body,date,page,text,path
CityCouncil,2016-03-01,1,"MINUTES OF THE CONTINUED FEBRUARY 16, , 2016
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- -MARCH 1, 2016--7:00 P.M.
Mayor Spencer reconvened the continued meeting at 5:39 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese,
Oddie and Mayor Spencer - 5.
Absent:
None.
CONTINUED REGULAR AGENDA ITEM
(16-072 Continued) Summary title: Related to the Rent Review, Rent Stabilization and
Limitations on Evictions Ordinance Consider: 1) A Resolution Adopting Policy
Concerning Capital Improvement Plans (CIP), and 3) An Appropriation of Funds.
(16-072A Continued) Adoption of Resolution Adopting Policy Concerning Capital
Improvement Plans (CIP). Not adopted; and
(16-072B Continued) Appropriation of $300,000 from the General Fund to Fund a Rent
Program Fee Study and to Cover the Cost to Administer the Rent-Related Programs
through June 30, 2016.
Mayor Spencer proposed re-opening the public comment from the February 16th
meeting for students to speak and be able to leave the meeting early.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how much time did the students request to
speak, to which Mayor Spencer responded six minutes.
Councilmember Oddie stated the first reading has already been passed; comments
would not be germane; Council is deciding about the appropriations and CIP tonight; the
public hearing portion of the item has been closed and a vote has been taken.
Mayor Spencer stated the issue is broadly connected to rent; Councilmembers can
weigh-in.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated tonight's agenda informs the public that there will
be no additional public comment because the item was continued from February 16 and
the public comment was closed; Council should not carve out an exception; she is
concerned that there could be members of the public watching who would have come to
speak as well, had they known Council was going to make an exception and re-open
the public speaking.
Mayor Spencer stated the public is welcome to come at 7:00 p.m. to speak on the rent
issue on the regular agenda; inquired whether a motion is required on the issue.
Continued February 16, 2016 Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
March 1, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-03-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-03-01,2,"The Assistant City Attorney responded only a consensus of the Council is required, but
that a motion may be the best way since it seems the Council is divided on the issue.
Vice Mayor Matarrese moved approval of re-opening the public comment and allowing
the youth to speak.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion which carried by the following voice vote:
Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, Matarrese, and Mayor Spencer - 3. Noes:
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft - 1. Abstention: Councilmember Oddie - 1.
Expressed support for the Alameda community during the rent and housing crisis: Jay
Feria, San Leandro.
The Community Development Director gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Spencer suggested discussing the CIP first.
In response to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the Community Development
Director stated that she did not have the revised language until Friday, thus hardcopy
was not provided to the Council.
In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the Community Development Director stated
the language now reads: ""a capital improvement, for purposes of the capital
improvement plan policy.'
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the eight words are the only change, to which the
Community Development Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Oddie inquired who would determine whether improvements are
mandatory, to which the Community Development Director responded the Program
Administrator.
Councilmember Oddie inquired if the Council would be providing guidance to the
Program Administrator, to which the Community Development Director responded in the
affirmative.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether any provisions allow the tenant to move back
in
when the repair is done.
The Community Development Director responded the affirmative; stated the tenant can
be temporarily relocated if there is a vacant unit on site; if there are no vacant units,
tenants will be permanently relocated and receive the relocation benefits; the tenant
could return to the improved unit if desired.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
February 16, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-03-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-03-01,3,"Councilmember Oddie that stated he is concerned that the provision of returning to the
improved unit is not spelled out in the plan; there are no time limits on improvements;
inquired how will a reasonable improvement and time frame be determined.
The Community Development Director responded the Program Administrator would
render judgments on the CIP, including the decisions regarding appropriate rent
increase, whether or not a temporary or permanent relocation is required, and the
length of time reasonable to make the improvements.
Councilmember Oddie stated that he is concerned there are no standards; a temporary
relocation could turn into a huge loophole for mass evictions if the improvements take
an excessive amount of time; he would like to see a provision allowing a tenant to move
back in to the improved unit without an excessive amount of time.
In response to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the Community Development
Director stated that she finished the CIP portion of the presentation.
Mayor Spencer stated Council agreed to bifurcate the CIP and appropriation issues
since they are two separate votes.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated the termination of tenancy and relocation should be a
mediated process; every case is different; a City Program Administrator be a daunting
task; temporary relocation depends on the case and the relationships between the
landlord and tenant; that he strongly believes in a mediated, instead of mandated,
approach; there is some protection of limiting activity by presenting a real plan.
The Community Development Director stated a staff person approving a CIP is more
appropriate because there are technical aspects to the review and approval of a CIP; a
Program Administrator has the expertise that the RRAC does not; each proposed CIP
would be evaluated on its merits alone so the process would be done on a case-by-
case basis.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she understands Vice Mayor Matarrese's
proposal, but that she would be reluctant to have items decided by the RRAC;
suggested a mediator instead.
The Community Development Director stated a staff person who would have the
technical expertise has been proposed, but if Council decides a mediator could
contribute to the analysis of the technical documents, staff could contract for the
service.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether only the portion within the prime interest rate
is subject to be recovered by rent.
Continued February 16, 2016 Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
March 1, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-03-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-03-01,4,"The Community Development Director responded in the affirmative; stated the prime
rate plus 1% is a formula based on the standard business interest rate for renovation
loans.
In response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry, the Community Development Director
stated the owner of 470 Central Avenue stated his interest rate for his balloon loan is
10%; the proposed formula prevents rewarding business decisions that do not make
sense to the tenants; a bank that offers commercial construction loans as a routine part
of doing business would have a good interest rate; she does not want to encourage high
interest rates that would drive up rent.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether staff sensed that a landlord seeking
renovations in the millions of dollars will go after a higher interest rate.
The Community Development Director responded in the negative; stated that it could
happen, which was the case for 470 Central Avenue; the owner had a proposal to evict
all tenants to do substantial rehabilitation which included a doubling of rents due to the
financing he had arranged; the financing structure the owner obtained to undertake
substantial rehabilitation was not appropriate; staff was looking for standard business
procedures.
Councilmember Daysog stated the language should be re-written to capture various
possibilities.
Councilmember Oddie stated there are one-off circumstances; there should be some
mediation if the tenant would like to return; issues should not be resolved at a public
hearing or by the RRAC; having a trial or pilot program is a good opportunity, especially
if a tenant wants to return; there are a lot of combinations to deal with in the interim
period.
The Community Development Director inquired whether Councilmember Oddie is
proposing a mediator who could handle the CIP and mediate temporary relocation, to
which Councilmember Oddie responded in the affirmative; stated having a mediator
would give Council the opportunity to mediate evictions on a trial basis.
Mayor Spencer stated the use of the word ""landlord"" instead of ""housing provider""
should be consistent.
In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the Community Development Director stated
staff reviewed City of Berkeley and City of Los Angeles as a model for the CIP program.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether other cities have a staff person, to which the
Community Development Director responded in the affirmative; stated most cities with
rent control have a staff hearing officer; Alameda proposes a contract hearing officer.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
February 16, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-03-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-03-01,5,"Mayor Spencer stated the position would require expertise; inquired whether it would go
through the Planning Department.
The Community Development Director responded it would go through the Program
Administrator; stated staff is hoping the Housing Authority would administer the
program; the Housing Authority would hire staff with the expertise.
In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the Community Development Director stated
there would be coordination with the Planning Department as permits would be the
basis to understand the CIP valuation and project time length.
Mayor Spencer inquired what expertise is needed for a hearing officer versus a
mediator, to which the Community Development Director responded the hearing officer
and mediator could have the same skill set; stated the person would have to be familiar
with the construction and bidding process and have an understanding on how to
calculate the interest rate for the allowable rent increase.
Mayor Spencer stated determining the financing is a separate issue from determining
the length of time for a project; the Planning Department is familiar with how long it
takes to complete the jobs.
The Community Development Director stated the Planning Department does not
typically weigh-in or opine about the length of time of a project.
Mayor Spencer stated the interest rate should be based on the real number that is being
financed.
The Community Development Director stated interest rates change all the time; the idea
is to set a formula.
Mayor Spencer stated the landlord should find the best interest rate possible; the rate
information plugged into the formula should be the actual number.
In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the Community Development Director stated a
tenant who notifies the landlord that they would like to remain in their unit after
improvement have been made could be temporarily relocated to an available vacant
unit onsite; the tenant could move back into the renovated unit and pay the higher rent;
if there is no vacant unit, the tenant would be permanently relocated.
Mayor Spencer stated the tenant should be able to come back to the renovated unit
whether or not the landlord has another vacant unit for a temporary relocation; the unit
would eventually be available and the tenant should have first right of refusal.
The Community Development Director stated one criteria when evaluating a CIP would
be to hash out the temporary relocation.
Continued February 16, 2016 Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
March 1, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-03-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-03-01,6,"In response to the Interim City Manager's inquiry, Mayor Spencer stated that she is
referring to the tenant's option to return to the renovated unit; relocation assistance is
also included in the proposal.
Councilmember Oddie stated there is a precedence that the tenant should be
compensated for loss of use of their unit during a temporary relocation as in situations
like mold remediation where the tenant is not at fault.
The Community Development Director stated if no temporary relocation is available,
permanent relocation is provided.
Mayor Spencer stated that she prefers to have the ability for the tenant to return
regardless of the relocation situation; the caveat being the repairs should be done in a
timely manner.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated every situation is different; she favors the proposal
in cases where the tenant may want to return; depending on the circumstance, a
negotiation could be done with a mediator; cautioned about limiting the length of repairs,
especially on older homes that need special supplies; stated property owner's hands
should not be tied inordinately; rather than a set formula for the interest rate, the policy
should not penalize building owners for improving old and decaying buildings, which
might require a loan with an unfavorable interest rate; a set formula is too cookie-cutter.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated he would like two things: 1) termination of tenancy and
evictions should be subject to mediation; 2) property owner must prove any renovation;
he strongly supports mediation, which the ordinance does not contemplate; a CIP
should be subject to proof; no landlord wants their building empty during renovations;
the proposal seems impossible to administrate.
Councilmember Oddie stated that he would like to treat all parties equally; the tenant
would be penalized if the landlord has bad credit and can only get unfavorable financing
rates; perhaps there is a middle ground; he does not like using the word ""penalty.""
In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, Vice Mayor Matarrese stated that he thinks the
interest rate should be the real rate; banks will not lend at a favorable rate if a building is
dilapidated.
Mayor Spencer stated Council would have to agree on principles and have the matter
brought back; inquired whether there is consensus on imposing actual interest rate.
Councilmember Daysog stated the interest rate formula by which all possible
reimbursements would be done is hard and fast at prime rate plus 1; there are many
different property types; the ultimate rate is subject to a variety of conditions and market
factors such that instead of 7% plus 1, the real rate turns out to be 8.5%, which is not
captured; the formula was created based on the situation related to the 470 Central
Avenue property; he is looking for more flexibility regarding the interest rate.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
February 16, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-03-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-03-01,7,"The Community Development Director stated that she understands the Council would
like staff to return with a policy which reflects the actual interest rate.
Mayor Spencer stated that is the consensus.
In response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry, the Community Development Director
stated without doubling the rents, the 470 Central Avenue project would be upside
down.
Mayor Spencer stated Council needs to assume everyone is acting in good faith.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the issue falls along the same lines as
documenting the actual construction work; these are the cases that are more
appropriately handled in semi-private setting with mediation or arbitration, rather than at
the RRAC.
The Community Development Director stated the proposal is to have issues handled by
a mediator or trained staff; the three key things should be accomplished by a CIP: 1) a
mechanism for approving the work; 2) setting the allowable rent increase; and 3)
resolving any relocation issues.
In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the Community Development Director stated
the proposal states CIP issues would be handled by staff, but does not specify who the
staff is; the Program Administrator should determine who the best qualified staff would
be to handle the situations, based on training and expertise, which could be a skill set to
search for in a staff person.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated the CIP is a technical exercise; the relocation is a
negotiation; the two issues could be understandable if separated and described better.
In response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry, the Community Development Director
stated that she understands the distinction being requested, but does not think there
needs to be two separate people; she understands the Council's desire is to have
mediation.
Councilmember Oddie requested a recap of the Council direction, to which the
Community Development Director responded staff would modify the proposal to include
the eight word definition of a capital improvement, language on the interest rate being
the actual rate of the loan secured, more guidance on whether or not the proposed work
triggers the need for relocation, a negotiation process for discussing options for
temporary relocation beyond just a vacant unit on site, and consider a cap on temporary
relocation and fees if improvements would take longer to complete.
In response to Councilmember Ezzy Ahscraft's inquiry, the Community Development
Director stated staff would return to Council with a revised plan on April 5th to avoid a
Continued February 16, 2016 Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
March 1, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-03-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-03-01,8,"gap in coverage of the moratorium and so there would not be any evictions before the
CIP is in place.
Appropriation and Fee Study:
The Community Development Director continued the presentation.
In response to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the Community Development
Director responded the three full time staff being considered includes two attorneys and
one paralegal.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like to see comparison done on
what it would cost to outsource the work; benefits paid for a staff person need to be
factored into cost.
The Assistant City Attorney stated the cost estimate is very conservative; the cost is
based on a dollar perspective, not a body perspective; the intent would be to hire
outside counsel as needed in the initial stages of the program; a job allocation would be
brought before Council at a later time if staff determines there is a need for full-time
staff.
In response to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the Assistant City Attorney
stated the Full Time Estimate (FTE) positions would include an advice counsel to help
educate landlords and tenants on the program, supported by a paralegal; and one
litigator specializing in the area.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether Council has to approve the $300,000
appropriation before second reading of the ordinance, to which the Community
Development Director responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated the appropriation has to be administered between now
and June; if something changes, the amount could be unencumbered; the budget is
conservative.
Councilmember Oddie stated that he is hoping there are different options when the
study is completed.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he does not support a fee study; Council should find
the money within the budget for the program; it is fundamentally unfair to impose fees
on small mom and pop landlords.
Mayor Spencer stated that she is concerned about who should bear the cost of the
program; she would like to see arbitration beyond RRAC be shared between the parties
at a minimum of 25% and would like the focus to be on meaningful participation at the
RRAC level.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
February 16, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-03-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-03-01,9,"The Interim City Manager stated the fee study is going to indicate how much the
program will cost, not who will pay for the program; staff would decide who will pay.
In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the Community Development Director stated
the assumption for the number of arbitration cases is 20, which is $90,000; paying for
the hearing officer process could be reviewed after the fee study analysis.
Mayor Spencer stated the issue is not a simple landlord/tenant one; the issue is a
community issue; some of the money should come from the General Fund.
In response to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the Community Development
Director stated staff will look at the whole range of options since there is not consensus
of the Council on the program fees.
Councilmember Daysog stated the fee structure is potentially split; recommended the
tenant write a check to City Hall instead of rolling the fee into the rent; stated the tenant
would understand the program is City-run.
Councilmember Oddie moved approval of the appropriation of $300,000 from the
General Fund to fund a Rent Program Fee Study and to cover the cost to administer the
rent-related programs through June 30, 2016.
Councilmember Daysog suggested an alternative to bifurcate the motion.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether Council would agree to two separate motions.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft responded that she would prefer to keep one motion.
Vice Mayor Matarrese seconded the Councilmember Oddie's motion.
Mayor Spencer stated a Councilmember can request to bifurcate a motion in order to
vote yes on one and no on the other.
Vice Mayor Matarrese withdrew his second in favor of bifurcation.
Council Member Daysog moved approval of the appropriation of $250,000 from the
General Fund to cover the cost to administer the rent-related programs through June
30, 2016.
Vice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
Vice Mayor Matarrese moved approval of appropriating $50,000 from the General Fund
to fund a Rent Program Fee Study.
Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion which carried by the following voice vote:
Ayes: Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Oddie, Matarrese, and Mayor Spencer - 4.
Continued February 16, 2016 Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
March 1, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-03-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-03-01,10,"Noes: Councilmember Daysog - 1.
ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 6:55 p.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
10
February 16, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-03-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-03-01,11,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- MARCH 1, 2016--7:00 P.M.
Mayor Spencer convened the meeting at 7:10 p.m. Youths from the Boys and Girls led
the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese,
Oddie and Mayor Spencer - 5.
Absent:
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
(16-089) Mayor Spencer announced that the wetlands mitigation bank [paragraph no.
16-112
would be continued to March 15, 2016.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(16-090) Mayor Spencer did a reading on the Season for Non-violence daily word:
praise.
(16-091) The Interim Assistant City Manager introduced the new Information
Technology Director, Carolyn Hogg.
(16-092) Proclamation Declaring March 2016 as American Red Cross Month.
Mayor Spencer read the Proclamation and presented it to Jack McCredie and Public
Works staff member Laurie Kozisek.
Mr. McCredie and Ms. Kozisek made brief comments.
(16-093) Proclamation Declaring March 7 through 12, 2016 March as Boys and Girls
Club Week.
Mayor Spencer read the Proclamation and presented it to Marc Morales and members
of the Boys and Girls Club.
Mr. Morales made brief comments.
(16-094) Proclamation acknowledging and thanking Interim City Manager Elizabeth
Warmerdam for her service.
Mayor Spencer read the Proclamation and presented it to Ms. Warmerdam.
Ms. Warmerdam made brief comments.",CityCouncil/2016-03-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-03-01,12,"The Councilmembers made brief comments.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(16-095) Former Councilmember Barbara Thomas, Alameda, thanked the Council for
the long hours; suggested that the Mayor and Council salaries be increased and each
have part time staff members.
(16-096) April Squires, Alameda, expressed concern over late Council meetings not
being accessible to seniors and Americans with Disability Act.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Spencer announced that the three items regarding the Jean Sweeney Park
[paragraph nos. 16-102, 16-103, and 16-104 were removed from the Consent Calendar
for discussion.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the remainder of the Consent
Calendar.
Vice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph
number.] [Note: The motion was prior to Oral Communication.]
(*16-097) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings Held on February
2,2016. Approved.
(*16-098) Ratified bills in the amount of $3,672,205.66.
(*16-099) Recommendation to Accept the Quarterly Sales Tax Report for the Period
Ending December 31, 2015 Collected During the Period July 1, 2015 to September 30,
2015. Accepted.
(*16-100) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Amend an Agreement with
Moffatt and Nichol to Add the Amount of $100,035 for a Total Contract Amount of
$170,035 for Marine Engineering and Design Consulting Services for the Proposed
Seaplane Lagoon Ferry Terminal at Alameda Point and Amend the Base Reuse Fund
Revenue and Expenditures Budget by Increasing Each by $100,035. Accepted.
(*16-101) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Purchase Playground
Equipment and Safety Surfacing from NSP3/Playworld Systems Inc. for Godfrey Park in
an Amount Not To Exceed $270,000. Accepted.
(16-102) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Consultant
Agreement with SLR International Corporation to Provide Site Investigation and
Environmental Report Services for the Jean Sweeney Open Space Park, Including
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 1, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-03-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-03-01,13,"Contingency, for a Total Amount Not to Exceed $363,610 and to Amend Project
Revenue and Expenditures Budget by $170,610.
The Placeworks agreement and Alameda Food Bank Memorandum of Understanding
[paragraph nos. 16-103 and 16-104 were addressed with the SLR agreement.
Thanked the Council and Interim Assistant City Manager for supporting the project:
Dorothy Freeman, Jean Sweeney Open Space Park Fund.
Expressed support for signing the agreements and MOU with Alameda Food Bank;
urged approval of agreements: Jim Sweeney, Alameda.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the three agreements.
Vice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice - 5.
(16-103) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Consultant
Agreement with Placeworks Landscape Architects to Provide Design Services for Jean
Sweeney Open Space Park, in an Amount Not to Exceed $665,828 and to Amend
Project Revenue and Expenditures Budget by $465,828 from Development Impact Fees
- Recreation and Parks.
Note: The matter was addressed under the SLR Agreement [paragraph no. 16-102].
(16-104) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim City Manager to Execute a
Memorandum of Understanding with the Alameda Food Bank for Its Facility Expansion
Planning on a Portion of the Jean Sweeney Open Space Park.
Note: The matter was addressed under the SLR Agreement [paragraph no. 16-102].
(*16-105) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim City Manager to Execute a License
Agreement with the Alameda Unified School District for a Fire Safety Access Route
Through Otis Elementary School to Krusi Park. Accepted.
(*16-106) Resolution No. 15128, ""Authorizing the Interim City Manager to Accept an
Easement from the Alameda Unified School District for a Portion of the Encinal Boat
Launch Facility."" Adopted.
(*16-107) Resolution No. 15129, ""Authorizing Execution of the State Standard
Agreement for the Housing Related Parks Grant from the State Department of Housing
and Community Development for Estuary Park Athletic Fields."" Adopted.
(*16-108) Resolution No. 15130, ""Consenting to Leasehold Mortgage for Property
Located at 2900-3000 Main Street and Leased to Bay Ship and Yacht Company and
Authorize the Interim City Manager to Execute the Consent to Leasehold Mortgage and
Related Documents."" Adopted.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 1, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-03-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-03-01,14,"REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(16-109) Resolution No. 15131, ""Approving a 15-Year Concession Agreement, with a
10-Year Renewal Option, with Dialemi, Inc. (known as Jim's on the Course), for the
Provision of Food and Beverage Service at the Chuck Corica Golf Complex."" Adopted.
The Interim Assistant City Manager gave a Power Point presentation.
In response to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, Tom Geanekos, owner of Jim's
on the Course, stated MLD Design prepared the renderings.
In response to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the Interim Assistant City
Manager stated the design is still in the concept stage and has not gone before the
Planning Board for design review; the agreement requires the detail design of the
enclosed patio be approved by the Golf Commission as well as the Planning Board.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how serving dinner would be a requirement if it
is not in the concession agreement.
The Interim Assistant City Manager responded dinner could be added to the agreement
as a requirement; stated breakfast and lunch are the minimum requirement; the
intention for dinner is to serve tournaments.
Mr. Geanekos stated the operating hours for Jim's on the Course over the last 10 years
have been consistent; from 6:00 a.m. to 8:30 p.m. in the kitchen, and to about 11:00
p.m. in the bar; dinner has always been served although not stated in the agreement;
the types of dinner served has been limited due to the kitchen facility; the larger kitchen
space allows for more dinners.
In response to Vice Mayor Matarrese inquiry, the Assistant City Attorney stated the
concession agreement differs from a lease agreement in several legally significant
respects: a concession agreement does not grant any interest in the property; a lease
grants a leasehold interest in the property which can then be used to secure mortgages;
the concession agreement grants the right to operate a food and beverage facility only
and does not have the same obligations as a lease agreement, such as paying rent or
possessory interest tax; there are limitations to use the property in any way to finance
improvements.
Vice Mayor Matarrese inquired whether there has been a value assigned to the
maintenance and repair cost.
The Interim Assistant City Manager responded the City has not put any repair in the
building since Jim's on the Course has been there; there is no specific dollar amount
assigned for repairs; the building is 40 to 50 years old; the roof and HVAC will be in
need of repair in the next three to five years.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 1, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-03-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-03-01,15,"Vice Mayor Matarrese inquired whether the liability of repair has shifted from the City to
the concessionaire by the agreement, to which the Interim Assistant City Manager
responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Oddie inquired which body has the authority to give staff direction to
negotiate price and terms, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded the Council
has the authority.
In response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry, the Interim Assistant City Manager
stated Council gave direction in Closed Session.
In response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry, the Interim Assistant City Manager
stated the standard revenue is $5.00 per round for food and beverages at a golf course;
100,000 rounds at $500,000 is a good baseline for a golf course.
In response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry, the Interim Assistant City Manager
stated the revenue is $1.235 million; she does not have the exact number of rounds for
the fiscal year.
Submitted a letter; urged approval of the agreement: Peter Fletcher, Alameda
Stated that he supports Mr. Geanakos and Jim's on the Course; urged Council to follow
the Golf Commission recommendation; requested more time for a work session to
address and clarify issues before Council approves the agreement: Ken Campbell,
Greenway Golf.
Stated everyone is in favor of maintaining the relationship with Jim's on the Course;
requested more time to work out details: Beverly Blatt, Golf Commission.
Stated that she would like to have a first class banquet facility at the golf course; urged
Council not to rush approval and to work out details: Pam Curtis, Alameda.
Stated the golf course should have a fantastic restaurant facility to match the
outstanding golf course; that she supports the Golf Commission recommendation to
extend the current lease for six months: Jane Sullwold, Alameda.
Urged Council to follow Golf Commission recommendation and allow public input
regarding the agreement: Joe Van Winkle, Alameda.
Stated that she supports the agreement: Kathleen Solmssen, Alameda.
Stated that he supports the agreement and urged Council to move forward: Peter
Solmssen, Alameda.
Provided a history of the Chuck Corica Golf Course and the success of Jim's on the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 1, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-03-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-03-01,16,"Course: Norma Arnerich, Alameda.
Provided a brief history of the Golf Commission at the golf course; stated that he
supports Jim's on the Course: Former Councilmember Lil Arnerich, Alameda.
Stated the terms of the concession agreement are very detailed; Mr. Geanekos would
be happy to clarify any issues: Richard Waxman, Dialemi, Inc.
Urged Council to support the agreement: George Efstathiou, Alameda.
Urged Council to work out details quickly and move forward: Former Councilmember
Doug deHaan, Alameda.
Thanked all the speakers; stated the measure of success is longevity, which is a
testament to his family business; he would like to remain part of the community and
urged Council to approve his agreement: Tom Geanekos, Jim's on the Course.
Urged Council to follow the Golf Commission recommendation: Cheryl Saxton, Golf
Commission.
Councilmember Oddie stated Jim's on the Course concessionaire has been the longest
throughout Alameda's history; Jim's is the kind of partner Alameda should have in the
community; that he acknowledges the Golf Commission recommendation, but Mr.
Geanekos and Greenway can still negotiate even after Council approves the
agreement; he trusts there is a willingness to work things out; he would like to give Jim's
certainty and he supports the agreement.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the lease is 25 years which should not be taken
lightly; the Golf Commission recommendation is reasonable and Council should allow
the six months to proceed with deliberation; that she supports the Golf Commission
recommendation.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he has listened to various sides of the issue; he is
confident in staff's ability to analyze the issue and provide a recommendation which he
supports; he would like to move forward.
Vice Mayor Matarrese requested the proforma information be attached to the contract;
stated monitoring the proforma is important; he would also like to keep a timeframe; it
makes sense to move forward with the contract from the business standpoint so that
improvements of the restaurant could coincide reasonably with the improvements of the
golf course; he does not think the City needs to have a negotiation with Greenway Golf
and Jim's on the Course, but expects them to work with the Golf Commission; he does
not want the contract to be on hold to wait for peripherals; the timing of moving forward
now is important; inquired whether it is possible to have a separate contract between
the City and Jim's on the Course to address other issues beyond the current contract.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 1, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-03-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-03-01,17,"The Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated if there are issues that
need to be further addressed beyond the concession agreement, the issues could come
back to the Council as an amendment to the agreement, or be the subject of a new
agreement.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the talking-point list would be the
subject of the agreement amendment, to which Vice Mayor Matarrese responded in the
negative; stated it is unknown what will come out of the Golf Commission discussion; it
is theoretical.
Mayor Spencer stated Council values the work of the Commissioners; that she has
heard unanimously that Jim's should stay on the golf course; the concerns by the
Commission do not outweigh the importance of the City supporting Jim's to be
successful; she is confident the agreement would work out successfully for the City;
Jim's does not only serve people who golf; Jim's is successful because the community
supports it; she would like to move forward with the agreement.
Vice Mayor Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution with the proforma information
formally summarized and attached to the agreement; and periodic reports that coincide
with the milestones be provided to Council from Jim's and Greenway through the Golf
Commission.
Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote:
Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, Matarrese, Oddie and Mayor Spencer - 4. Noes:
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft - 1.
***
Mayor Spencer called a recess at 9:17 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:21 p.m.
(16-110) Response to City Council Referral Regarding Reactivating the Airport
Operations Committee to Address Impacts from the Federal Aviation Administration's
(FAA) NextGen Program by Authorizing the Mayor to Send a Letter to Representative
Barbara Lee; Reactivating the Ad-hoc Airport Operations Committee to Oversee
NextGen Issues; and Adding NextGen to the City's 2016 Legislative Program.
The Interim Assistant City Manager gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Mayor Spencer stated taking the next steps on the issue is important
and makes it easy for the legislative representatives to argue on Alameda's behalf.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 1, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-03-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-03-01,18,"(16-111) Receive Report on Results from a City of Alameda Survey Conducted in
December 2015 and Provide Direction on a November 2016 Ballot Measure.
Curtis Below, Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz and Associates, and the Interim City
Manager gave a Power Point presentation.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired who will be doing the door to door residential
contact, to which the Interim City Manager responded it is to be determined; stated staff
would be working on education material.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he would like more information as to the nature of
the problem; Alameda's expenses go beyond the revenues collected through normal tax
collections; working with a deficit means changing the economy; he understands that
some amount of what would be collected is already constrained.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated that he agrees with assessment of sales taxes; direction
should be given to pursue legislation; the Utility Users Tax (UUT) is antiquated and
should be brought up to current utility use.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she supports staff's recommendations.
Councilmember Oddie stated that he supports staff's recommendations; needing a 2/3
vote is a struggle; he would like the lobbyists to understand Alameda's priorities.
Mayor Spencer stated that she supports staff's recommendations; inquired what
percentage of Alamedans do not have a landline.
Donald Maynard, Contract Attorney, responded about half of Alameda homes do not
have a landline; stated the problem with Alameda's ordinance is that there are no
definitions which invites companies to interpret the ordinance in different ways; most of
the money is missing because of the way wireless companies interpret the ordinance;
about 90% of cities in California have voter-approved, modern UUT ordinances;
Alameda is catching up to modern ordinances.
In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the Interim City Manager stated the UUT is a
revenue measure that continues to decline; the tax falls under the fiscal sustainability
category.
Mayor Spencer stated that she thinks the community is supportive of the parks; the
concern is not about the parks but about an additional parcel tax.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the UUT is part of the Balanced Revenue
Index (BRI) formula, to which the Interim City Manager responded in the affirmative.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 1, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-03-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-03-01,19,"Mayor Spencer clarified that Council is only being asked to approve the issues to be
brought back; Council is not voting on whether or not to put the issues on the ballot.
The Interim City Manager stated staff will bring the actual language back to Council, and
the Council will be asked to formally vote to place the items on the November Ballot.
Vice Mayor Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by the following
voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie and Mayor
Spencer - 4. Abstention: Councilmember Daysog - 1.
(16-112) Response to City Council Referral Regarding a Possible Wetlands Mitigation
Bank at Alameda Point. Continued to March 15, 2016.
(16-113) Summary title: Consider: 1) an Ordinance regarding Rent Review, Rent
Stabilization and Limitations on Evictions, Amending the Duties of the Rent Review
Advisory Committee (RRAC), and Suspending the Current Article XIV of Chapter VI
regarding Rent Review; 2) Determining that Adoption of the Ordinance is not a Project
Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) or, if It is a Project, the
Ordinance is Exempt from CEQA; and 3) an Urgency Ordinance Extending a
Temporary (Additional 22 Days) Moratorium on Rent Increases for Certain Residential
Rental Properties and on Evictions from all Residential Rental Properties Except for
Just Cause.
Ordinance No. 3148, ""Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by (A) Adding Article XV
to Chapter VI Concerning Review of Rent Increases Applicable to All Rental Units and
Rent Stabilization Applicable to Certain Rental Units and Concerning Limitations on
Evictions and the Payment of Relocation Assistance Applicable to All Rental Units, (B)
Amending Section 2-23.4 Concerning the Duties of the Rent Review Advisory
Committee, and (C) Suspending Article XIV of Chapter VI in Its Entirety; and
Determining that Adoption of the Ordinance is not a Project under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) or, if It is a Project, the Ordinance is Exempt under
CEQA."" Finally passed; and
(16-113A) Public Hearing to Consider Urgency Ordinance No. 3149, ""Extending within
the City of Alameda a Temporary (an Additional 22 Days) Moratorium on Rent
Increases for Certain Residential Rental Properties and on Evictions from all Residential
Rental Properties Except for Just Cause.' Adopted.
The Community Development Director gave a brief presentation.
Stated that she does not believe the ordinance complies with CEQA: Former
Councilmember Barbara Thomas, Alameda.
***
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 1, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-03-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-03-01,20,"(16-114) Mayor Spencer stated a motion is needed to consider the remaining item: the
referral on mixed use zoning. [paragraph no. 16-117
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of considering the item.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice
vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese and Mayor Spencer -
4. Noes: Councilmember Oddie - 1.
Submitted information; stated that he is concerned about the RRAC structure as
proposed; a little bit of clarity could avoid conflict: John Sullivan, Alameda.
Stated the plan has technical concerns that need to be addressed; Alameda is facing a
housing crisis; urged Council to help alleviate housing stress for Alameda families:
Phillip James, Alameda.
Expressed concern over the operating cost of the ordinance; stated the fee study should
estimate a lower amount and decrease the bureaucracy: Rosalinda Fortuna, Alameda.
Stated the purpose of government is to provide justice; Council should listen to voters
and take steps to ensure everyone stays honest: Malia Vella, Alameda.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he appreciated Mr. Sullivan's handout; some of Mr.
Sullivan's suggestions would work to stymie the increased rents; adopting some ideas
would show that Council is trying to do the best for the small mom and pop landlords;
having agencies like ECHO Housing evaluate renter's habitability claims is a good
suggestion; he also likes the idea of the relocation assistance benefit being paid to the
next landlord; he would like to exempt owners of up to two residential units in relocation
assistance for family move-in.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is intrigued by Mr. Sullivan's suggestions,
but would like to pass the ordinance in the form of the first reading; she would like to
give the ordinance a chance; the current Council could make a change before the year
is up; all tenants should be protected; different classes of tenants should not be created;
fairness should also extend to all landlords.
Councilmember Oddie stated there are some mom and pop landlords that are not
behaving properly; he supports the ordinance as written; things could be improved; if
data shows the ordinance needs to be tweaked, Council could have a discussion; there
will not be hostility between landlords and tenants, it is up to each party; landlords who
behave properly will not be subject to any of the provisions of the ordinance;
encouraged all parties to have positive human relations; stated if everyone treats others
fairly, additional regulations would not be needed.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 1, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-03-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-03-01,21,"Vice Mayor Matarrese stated that he feels strongly about the mediation process; the
ordinance is going down the wrong path; there are some good points; Council could
monitor and change anything, but in the core, mediation has been successful.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated it is difficult to place value on the statistics; the
amount of people who were too intimidated to use a process that had no teeth cannot
be measured; Council has now given some teeth to the mediation process; she would
like the ordinance to go forward.
In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry regarding CEQA compliance, the Assistant City
Attorney stated the passing of the ordinance is exempt from CEQA and the City
Attorney stands behind the determination.
The Assistant City Attorney stated the Housing Element does address the issue clearly;
the ordinance does not have any direct impact on any physical or environmental
situations; the ordinance deals with rent and has no environmental concerns, is not a
project, and is exempt under CEQA.
In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the Assistant City Attorney stated Government
Code Section 1090 is not applicable to the action Council is taking tonight.
***
(16-115) Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of continuing the meeting past
11:00 p.m.
Vice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
5.
Mayor Spencer stated that she plans to support the ordinance as is; thanked Council for
exercising best judgement to meet the needs of the community; stated the ordinance is
a balanced, measured approach, which Council still has the ability to revise.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved final passage of the ordinance amending the
Alameda Municipal Code by (A) adding Article XV to Chapter VI concerning review of
rent increases applicable to all rental units and rent stabilization applicable to certain
rental units and concerning limitations on evictions and the payment of relocation
assistance applicable to all rental units, (B) amending Section 2-23.4 concerning the
duties of the Rent Review Advisory Committee, and (C) suspending Article XIV of
Chapter VI in its entirety; and determining that adoption of the Ordinance is not a project
under CEQA or, if It is a Project, the Ordinance is exempt under CEQA.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 1, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-03-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-03-01,22,"Councilmember Daysog amended the motion to exempt owners of up to two residential
units, and only two units, in Alameda, from the requirement to pay relocation assistance
in the specific instance of family move-in.
The proposed amendment to the ordinance failed due to a lack of second.
Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote:
Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Oddie and Mayor Spencer - 4. Noes:
Councilmember Matarrese - 1.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved adoption of the urgency ordinance extending
within the City of Alameda a temporary (an additional 22 days) moratorium on rent
increases for certain residential rental properties and on evictions from all residential
rental properties except for just cause.
Vice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Oddie inquired how could Council ensure the
moratorium covers the period in the event the ordinance is suspended due to a
referendum.
The Community Development Director responded another urgency ordinance extending
the time frame could be brought back.
In response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry, the Community Development Director
stated a special meeting to consider an urgency ordinance could be scheduled if
necessary.
The Assistant City Attorney stated if an effort of a referendum is under way, an urgency
ordinance would be brought back right away to avoid a gap.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
None.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(16-116) Catherine Pauling, Alameda Renters Coalition, stated that she is concerned
the City is under-collecting the fees from rental property businesses.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 1, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-03-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-03-01,23,"(16-117) Consider Directing the City Manager to Revise the Mix-Use Zoning
Designation and Related Policies to Aid Retention of Beneficial Commercial Uses
Citywide. (Vice Mayor Matarrese)
Vice Mayor Matarrese made brief comments on his referral.
Read a letter from Mr. DeLap, former harbor master, opposing the Bay West
development of high density housing; stated the State gives high priority to preserving
recreational and boating use of the shoreline: Peter Brand, Alameda.
Expressed support of Alameda Marinas and marine services: Joseph Woodard,
Alameda.
Provided a petition of Barnhill Marina neighbors; urged support of maintaining marina
services: Bill Cox, Alameda.
Urged support of Alameda's coast; stated the waterways are an asset: George Lythcott,
Alameda.
Stated that he is concerned about the long term outlook of the boating community;
urged support of maintaining Alameda's maritime community: Grant Hayes, Alameda.
Showed a map; expressed support of maritime services; proposed expansion of the
area to retail and recreation: Nancy Hird, Alameda.
Expressed support of the marinas and services: Paul Mueller, Alameda.
Stated Alameda's northern waterfront could have other opportunities and bring in larger
boats if dredged; urged Council to maintain the waterfront for deep water boating uses:
Andy McKinley, Alameda.
Stated that he opposes the residential development at Clement Street: Dan Goldfield,
Alameda Aikikai.
Expressed concern about loss of resources at Alameda Marina; stated that she is
opposed to development: Maggie Sabovich, Pacific Inter-Club Yacht Association.
Stated that she opposes the referral if it seeks to change the multi-family overlay zone:
Lynette Lee, Renewed Hope.
Stated his children benefit from the Aikido dojo; he does not want more development in
the Clement Street area: Matt Langwerowski, Alameda.
Stated the light industry maritime businesses bolsters the Alameda economy as it is
active worldwide; urged preservation of the marina and businesses: Liz Taylor,
Alameda.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 1, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-03-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-03-01,24,"Expressed support of jobs, not condos; urged council to consider Vice Mayor
Matarrese's referral: Amy Rose, Alameda.
Expressed support of the Alameda Marina; stated that he has experienced excellent
service from Svendsen's Marine; he recognizes the value of Alameda's unique
waterfront asset and opposes condominium development: Peter Butler, Alameda.
Stated it is important the waterfront continues its tradition of providing a reference point
for the maritime industry: Dwight Durant, Club Nautique.
Urged Council to maintain Alameda's maritime infrastructure: Irma Marin-Nolan,
Alameda.
Stated the Marina is an underutilized asset; urged Council to support the referral: Andy
McKee, Alameda.
Stated that he is concerned about the loss of the shoreline access and historic use; light
industrial jobs cannot be replaced by retail jobs: David Herrigel, Alameda.
Expressed support of maintaining the Alameda Marina and boating community;
provided a brief history of the marina: Tom Charron, Alameda.
Showed a map; urged Council to preserve Alameda Marina which is valuable piece of
property: Gretchen Lipow, Alameda.
Stated that she teaches women and blind women sailboating; expressed support of
preserving the marina: Dawn Chesney, Alameda.
The Interim City Manager stated the Council and staff will be taking a tour of the
waterfront on March 11th from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.; the referral gives the opportunity
for Council to direct staff; a report would come back in April to discuss the tour and ask
for direction from Council regarding Alameda Marina and the MX Zoning.
Vice Mayor Matarrese stated his intent is to frame the discussion; the zoning details and
guidance have flexibility built in; he would like to define the zoning goals, particularly in
the northern waterfront and existing commercial activity that can be grown; he would
like to include other MX zoning that may happen which is not in place now.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated nothing is simple but Council always strives to
achieve balance; preserving the maritime business is first and foremost; existing
maritime businesses could help bring other businesses to Alameda; there is a cost to
renovating infrastructure; some funding comes from developers, which means the
possibility of smart mixed-use; she would like to ensure preservation of the maritime
industry, but would also like to review the need for infrastructure improvements and
housing; a carefully planned improvement could create a vibrant, functioning, well-
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 1, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-03-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-03-01,25,"maintained space; requested that staff incorporate concerns when the report returns to
Council.
Councilmember Oddie stated that he is fine with the Interim City Manager's
recommendations on how to proceed with the referral; he is concerned about a
formulaic approach to mixed-zoning; another approach could be similar to what was
done at Packet Landing/Harbor Bay Club; he agrees that the maritime jobs should be
preserved; any plan or developer should keep the jobs a priority; he hopes people will
be flexible and open to creative solutions to fully utilizing the intent of MX zoning.
Councilmember Daysog stated the industry cluster at the marina is intimately tied to the
area; he looks forward to the discussion; he would like to maintain the jobs and industry
that reflect the character and history of Alameda; Council should be actively engaged in
preserving the maritime traditions, jobs, and connections with residents and businesses.
The Interim City Manager stated staff is considering a process similar to the one
regarding the Harbor Bay Club as a preliminary step.
Mayor Spencer stated the referral speaks to the consideration of mixed use throughout
the entire City, not just the Northern Waterfront site; inquired whether staff's response
would be in regard to Citywide, or two-fold.
The Interim City Manager stated the tour will be on the entire Northern Waterfront; there
is a sense of urgency at Alameda Marina; conversations about other MX zoned areas
could be included, including Alameda Landing; North Housing does not have MX
zoning.
In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the Interim City Manager stated there are no
projects pending at the Alameda Marina.
Mayor Spencer stated that she would be agreeable to reviewing the mixed-use zoning
Citywide, which could be done at any time; she has concerns about starting a
preliminary process without a project pending; she would like more information on the
current options regarding what needs to be included in mixed-use, such as percentage
of housing.
The Interim City Manager stated a discussion about the issues cannot be done now, but
could be brought back.
Mayor Spencer stated that she would like to include the current zoning options staff is
considering when the issue comes back.
Vice Mayor Matarrese concurred with Mayor Spencer; stated reviewing and
understanding current rules is essential to future considerations; his intent for the
exercise is to find out whether what the City has is sufficient; he would like to get the
exercise going and hopes for support from the Council.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 1, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-03-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-03-01,26,"Mayor Spencer inquired whether staff could review whether some or all of the buildings
are eligible for registration with the National Register of Historic Places, to which the
Interim City Manager responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Packet Landing process was useful for the
developer to have a sense of where the Council stood; there is no point of going down a
road knowing there would not be approval; she would defer to the Attorneys regarding
any legalities.
Councilmember Daysog stated the review of mixed-used zoning in general is an
important discussion for Alameda citizens to have; a discussion about the waterfront
site is on the minds currently; the type of mixed-use for the area has been housing
oriented.
Councilmember Oddie stated that he has concerns about the marina but would like to
move forward with a workshop which would include an explanation of the current
zoning.
Vice Mayor Matarrese moved approval of directing staff to return with a report in April to
include the concerns brought up by the Council.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion which carried by unanimous voice vote
-
5.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(16-118) Councilmember Oddie requested the Clerk to correct the minutes to reflect the
votes on AB 210 as 46 instead of 43.
(16-119) Councilmember Daysog announced that he attended the East Bay League of
California Cities Division Meeting on February 25th.
(16-120) Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft announced that she attended an Alameda
County Industries (ACI) celebration of the one year anniversary of the recycling workers
contract.
(16-121) Councilmember Oddie announced that he was honored to judge the young
kids history presentation at Bay Farm School.
(16-122) Mayor Spencer announced she also attended the National History Day event
at Bay Farm School.
(16-123) Consideration of Mayor's Nominations to the Commission on Disability Issues
(CDI), the Housing Authority Board of Commissioners (HABOC) and the Rent Review
Advisory Committee (RRAC).
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 1, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-03-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2016-03-01,27,"Mayor Spencer nominated Michaela Tsztoo for appointment to the CDI; Arthur Kurrasch
for reappointment to the HABOC and Tina Landess Petrich and Robert Schrader for
appointment to the RRAC.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 12:44 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
March 1, 2016",CityCouncil/2016-03-01.pdf
GolfCommission,2016-03-01,1,"ALAMEDA GOLF COMMISSION
MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING
Tuesday, March 1, 2016
1
CALL TO ORDER
Vice-Chair Bev Blatt called the regular meeting to order at approximately 1:00 p.m. in
Ladies Lounge, 1 Clubhouse Memorial Road, Alameda, CA 94502
1-A
ROLL CALL
Present:
Vice-Chair Bev Blatt, Commissioner Cheryl Saxton,
Commissioner Ron Carlson and Ed Downing
Absent:
Commissioners Shawn Shelby
Staff:
Greenway Principals Ken Campbell, George Kelley and Marc
Logan
Also Present:
None
2
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Norma Arnerich recommended that the City should move forward with the contract as
presented.
Jane Sullwold urged the Golf Commission to recommend to City Council not to
approve the current agreement and possibly give Jim's a temporary contract, and work
through the proposal.
Stephen Burnett, men's and women's golf coach at Alameda High School, expressed
his support for Jim's
Joe VanWinkle urged the Golf Commission to recommend to the City Council to wait
60 days to approve the agreement, and work through the items not clarified in the
agreement.
3
COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
Amy Wooldridge, Park and Recreation Director, informed the Golf Commission of the
mandatory Ethics Training required annually that had been sent to the commissioners
previously, and is due by the end of March.
4
WRITTEN/ORAL REPORTS
1
Golf Commission Minutes - -Tuesday, March 1, 2016",GolfCommission/2016-03-01.pdf
GolfCommission,2016-03-01,2,"5.
AGENDA ITEMS
5-A
Review and Recommend a 15-Year Concession Agreement, with a
10-Year Renewal Option, with Dialemi, Inc. (known as Jim's on the
Course), for the Provision of Food and Beverage Service at the
Chuck Corica Golf Complex.
Amy Wooldridge stated that she had a slide show presentation prepared, but the
projector was not working, so copies of the presentation were distributed, which was
attached to the agenda, along with the Staff Report from the City with an overview and
it's recommendation.
Chair Blatt had inquired about the number of toilets required for the new capacity and
Ms. Wooldridge stated that she had confirmed with the building inspector the
requirements: One toilet for every 75 people available, and due to the fact that the
clubhouse has four stalls in both the men's and women's restroom, that this fulfills the
requirement. She was then asked by Commissioner Ed Downing, about the
clubhouse restrooms being locked at dark, and she stated that they were working on
an agreement between Greenway and Jim's, which has not been signed, that this
provision is addressed in the agreement.
Commissioner Downing inquired whether the upgrades to the restrooms in the
restaurant have been completed, and Tom Geanekos stated that, if the Concession
Agreement is approved, he would be willing to further upgrade them. He was then
asked if that would include additional toilets, Amy Wooldridge responded stating that
as soon as your start moving walls, new fire codes would have to complied with, which
would include installing sprinklers, which is a cost of approximately $400,000. The
question was asked as to who was responsible for the restroom upgrades, and Ms.
Wooldridge stated that it was the City's responsibility for upgrades per the current
Concessionaire Agreement, but that the Golf Fund is at a negative, due to the
$1,000,000 that was borrowed from the Recreation Fund to fulfill the contribution to
Greenway, and they are in the process of still paying that off.
Two questions were asked by Jane Sullwold. The first question was ""Why is it that this
Capital Improvement holdover is substantially less than what Greenway is required to
make for capital improvements, and the second question is that the renovation to the
kitchen does not require the movement of any walls. Mr. Geanekos responded to the
second question stating that it is correct, that they will be not be moving any walls,
they will be using a back room, which currently holds a walk-in unit, for the additional
banquet kitchen prep area. Ms. Wooldridge responded to the first question regarding
the capital improvement fund, and she stated that the City's thought process was
that it was a significantly smaller area of the property.
Chair Blatt stated that at the January Golf Commission, that Greenway stated that they
were planning to submit a proposal to the City for improvements to the Clubhouse and
2
Golf Commission Minutes - -Tuesday, March 1, 2016",GolfCommission/2016-03-01.pdf
GolfCommission,2016-03-01,3,"the North Course, and she wants it clear that there will be total agreement between
Greenway and Jim's that improvements will not look funny. Ms. Wooldridge stated
that the City does not want it to look funny, and that Greenway gets to take the lead as
to what the improvements look like, and she recommends that they are presented to
the golf commission, and Jim's would follow the tile choice and color schemes chosen.
Commissioner Downing asked what would happen if Jim's chose not to agree to the
color choices made by Greenway, and Ms. Wooldridge stated that per the agreement,
he has to match design colors and style.
Discussion ensued regarding several specific design items, and Ms. Wooldridge asked
that they table this as the purpose of this meeting is to move forward with the
recommendation for the Concessionaire agreement, and specifics can come back to
the Golf Commission at a later date. The Concessionaire agreement is going before
the City Council tonight for approval, and if approved, it moves forward, and if not
approved, a couple of scenarios are they can make particular amendments to it and
would still move forward or they could simply say no. If they say no, Greenway has
first right of refusal in the existing agreement with the City, and she would then begin
negotiations with Greenway, and if that failed at City Council level, then a formal
Request for Proposal would be initiated, as well as if Greenway chose to waive their
right of refusal.
Commission Downing asked if all the major renovations would require approval of the
Golf Commission, and Ms. Wooldridge stated that currently the agreement states that
it requires Golf Commission approval for the enclosed patio, but if the Golf
Commission wants approval of all interior renovations, that would have to be a
recommendation to the City Council, and they could approve the agreement with that
amendment.
Chair Blatt asked Mr. Geanekos if there was somebody to fulfill the obligations of the
agreement in the case of his retirement, and Mr. Geanekos responded that their goal
is to remain a family business, but if this were to change, he could sign over to a City
approved concessionaire.
Ken Campbell of Greenway Golf stated that the relationship between Greenway and
Jim's has been positive, but they are looking for clarity within the agreement, for
instance, having a breakdown of the cost estimates that Greenway had to provide,
would be advisable. Mr. Campbell stated that, originally, Greenway endorsed the idea
of the patio wrapping around the front, but after they saw the conceptual drawing, they
would like to discuss further how it is going to look. Mr. Campbell stated that there
was nothing about golf course services, including the North Course snack bar and the
beverage cart, and also inquired about snack services at the practice facility. Mr.
Campbell asked about maintenance of the common area, as the agreement states that
Jim's is not responsible for any exterior landscaping. Greenway would also like clarity
on the interior design of the restaurant. Mr. Campbell also would like the opportunity
for Greenway's attorneys look at the possibility of a cross indemnity clause regarding
any injuries that might occur on the property.
3
Golf Commission Minutes - -Tuesday, March 1, 2016",GolfCommission/2016-03-01.pdf
GolfCommission,2016-03-01,4,"Ms. Wooldridge responded to the common area maintenance, stating there is a third
party agreement between Greenway and Jim's on the Course, and was originally part
of the City's agreement, but was pulled by the City's attorneys stating that the City
could not be responsible for an agreement between two other entities.
Tom Geanekos stated that there has been a positive relationship with Greenway, but
also expressed his concerns for working not having a lease and working on a month to
month basis. He feels that in the last 10 years, that he has shown good faith, and
asked the Golf Commission not to put him in the position of operating without a lease.
Discussion ensued regarding the conceptual drawings presented at the July Golf
Commission meeting, as they are not the same as the proposed drawings in the
current agreement, and it was discussed that in July, those were similar concepts, not
the final concept.
Chair Blatt felt that a five year renewal would work to give Jim's security, and also, by
then the golf course renovations would be complete, and then they would know what
would be needed. Greenway responded that they would just like 60 days to work
these issues out.
Commissioner Downing feels that the agreement is vague and is not in favor of
moving forward.
Commissioner Carlson feels that Jim's should have some assurances, and possibly
add some addendums to the agreement.
Commissioner Saxton understands both sides, but suggests taking 60 days, to solve
the issues in question.
Commissioner Downing moved that the Golf Commission recommend to the City
Council that they negotiate a six month lease extension of the current agreement with
Jim's, and facilitate between the interested to decide the best course of action in that
six month time period. The motion failed.
Discussion ensued as to how much time would be needed to work out the issues in
questions. Jim's would like the contract approved tonight and Greenway would like 60
days to work on these items.
Commissioner Downing moved that the Golf Commission recommend to the City
Council that they negotiate a six month lease extension of the current concessionaire
lease with Jim's, and the two interested parties come back to the Golf Commission on
April 12 with their agreed upon plan. The motion passed unanimously.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (Public Comment)
7.
OLD BUSINESS
4
Golf Commission Minutes - -Tuesday, March 1, 2016",GolfCommission/2016-03-01.pdf
GolfCommission,2016-03-01,5,"None
8.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None
9.
ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING'S AGENDA - March 8, 2016
10.
ANNOUNCEMENTSIADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 3:36 p.m.
The agenda for the meeting was posted seven days in advance in compliance with the
Alameda Sunshine Ordinance, which also complies with the 72-hour requirement of the
Brown Act.
5
Golf Commission Minutes - -Tuesday, March 1, 2016",GolfCommission/2016-03-01.pdf