers would cover cost to go
through the judicial process.
The Interim City Manager stated the process is not on the agenda; the program fee is
not on the agenda and will be brought back to Council on February 16th
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated she was trying to give staff direction.
The Interim City Manager stated it is not a part of the ordinance.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the item is separate, to which the Interim City Manager
responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Daysog stated looking at another city's process might be helpful.
The Community Development Director stated staff is focusing on what the proposed
ordinance is and what the cost will be to administer it; there will be flow charts and a lot
of information.
Councilmember Oddie stated the fee will benefit tenants and landlords; it is fair to share
the cost equally.
Mayor Spencer stated she will hold off on comments per the Interim City Manager's
request; requested to stay focused on what is needed to craft the ordinance.
The Community Development Director requested direction on the cap for the next
tenant's rent increase if there is a no cause eviction for an in place tenant.
Mayor Spencer stated that she would like the cap to be the same as if that tenant was
still in the unit.
The Community Development Director inquired if there should be a 5% cap.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the old tenant could not get a rent increase until
the lease expires.
The Community Development Director responded the landlord would be able to raise
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
24
February 2, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-02-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-02-02,26,"the rent an unlimited amount.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there is no cap on rent increases.
The Community Development Director stated the 5% is a trigger that would require
initiating the RRAC process.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the cap is for a new tenant's rent, to which the
Community Development Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the point of the policy was to disincentivize
evictions to raise rent, to which the Community Development Director responded in the
affirmative.
Councilemmber Oddie stated increasing by 25% no disincentive.
The Community Development Director stated which is why staff is requesting direction
on a cap.
Councilemmber Oddie stated Mayor Spencer's suggestion is if a tenant received a rent
increase in the last 12 months, then the new tenant could not get a rent increase for 12
months; if the tenant was eligible for a 5% increase, then the increase should be 5%.
Councilmember Daysog inquired what if the in place tenant is evicted; would the
landlord have to pay relocation benefits and cap new tenant's rent.
Mayor Spencer stated according to the Code section the next time the rent could be
increased would be when the previous tenant would have been eligible.
The Community Development Director requested clarification on the percentage cap.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft recommended 5%.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether such a clauses exists in other cities.
The Community Development Director responded most other cities with rent
stabilization do not allow no cause evictions; stated the City is accommodating the
requests from landlords while including limitations to address the important issue of
economic evictions.
Councilmember Daysog stated the landlord would be penalized twice; the landlords
would have to pay the relocation benefits plus not be able to impose a rent increase.
The Community Development Director responded that Capital Improvement Plans
(CIP's) would be different grounds for eviction; staff is requesting direction on what the
percentage cap should be.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
25
February 2, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-02-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-02-02,27,"Mayor Spencer stated Council was told in rent controlled city, when evicting for no
cause rent cannot increase for the next tenant, per the Civil Code section.
The Assistant City Attorney responded that the Council has the discretion to set the 5%
cap.
Mayor Spencer inquired what the Code section refers to.
The Assistant City Attorney responded it refers to a different issue.
Mayor Spencer stated it is not about evicting someone and then raising the rent as
much as a landlord wants for a no cause eviction.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated both sides of the issue have to be addressed; she
supports allowing no cause evictions and agrees to the 5% cap.
Councilmember Oddie stated that he agrees with the 5% cap.
Mayor Spencer stated that she agrees with the 5% cap.
The Community Development Director requested direction from Council on the cap for
the number of allowable no cause evictions.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired why the City would allow property owners to
evict all tenants without a CIP.
The Community Development Director responded the City is trying to prevent doing so;
stated direction on a cap is needed; if a landlord needs to do substantial rehabilitation,
they would need to go through the CIP process.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the cap is to prevent a housing provider
from doing a mass no cause eviction, to which the Community Development Director
responded in the affirmative; stated staff is recommending 25% for buildings with 5 or
more units and buildings with 4 or fewer units, could do 1 no cause eviction a year.
Mayor Spencer stated that she agrees with staff recommendation.
Councilmember Daysog inquired if this was a tool to prevent Harbor Island from
happening again, to which the Community Development Director responded in the
affirmative.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated he would support the recommendation for buildings with
10 or 20 more units; the City has not had a problem with the smaller buildings.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether Vice Mayor Matarrese is okay with mass evictions for
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
26
February 2, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-02-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-02-02,28,"property owners with 4 or fewer units.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated it would depend on the circumstance; he would like to see
evictions within the scope of the RRAC so that people have recourse.
Councilmember Daysog stated anyone who owns a fourplex runs the risk of doing a no
cause eviction.
The Community Development Director stated the number of no cause evictions would
be capped annually; the idea is to not do a lot of no cause evictions as a way to get rid
of tenants and not require a CIP.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether a four or sixplex landlord could remove a
person to move in a family member and still do another no cause eviction.
The Community Development Director responded a family member is a no fault eviction
not a no cause eviction; stated staff is requesting direction strictly on a no cause
evictions not no fault.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether there are examples of other cities that have
this process.
The Community Development Director stated this is new territory.
Councilmember Oddie stated he is fine with the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated she objects to having any exceptions; all tenants
should be protected; she agrees with staff recommendation.
Mayor Spencer stated that she supports staff recommendation.
Councilmember Daysog inquired if any other city has incorporated this.
The Community Development Director responded that in cities with rent stabilization no
cause evictions are not allowed.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated it is an added protection.
The Community Development Director requested clarification from Council on whether
there should be an exemption for mom and pop landlords; stated if so, mom and pop
landlords need to be defined.
Mayor Spencer inquired if, legally, the City could require landlords to grant additional
time to tenants for the buyout, based on how long the tenant has lived in the unit, unless
the landlord and tenant agree.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
27
February 2, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-02-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-02-02,29,"The Assistant City Attorney responded the current way the ordinance is written is the
tenants can exchange staying a month for a month less in relocation assistance.
The Community Development Director stated direction from Council is needed if there
would be an exemption for mom and pop landlords.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that tenants need cash to relocate; to leave it up
to tenants and landlords to work out on their own is not fair; she agrees with the staff
recommendation.
Mayor Spencer inquired if Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft is requesting to leave it the
tenant's choice, which is what the ordinance currently states, to which Councilmember
Ezzy Ashcraft responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Oddie stated if a landlord is willing to give up the income by taking the
unit off the market, they can afford to pay relocation fees; mom and pops violate the
rules too and the City has to protect all tenants.
Councilmember Daysog stated that most mom and pops are good landlords and the
City should recognize that; he would like the small mom and pop landlords exempted
from the relocation benefit or given consideration where time is given.
Vice Mayor Matarrese concerned with Councilmember Daysog; stated the distinction of
mom and pop landlords needs to be defined; the issue should be subject to mediation to
allow for a combination of finance and time and worked out on a case by case basis.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council has heard that people are afraid to go to
the RRAC; she would like to give the staff recommendation a year to see if it works.
Mayor Spencer stated she, Councilmember Oddie, and Councilmember Ezzy Ashcarft
are in agreement with staff's recommendation.
The Community Development Director requested Council direction on the issue of no
cap for rent increases; stated the cap was set for when a landlord has to initiate the
RRAC process at 5%.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated there was no discussion on the issue; she agrees
the 5% threshold is reasonable.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether landlords who do not raise the rent for several
years would be able to do a higher rent increase like in Los Gatos.
The Community Development Director responded said information would be taken into
account by the RRAC when making a decision.
Mayor Spencer stated Los Gatos' rent control is not a trigger, it is a cap.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
28
February 2, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-02-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-02-02,30,"The Community Development Director stated Los Gatos has rent control at 5%.
Councilmember Oddie stated that he is agreeable to staff's recommendation.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated that he agrees with staff's recommendation.
The Community Development Director requested Council direction on data collection.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated that he agrees with staff's recommendation; clarified
anything that goes to RRAC would be tracked.
Mayor Spencer stated that she agrees with staff's recommendation.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated data collection is needed; she agrees with staff's
recommendation.
Councilmember Daysog inquired how many cases currently come to the RRAC for 5%
rent increases.
The Community Development Director stated there are not a lot, but it will change if the
ordinance is passed because it will be a mandatory.
Councilmember Daysog stated in the first year, the City should collect data on
everything that goes to RRAC.
Mayor Spencer stated 4 members of the Council are in agreement with staff's
recommendation.
Mayor Spencer stated the first reading of the ordinance will be on February 16th
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated she would like to see clear written standards and
guidelines for the RRAC and arbitrator regarding what documentation a landlord is
required to provide and when a tenant is requesting lowered rent to ensure that the
parties are dealt with in consistently; inquired whether a property manager could attend
the RRAC meeting in case an owner could not attend.
The Community Development Director stated staff understood from Council that it would
need to be someone with owner interest or someone who has legally binding interest.
Mayor Spencer inquired if the housing provider does not agree with the Committee's
decision, the housing provider must file a petition to consider the new rent increase;
if
no petition is filed, the rent increase is void.
The Community Development Director responded the Mayor is correct.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
29
February 2, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-02-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-02-02,31,"CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
(16-057) The Interim City Manager stated the City of Alameda has an advertisement in
the San Francisco Examiner, Big Game Guide; staff would like to organize a driving tour
of the northern waterfront.
Mayor Spencer stated there were no objections.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
(16-058)
Consider
Directing
the
City
Manager
to
Prepare
Analysis
and
Recommendations Regarding Reviving the Airport Operations Committee.
(Councilmembers Daysog and Oddie).
Councilmember Daysog stated the impact of the altered flight plan are a concern to
residents; Alameda needs its own entity to address airport issues.
Councilmember Oddie stated it would be a short term Committee; he would like to make
sure Alameda has a say in this issue.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the City pays a Federal lobbyist in Washington,
D.C.; inquired what could be done to lobby the Federal Government.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated he would like an analysis and recommendation to
reinstate the Committee.
Councilmember Daysog stated the City could work with the lobbyists and others to get
some ideas on how to proceed effectively.
Mayor Spencer stated that she supports the proposal; requested information on the
dormant Airport Operations Committee and how it was formatted.
The Interim City Manager stated the City now monitors 6 Committee's on airport noise,
which is very time intensive for staff; the City would need to rely heavily on the citizens
that have the expertise and connect them with the lobbyists to assist staff.
Mayor Spencer stated the Mayor of San Leandro is connecting with the FAA and is
trying to set up a phone conference.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated there is strength in numbers, so the City should
connect with other cities to move forward.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
30
February 2, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-02-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-02-02,32,"Vice Mayor Matarrese moved approval of the proposal.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
5.
(16-059) Considering Endorsing the San Francisco Bay Clean Water, Pollution
Prevention, and Habitat Restoration Program Measure, which will be on the June 7, ,
2016 Ballot. (Councilmember Oddie). Continued to February 24, 2016.
Councilmember Oddie suggested the referral be continued to the Special Meeting on
February 24th
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 2:36 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
31
February 2, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-02-02.pdf