body,date,page,text,path
CityCouncil,2017-07-05,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
WEDNESDAY- - -JULY 5, 2017-6:00 P.M.
Mayor Spencer convened the meeting at 6:00 p.m.
Roll Call -
Present:
Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie, Vella and
Mayor Spencer - 5.
[Note: Vice Mayor Vella arrived at 6:03 p.m. and Councilmember Ezzy
Ashcraft arrived 6:05 p.m.]
Absent:
None.
The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(17-412) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Initiation of Litigation
Pursuant to Subdivision (c) of Section 54956.9 of the Government Code; Number of
Cases: Two (As Plaintiff - City Initiating Legal Action). One case was not heard.
Following the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Spencer
announced that regarding one case of Anticipated Litigation, direction was given to staff
to bring an action and to further disclose information.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 7:11 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
July 5, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-07-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-07-05,2,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
WEDNESDAY- - -JULY 5, 2017--7:00 P.M.
Mayor Spencer convened the meeting at 7:21 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
(17-413) Mayor Spencer proposed moving up the cannabis referral [paragraph no. 17-
438] to be heard earlier.
Councilmember Matarrese stated Council has already heard the general part of the
referral; staff has stated the item will return to Council as a report.
Mayor Spencer stated she is hopeful Council will hear the item tonight.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(17-414) Presentation by the Oakland International Airport on Anticipated Air Traffic
during the Closure of Runways Number 12 and 30 for Maintenance (Tentatively
September 4 to September 18, 2017) and Fleet Week (October 2 to October 9, 2017).
Hugh Johnson, Oakland International Airport, gave a Power Point presentation.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(17-415) Sharon Golden, Alameda Island Cannabis Community, urged Council to hear
the cannabis referral [paragraph no. 17-438 at tonight's meeting.
(17-416) Ken Peterson, Alameda, spoke about the sound during meetings and an anti-
bullying program.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Spencer announced that the West Coast Arborist contract [paragraph no. 17-
422 and assessor dwelling unit ordinance [paragraph no. 17-430 were removed from
the Consent Calendar for discussion.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the remainder of the Consent
Calendar.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
July 5, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-07-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-07-05,3,"vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the
paragraph number.]
(*17-417) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings and Joint City
Council and Successor Agency to the Community Improvement Commission Meeting
Held on June 6, 2017. Approved.
(*17-418) Ratified bills in the amount of $3,345,569.36.
(*17-419) Recommendation to Accept the Quarterly Sales Tax Report for the Period
Ending March 31, 2017 Collected During the Period October 1, 2016 to December 31,
2016. Accepted.
(*17-420) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a First
Amendment to the Agreement with the Alameda County Fire Department Regarding the
Regional Emergency Communication Center and Fire Dispatch Services Extending the
Term by Five Years With a Total Not to Exceed $1,976,729. Accepted.
(*17-421) Recommendation to Approve the First Amendment to Services Provider
Agreement with Nossaman LLP, a California Corporation, that has been Providing the
City with Grant-Seeking, Writing, and Active Lobbying Since 2014. Accepted.
(17-422) Recommendation to Award a Five Year Contract for an Amount Not to Exceed
a Total Five Year Expenditure of $8,264,931.69 to West Coast Arborists, Inc. for
Citywide Urban Forest Maintenance Services, No. P.W. 04-17-25.
Vice Mayor Vella stated the City Manager informed her the total expenditure includes
extending the contract for an additional four years; inquired whether the golf fund is
being included in the financing, how much of the funds would be used and if the
maintenance of the trees at the golf course would be included in the funds.
The City Engineer responded the funds include the trees in the golf course area, as well
as other work.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired how much of the golf funds will go towards the trees.
The City Engineer responded he would have to review the numbers.
The City Manager stated the funding will be prorated by the number of trees.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether the City has a contractor that is paid to maintain the
golf course; does the contract not include maintenance of the trees.
The City Engineer responded he does not have information on the contract.
The City Manager stated the trees are probably under the City's jurisdiction.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
July 5, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-07-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-07-05,4,"Vice Mayor Vella requested clarification; stated there have been questions in the past
about funds being used for items not relevant to the golf course.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the matter is time sensitive.
The City Manager responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated she would like to hear more information from staff.
The Assistant City Manager stated staff will look into the inquiries by Vice Mayor Vella
and return later in the meeting with the answers.
Stated the amount indicated in the contract is $9,600; the agreement is for the strip of
property adjacent to the golf course; the contract is not for golf course maintenance, it is
for around the golf course: Joe Van Winkle, Alameda.
Mayor Spencer moved approval of the staff recommendation.
The motion FAILED due to lack of a second.
The City Manager inquired whether Council would like to make a motion to consider the
item towards the end of the meeting.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the Assistant City Manager has a
preference about when to address the item further down on the agenda.
Mayor Spencer requested the item be moved after the cannabis referral.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of hearing the item after the end of the
regular agenda.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Mayor Spencer stated the motion is to move the item in front of the
cannabis referral.
Councilmember Matarrese clarified the motion is to move the West Coast Arborists, Inc.
item to the end of the regular agenda, which would be after the Teleport
Communications of America item.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie and Vella - 4. Noes: Mayor Spencer -
1.
(*17-423) Recommendation to Award a Five Year Contract for an Amount not to
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
July 5, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-07-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-07-05,5,"Exceed a Total Five Year Expenditure of $1,331,693.33, Including Contingencies, to
LandCare USA for Landscape Maintenance of Median Strips and Special Areas
(Citywide), No. P.W. 03-17-23. Accepted.
(*17-424) Recommendation to Accept the Work of Ray's Electric for the Park Street
Pedestrian Safety Project. Accepted.
(*17-425) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute a
Contract in the Amount of $257,203 with Systems and Space Inc. for Renovation of the
Police Department Locker Rooms; and
(*17-425A) Resolution No. 15285, ""Amending the Fiscal Year 2017-18 Police Grants
Fund Budget."" Adopted.
(*17-426) Resolution No. 15286, ""Approving the Final Map and Accepting the
Dedications and Easements for Parcel Map 10600 (Building 40, Bladium, at Alameda
Point). Adopted.
(*17-427) Resolution No. 15287, ""Approving Continued Participation in the Alameda
County HOME Consortium and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the HOME
Consortium Cooperative Agreement with Alameda County.' Adopted.
(*17-428) Ordinance No. 3182, ""Amending Ordinance 3850 Approving and Authorizing
the City Manager to Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of an
Amended and Restated Lease with Bay Ship and Yacht Corporation to Clarify the
Parties Obligations, Modify the Leased Premises and Adjust Rent Payments for the
Tideland Property Located at 2900 Main #2100 and Surrounding Area.' Finally passed.
(*17-429) Ordinance No. 3183, ""Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending
Chapter XXX (Zoning Ordinance) to Add Shared Living to the Definitions and the
Commercial Districts, including Approval of a Use Permit in the Neighborhood Business,
Central Business, and Community Commercial Districts. The Amendment Allows a
Proposed Shared Living Project at 1629 Webster Street."" Finally passed.
(17-430) Ordinance No. 3184, ""Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending
Chapter XXX (Zoning Ordinance) to Modify Regulations Pertaining to Accessory
Dwelling Units (ADU) and Related Rules to Comply with State Law (Second Units).
Finally passed.
Stated he is not against increasing available housing, but he would like to preserve the
state of Alameda; he is concerned with the aesthetic appeal of Alameda and traffic;
expressed concern with not having a design review process: Charles Hurt, Alameda.
Expressed concern with 1,200 square feet being excessive: Steven Aced, Alameda.
Stated there should be a design review process for ADUs; public input is needed: David
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
July 5, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-07-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-07-05,6,"Baker, Alameda.
Urged ADUs be limited to 600 square feet; stated that he is concerned with traffic and
density in Alameda: Scott Brady, Alameda.
Stated that he is not opposed to the ADU ordinance; suggested the limit be set at 600
square feet; expressed concern with the way the ordinance is written with regards to
design: Erich Stiger, Alameda.
Expressed concern for parking, traffic and open space with the addition of ADUs:
Renata Frey, Alameda.
Expressed concern over the affordability of ADUs; requested the square footage of
ADU's be limited to allow for more affordable housing: Nancy Hird, Alameda.
Expressed concern over parking with the addition of ADU's; requested the limit of AUDs
be set at 600 square feet: Nancy Gordon, Alameda.
Urged the limit be 600 square feet for ADUs; stated eliminating design review is not an
option: Jim Smallman, Alameda.
Urged Council to require design review for all ADUs; stated the maximum should be 600
square feet; lack of parking is a big stressor in Alameda neighborhoods: Mary Jacak,
Alameda.
Urged Council to keep the limit of ADUs to 600 square feet, except where the ADU is
contained within the existing building envelope; expressed concern over the way the
ordinance is written and not allowing for public notification and design review; stated the
proposed language is subjective and needs to be more defined; all other local cities
have more restrictive ADU maximums: Christopher Buckley, Alameda Architectural
Preservation Society (AAPS).
Stated that she supports the new California law, which supports incorporating more
affordable housing in Alameda; anything beyond 600 square feet should have input
from neighbors: Marianne Bartholomew, Alameda.
Urged staff to review whether ADUs can be two stories and can be made of cinderblock:
Rosemary McNally, Alameda.
Stated the ADU maximum should be 600 square; the design review process should
apply to all ADUs: Doree Miles, Alameda.
Stated there should be a design review requirement; urged Council allow citizens to
have notice and input: Joe VanWinkle, Alameda.
Stated there should be a limit of 600 square feet for ADUs: Dorothy Freeman, Alameda.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
July 5, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-07-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-07-05,7,"Urged Council to make the design review process a requirement for ADUs; stated the
addition of ADU's offers many benefits for the people of Alameda: Alexandra Saikley,
Saikley Architects.
Stated the issue is lack of parking; there should be a requirement for off street parking
for ADUs: Donna Heagan, Alameda.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification on the 1,200 square foot
maximum.
The Planning Services Manager responded that the State law sets the maximum of
1,200 square feet for an ADU; stated the requirement is less than 50% of the existing
floor area of the main dwelling; in order to build a 1,200 square foot ADU, a house must
be 2,400 square feet.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the total of the first and second floor
add up to 2,400 square feet or if the 1,200 square foot maximum is the total footprint of
the lot.
The Planning Services Manager responded the total floor area; the gross floor area, not
the footprint.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired about the percentage of lot coverage.
The Planning Services Manager responded the footprint of the ADU and the footprint of
the main building, including any impervious surfaces, cannot be more than 50% of the
total lot area.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether an ADU has a limit to the number of
stories.
The Planning Services Manager responded detached ADUs must be one story, no taller
than 15 feet to the peak of the roof and walls not more than 10 feet tall.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether a cinder block dwelling would be
allowed.
The Planning Services Manager responded under the current language if a home is
made of cinder block, then the ADU must be made of cinder block; the proposed
language allows more flexibility.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there are cinder block homes in
Alameda.
The Planning Services Manager responded there might be a few; stated under the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
July 5, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-07-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-07-05,8,"proposed ordinance, staff would have the discretion to determine if a cinder block ADU
would be appropriate using the City's design review manual.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification on whether or not a design review
would be needed for all ADUs.
The Planning Services Manager responded there is still an architectural review process;
stated the difference with the design review manual review is there is public notice, but
no appeal process.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft read an email from the Planning Services Manager
which referenced the cities of Berkeley and Oakland allowing ADUs up to 75% of the
existing floor area; stated Alameda is limiting the ADUs to no more than 50% of the floor
area; inquired why the language in the proposed ordinance regarding materials is
permissive and not mandatory.
The Planning Services Manager responded there are different standards for different
situations; stated staff uses adjacent buildings to set a standard for how ADUs should
look.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired what type of design review would be required to
have an ADU built in the front yard.
The Planning Services Manager responded the proposed language states the ADU
needs to mimic the existing main building.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether setback requirements still apply, to which the
Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether staff will review the design of the building behind the
proposed ADU.
The Planning Services Manager responded staff will always review adjacent properties.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired what the language: ""must be subordinate to the footprint""
means.
The Planning Services Manager responded subordinate means smaller; the maximum
size requirement states an ADU cannot be more than 50% of the footprint.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether a 1,200 square foot ADU could be built if the total
square footage of a building is 2,400, but the ground floor is 1,200 square feet, and the
property has enough permeable square footage and surfaces.
The Planning Services Manager responded in the negative.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
July 5, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-07-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-07-05,9,"Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether there is information on how many properties in
Alameda will be ineligible due to lack of permeable surfaces.
The Planning Services Manager responded that staff does not have said data; stated
staff did a review; in Alameda only15% of the homes are large and are on Harbor Bay
Island but do not have space to accommodate an ADU; some units at Bayport and
newer developments, like TriPointe and Marina Cove, have strict design guidelines
pertaining to the development of an ADU.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the 15% is based only on square footage, to
which the Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the ADU has to be subordinate, to which the
Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the 15% is probably an inflated percentage.
The Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the maximum size
is only one item on a list of development standards.
Councilmember Oddie inquired how many of the 15% of larger homes in Alameda
currently have ADUs.
The Planning Services Manager responded that there are currently no ADUs on the
15% of larger homes.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether staff has an idea how many of the 15% would
be eligible to have a 1,200 square foot ADU based on the property size or permeable
surface.
The Planning Services Manager stated there is no data on the details of what people
have in their homes.
Councilmember Oddie inquired how the City can address parking under the new State
law.
The Planning Services Manager responded State legislature provides a number of
situations where cities cannot require parking, one of which is if the ADU is located
within a half mile from public transit.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the design manual is stricter than the proposed
ordinance; stated the City is not supposed to make the guidelines unduly burdensome.
The Planning Services Manager responded the design guidelines are intended to
support and expand on the ordinance; the ordinance broadens the language and
flexibility.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
July 5, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-07-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-07-05,10,"Councilmember Oddie inquired whether if someone could build a modular ADU on
Grand Street.
The Planning Services Manager responded in the negative.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the City ordinance could require more design review
than is currently being proposed; and whether more homes would be allowed to build
ADUs without design review.
The Planning Services Manager responded design review by staff always occurs; stated
if the proposed design meets the ordinance guidelines, there will not be the procedural
design review process, which requires public notification; stated the City could insert a
design review process.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the City could require public notice for all proposed
ADUs 600 square feet and over and still be in compliance with State law.
The Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative; stated that would be
reverting back to the current ordinance.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether said requirement would still be in compliance with the
State law.
The Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired what the cost is between a publicly noticed design review
versus an internal staff design review.
The Planning Services Manager responded if the requirements are not met, a project
would require a use permit, which is $1,600, and design review, which is also $1,600.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether staff considers permeable surfaces and the setbacks
as part of the design review process, to which the Planning Services Manager
responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the City can require an affordability restriction.
The Planning Services Manager responded any requirement regarding affordability
would be considered burdensome; stated if the City introduces requirements that are
not in the State legislation, there might be legal concerns.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether someone with an old dwelling behind
their home could come to the City with a proposal to convert it into an ADU.
The Planning Services Manager responded is could be possible if there is only the main
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
July 5, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-07-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-07-05,11,"unit and one other unit on the property; stated the proposal would need to meet all of
the guidelines.
Councilmember Matarrese stated design review can occur for every ADU, which
provides a certain amount of protection; by right, anything up to 600 square feet
requires a ministerial design review; anything larger than 600 square feet should require
public notification and public input on the design review; anything visible from the street
should be subject to design review.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft read from Government Code Section 65852.150; stated
ADUs provide additional rental housing stock at a lower cost; the City Council and staff
care about the appearance of Alameda; not just anyone can build an ADU, there are
restrictions in place; she supports the ordinance.
Vice Mayor Vella stated that she has concerns with the 600 square foot limit; 600
square feet will not allow for universal design of an ADU to make it fully accessible;
putting a 600 square foot limit punishes people who would like to care for family
members or age in place; if the ADU is in the front or side yard, she would consider a
limit under 1,200 square feet; she would not want to put the number too far below 1,000
square feet for public notice.
Mayor Spencer asked Vice Mayor Vella to think about whether 750 square feet for
requiring notice is sufficient.
Councilmember Oddie stated that he feels comfortable with the City's current design
standards and staff's ability; the City should not interfere with people and their property;
he appreciates the input from AAPS; he supports the current ordinance the way it is
written.
Mayor Spencer stated that she cannot support the ordinance as written; she would like
to require public notice to the neighbors at a lower square footage.
Vice Mayor Vella stated that she would like the limit to require notice to be around 850
square feet; the architects she spoke to indicated 850 square feet would fit a universal
design aspect.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the existing text of the ordinance, with
amendment to have anything greater than 600 square feet require notice, and design
review will be conducted regardless, if any ADU is visible from a public street; ADUs
must meet the design guidelines.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether said changes can be made and still qualify for a
second reading.
The City Attorney responded in the affirmative.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
July 5, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-07-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-07-05,12,"see if changes need to be made.
On the call for the question, the motion failed by the following voice votes: Ayes:
Councilmember Matarrese and Mayor Spencer - 2. Noes: Councilmember Ezzy
Ashcraft, Oddie and Vice Mayor Vella - 3.
Vice Mayor Vella moved approval of the language as is, with adding a requirement to
return to Council in 6 months to provide an update on the status of applications and
laws being passed in neighboring jurisdictions.
The City Attorney requested clarification on whether the request to return to Council is
being added as part of the ordinance or just as direction to Council.
Vice Mayor Vella responded the request is direction to staff.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion which carried by the following voice
vote: Ayes: Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft, Oddie and Vice Mayor Vella - 3. Noes:
Councilmember Matarrese and Mayor Spencer - 2.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(17-431) Resolution No. 15288, ""Reappointing Anto Aghapekian as a Member of the
Commission on Disability Issues."" Adopted;
(17-431A) Resolution No. 15289, ""Appointing Jennifer Barrett as a Member of the
Commission on Disability Issues."" Adopted;
(17-431B) Resolution No. 15290, ""Reappointing Lisa Hall as a Member of the
Commission on Disability Issues."" Adopted;
(17-431C) Resolution No. 15291, ""Reappointing Ron Taylor as a Member of the Golf
Commission."" Adopted;
(17-431D) Resolution No. 15292, ""Appointing Joseph Van Winkle as a Member of the
Golf Commission."" Adopted;
(17-431E) Resolution No. 15293, ""Appointing Amber Bales as a Member of the Library
Board. Adopted;
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
July 5, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-07-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-07-05,13,"(17-431F) Resolution No. 15294, ""Appointing Cynthia Silva as a Member of the Library
Board.' Adopted;
(17-431G) Resolution No. 15295, ""Appointing Travis Wilson as a Member of the Library
Board.' Adopted;
(17-431H) Resolution No. 15296, ""Appointing Dorothy Wismar as a Member of the
Library Board."" Adopted; and
(17-4311) Resolution No. 15297, ""Appointing Laura Palmer as a Member of the
Transportation Commission."" Adopted.
Councilmember Oddie moved adoption of the resolutions.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
The Assistant City Clerk administered the oath of office and presented the certificates of
appointment to Ms. Barrett, Ms. Hall, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Van Winkle, Ms. Silva, and Ms.
Wismar.
***
Mayor Spencer called a recess at 9:03 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:07 p.m.
(17-432) Public Hearing to Consider Introduction of Ordinance Amending the
Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) between Alameda Point Partners, LLC
and the City of Alameda for Site A at Alameda Point. Introduced.
The Base Reuse Director gave a Power Point presentation.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the developer will have financing if Council
approves the ordinance.
The Base Reuse Director responded as of today, the City does not have a feasible
financing plan with the developer; the developer can answer questions from Council;
continued presentation.
Mayor Spencer stated the developer is in default, inquired why staff is not addressing
the issue of finance.
The City Manager responded the developer has until August 9th to come up with a
financial plan; stated the DDA has other options for the developer.
The Base Reuse Director stated the finances depend on the land uses; there is no
financial plan without a land use plan; all development plan changes affect the bottom
line; continued the presentation.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
July 5, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-07-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-07-05,14,"Councilmember Oddie inquired where the teacher housing would be located.
The Base Reuse Director highlighted the location of the teacher housing on the
diagram; stated there are 70 units for teacher housing, which are moderate income,
deed restricted housing for employees of Alameda Unified School District (AUSD).
Councilmember Oddie inquired what is the difference in commercial square footage in
the 2015 plan versus the revised plan.
The Base Reuse Director stated there is no change.
Mayor Spencer inquired where the teacher housing comes from; stated she would like
to hear from staff.
The Base Reuse Director responded the School District would help finance the units
with rental income and would issue Certificate of Participation to finance debt; the
agreement is between the School District and the developer as a way to use public
financing to help finance moderate income units.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether 25% of the 800 units are below market rate.
The Base Reuse Director responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the 25% is the 200 units.
The Base Reuse Director responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Spencer stated the first plan allowed any person in the City to be eligible for
below market units; inquired whether the proposal limits the below market units to
AUSD employees only.
The Base Reuse Director responded 70 units will be through the School District.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the 70 [School District] units are in addition to the 200
units.
The Base Reuse Director responded in the negative; stated the 70 units are a part of
the 200 units.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the AUSD employees need to currently live in
Alameda to be eligible.
The Base Reuse Director responded that she is unsure of the details; stated the deal
has not been finalized; details can still be worked out.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
13
July 5, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-07-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-07-05,15,"Mayor Spencer inquired whether the people on the Housing Authority list would be
given priority for the 200 units or if the 70 units will be different.
The Base Reuse Director responded it is different than it was previously contemplated;
70 units will be restricted to the AUSD employees.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the intent of the proposed AUSD
housing is to address the issue of AUSD having a hard time hiring teachers who cannot
afford to live in Alameda.
The Base Reuse Director responded that she cannot speak for AUSD, but her
understanding is that the housing is for new teachers and all AUSD employees.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether all new teachers and AUSD employees are currently
eligible to apply to the Housing Authority.
The Base Reuse Director responded in the affirmative; stated anyone who meets the
qualifications for moderate income units can apply; continued the presentation.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether there is a guarantee that the City will receive an
extra $4 million.
The Base Reuse Director responded the project will be differed to Phase 3; stated if
Phase 3 of the project does not close, the City will not receive the money; stated there
is a risk.
Councilmember Oddie inquired would the City will not receive the $4 million if the City
closes on the deal and finds out the deal will not happen a week later,.
The Base Reuse Director responded if Phase 3 does not close, the City will not receive
the $4 million; stated the staff report explains the risk; under the previous DDA, $5
million would have been received under Phase 1; under the new DDA, $4 million will not
be received until Phase 3; if the developer does not close, the City will not receive the
$4 million, which is a risk.
Councilmember Oddie inquired if the project does not go through after the developer
owns the land, could the developer sell the land and bank the money without fulfilling
the commitment to the sports complex project.
The Base Reuse Director responded the developer would own Phase 1 and Phase 2,
but would not own Phase 3 without paying the $4 million; stated there are strict
requirements to perform under infrastructure; the City could use remedies under the
DDA; if the developer defaults on Phase 1, the City can call on the surety bonds and
perform the work.
Mayor Spencer inquired how many homes would be built under Phase 1 and Phase 2.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
14
July 5, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-07-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-07-05,16,"The Base Reuse Director responded 800 homes.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether all the profit for Phase 1 and Phase 2 could go to the
developer and the City could be left without Phase 3 being built.
The Base Reuse Director responded under the current DDA, Phase 3 does not include
housing.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether Phase 3 is only commercial and no housing.
The Base Reuse Director responded in the affirmative; stated there is no housing in
Phase 3.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired what is the risk to the housing plan in the event the housing
does not get built.
The Base Reuse Director responded there will be less housing supply and affordable
housing; stated the changes are necessary to move the project forward.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired what would happen if the housing requirement is split
between Phase 1 and 2.
The Base Reuse Director responded Alameda Point units are not currently in the
housing plan.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether not going forward with the proposed
Phase means Alameda will not receive affordable housing units.
The Base Reuse Director responded in the affirmative; continued the presentation.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether having the developer pay $50,000 per acre to have an
extension includes $10 million for the ferry or is in addition to the $10 million.
The Base Reuse Director responded the $10 million is in addition only if the developer
does not complete 50% of the infrastructure; stated the amount is credited once the
developer completes 50% of infrastructure.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether there is no penalty as long as the developer satisfies
the infrastructure requirement.
The Base Reuse Director responded in the affirmative; stated there are two ways to
cure the developers default; the developer is paying for their cure period.
Mayor Spencer requested clarification; inquired whether the developer is not paying
additional money to extend, but would the money paid in advance would be credited
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
15
July 5, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-07-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-07-05,17,"when the infrastructure is complete.
The Base Reuse Director responded the money is credited when the developer finishes
50% of the infrastructure.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the City would not receive new money; and whether
money would be paid early and credited when the infrastructure is done.
The Base Reuse Director responded $150,000 pays for the City's transaction costs.
Mayor Spencer stated the money is to offset costs that the City is bearing.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired what are the cost and timing of the infrastructure.
The Base Reuse Director responded the cost is approximately $43 million for
infrastructure; the total cost for Phase 1 is $80 million; the timing is the developer has to
start construction on infrastructure within 30 days of close.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether there are any infrastructure costs that the City will be
responsible for in the event that the project does not go through.
The Base Reuse responded in the negative; stated there are performance bonds if the
developer defaults.
Mayor Spencer inquired if the performance bonds are per phase.
The Base Reuse responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether Phase 1 and Phase 2 could be built with the 800 units
of housing and there is no guarantee Phase 3 would be built.
The Base Reuse responded in the affirmative; stated the developer could not meet the
requirements for Phase 3; continued the presentation.
Mayor Spencer inquired if Phase 3 is not built, how would the City receive the $4
million.
The Base Reuse responded if the developer defaults on Phase 3, the City will not
receive the infrastructure.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the City could lose 80% of the money under the new
proposal.
The Base Reuse responded in the affirmative; continued the presentation.
Mayor Spencer inquired what is the total number of market rate housing units for Phase
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
16
July 5, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-07-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-07-05,18,"1.
The Base Reuse Director responded 674.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether 674 of the 800 units are a part of Phase 1, to which
the Base Reuse Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the housing is affordable housing by
design.
The Base Reuse Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the units are smaller and are priced
accordingly.
The Base Reuse Director responded the developer has stated the units fall in the
market rate pricing based on size; if the market value goes up, the unit price will go up.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the development of more market rate
housing is due to requests by Council.
The Base Reuse Director responded in the affirmative; stated there is also demand for
smaller units in the current market; continued the presentation.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired why the infrastructure being expedited affects the Main Street
neighborhood and Alameda Point Collaborative projects.
The Base Reuse Director responded both projects depend on infrastructure; stated the
projects tie into the infrastructure.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired how the Main Street neighborhood and Alameda Point
Collaborative projects would be affected if the Site A project does not go through.
The Base Reuse Director responded without Site A, the Main Street neighborhood and
Alameda Point Collaborative projects would have to find a way to build infrastructure,
such as a sewer line.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether both projects would have to be redone.
The Base Reuse Director responded other options would need to be reviewed;
continued the presentation.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated AUSD is a separate entity than the City; the City
has no control over what AUSD does; inquired whether there is a Plan B if the School
District project does not go through.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
17
July 5, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-07-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-07-05,19,"The Base Reuse Director responded a Plan B would require a discussion with other
parties.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether AUSD is considering building housing on other
property it owns at Alameda Point.
The Base Reuse Director responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the current proposal would be in addition to other
housing for AUSD employees, to which the Base Reuse Director responded in the
affirmative.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the people that are currently on the Housing Authority
list will be bumped because they are not AUSD employees.
The Base Reuse Director responded in the affirmative; stated the process would
prioritize AUSD employees and teachers.
Councilmember Oddie inquired where AUSD currently stands on the proposal.
The Base Reuse Director responded AUSD is currently reviewing the Site A proposal.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether AUSD is on track to get the proposal done by
closing.
The Base Reuse Director responded an extension could be done; stated AUSD is
currently working on moving forward; continued the presentation.
Mayor Spencer inquired what Phase 3 would include under the new proposal.
The Base Reuse Director responded Phase 3 would include 500,000 square feet of
commercial space.
Mayor Spencer inquired how many square feet of commercial space are in Phase 1 and
2.
The Base Reuse Director responded there is almost 200,000 square feet of commercial
space in Phase 1 and Phase 2.
Mayor Spencer inquired what else is in Phase 3.
The Base Reuse Director responded a hotel is included in Phase 3.
Mayor Spencer inquired what else is part of Phase 1 and 2.
The Base Reuse Director responded there are promenade improvements, a park, retail
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
18
July 5, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-07-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-07-05,20,"and infrastructure closer to the Enterprise District.
Mayor Spencer stated the presentation is very small; she would like the public to be
able to see the slide; requested clarification regarding the deal with the U.S. Navy
requiring focus on jobs, not housing.
The Base Reuse Director responded there is a 1,425 housing unit cap at Alameda
Point.
Mayor Spencer inquired if 800 units of housing are built in Phases 1 and 2, and not
Phase 3, would the City need to consider additional housing units in order to receive the
commercial and the $4 million for Phase 3.
The Base Reused Director responded staff received a proforma from the developer
showing is commercial land values will be higher from the benefits of Phase 1.
In response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry about when commercial rates were higher, the
Base Reuse Director stated commercial rates have gone up considerably in recent
years.
Mayor Spencer stated commercial rates have never been higher; inquired what is the
risk; stated the commercial phase only requires a stronger market than the current
market.
The Base Reuse Director responded there will be higher value commercial uses due to
the housing and amenities being provided in Phase 1.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the estimates are on the conservative
side.
The Base Reuse Director responded the Phase 3 commercial values are more on the
aggressive side, not the conservative side; a financial consultant has reviewed the
estimates.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether Council could hear from the developer before
the speakers.
Bruce Dorfman, Alameda Point Partners (APP), gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the rent of the proposed apartments are guaranteed.
Mr. Dorfman responded in the negative.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired what the developer can do regarding the rent
costs.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
19
July 5, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-07-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-07-05,21,"Mr. Dorfman responded the rents are set at levels which cover 100% of operating costs,
principle interest on bonds and a reserve; the rental rates have been achieved before.
Mayor Spencer requested clarification about the developer not guaranteeing rental
rates.
Mr. Dorfman stated there is no guarantee; rates are dependent on the market; the
developer lays a foundation that allows for success.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the developer is guaranteeing Phase 3 will be built.
Mr. Dorfman responded there is no guarantee.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the developer has built the same types
of projects in other jurisdictions and where.
Mr. Dorfman responded in the affirmative; stated San Mateo, Redwood City and Santa
Clara.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the projects are completed and up and
running.
Mr. Dorfman responded in the affirmative; stated there is a track record.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the project with AUSD is similar to the
ones built in San Mateo, Redwood City and Santa Clara.
Mr. Dorfman responded the AUSD project is better because they can control the land
and the infrastructure through the current phasing of the project; stated the
infrastructure costs will be provided by the developer.
Councilmember Oddie inquired what the occupancy rate is for previous projects the
developer has done for teacher housing; what is the plan if all the units are not rented
by teachers.
Mr. Dorfman responded the vacancy has been virtually zero because the units are very
under market; stated the infrastructure is important for the Main Street neighborhood to
move forward; the project retains the commercial square footage; if the project does not
move forward, the City foregoes the new ferry, 200 affordable housing units, thousands
of local and high paying construction jobs, all the parks that are part of the plan, the
revitalization of Site A, a $500,000 sports complex payments and 600 units of market
rate product.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the financing will be achieved.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
20
July 5, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-07-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-07-05,22,"Mr. Dorfman responded that he is confident the developer will receive the financing.
Councilmember Oddie inquired by what date.
Mr. Dorfman responded the developer is still in negotiations.
Mayor Spencer inquired if the financing is for all three phases.
Mr. Dorfman responded the financing is for Phase 1.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the developer can obtain financing for Phase 2.
Mr. Dorfman responded that he is confident financing for Phase 2 residential
components will be obtained; stated Mr. Ernst can speak to the commercial
components.
Mayor Spencer inquired about financing for Phase 3.
Joe Ernst, APP, stated that he has financing partners; developing the amenities and
commercial will create interest.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether Mr. Ernst is confident APP will have financing for
Phase 2, including the commercial.
Mr. Ernst responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether Mr. Ernst is willing to guarantee that they will have
financing.
Mr. Ernst responded there are no guarantees in the business.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether Mr. Ernst will have financing for Phase 3.
Mr. Ernst responded that he is confident the financing will be raised.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether Mr. Ernst will bond that he can get financing.
Mr. Ernst responded there is nothing to bond.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether Mr. Ernst can assure the City that the complete project
will be built.
Mr. Ernst responded that his word and reputation are the assurance.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether there is any tool that can be offered to the City to
guarantee that Phase 3 will be built.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
21
July 5, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-07-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-07-05,23,"Mr. Ernst responded the best guarantee to get Phase 3 built is to build Phase 2.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether any type of bond can be done, to which Mr. Ernst
responded in the negative.
Stated that he supports the character of Mr. Ernst, his partners and the project: Mike
Gaines, San Francisco.
Stated Alameda Point Site A will revitalize the area and provide much needed housing;
the Carpenter's Union fully supports the project: Daniel Gregg, Carpenter's Union.
Stated Bay Ship & Yacht supports the project: Leslie Cameron, Bay Ship & Yacht.
Stated the project will employee thousands of people; the project will provide housing in
Alameda: Jim Summers, DeSilva Gates Construction.
Stated that she supports the project; urged Council to move forward with the project:
Kari Thompson, Alameda.
Stated that he is concerned the project might not go through; the project not going
through affects businesses in the area and housing; the developer has proved himself
time and time again; it is not fair to question his integrity; penalizing the developer for
things out of his control is really penalizing the businesses out at the Base and the
people that have waited 20 years to have development: Michael McDonough, Alameda
Chamber of Commerce.
Stated that she supports the project; urged Council to move forward: Linda Asbury,
West Alameda Business Association.
Stated that he voted for the project on the Planning Board; the developer should put up
a bond or letter of credit to assure Phase 3 will be done: Ron Curtis, Alameda.
Strongly urged Council to support the project; stated the project will be a great
employment opportunity for Alameda workers; development is a risky and uncertain
business; if the project is not approved, the only certainty is the project will die and it will
be years before anything moves forward: Andreas Cluver, Building Trades Council.
Stated that he supports the project; the infrastructure will make the area better; the
current infrastructure is not first world infrastructure for the businesses and residences
out at Alameda Point: Doug Biggs, Alameda Point Collaborative.
Stated AUSD is the lowest funded District in the County; there is difficulty recruiting and
retaining teachers; 45% of AUSD employees said they cannot afford to live in Alameda;
the cost to place housing on the land AUSD already owns would be double the cost for
the Site A project; urged Council to move forward with the project: Anne McKereghan,
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
22
July 5, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-07-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-07-05,24,"AUSD Board of Trustees.
(17-433) Mayor Spencer stated a motion is needed to consider the remaining items: the
Animal Shelter lease [paragraph no. 17-435], the Teleport Communications lease
[paragraph no. 17-436], the cannabis referral [paragraph no. 17-438], and the League
delegate [paragraph no. 17-439].
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of hearing all remaining items.
Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote:
Ayes: Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie, and Mayor Spencer - 4.
Noes: Vice Mayor Vella - 1.
***
Stated the developer is putting up all the risk, not the City; not going forward with the
project risks losing the ferry and affordable housing: Laura Thomas, Renewed Hope.
Stated that she supports the Site A development; if the developer succeeds, Alameda
succeeds; urged Council to approve the project; stated the developer is a resident of
Alameda and is committed to the project: Karen Bay, Alameda.
Stated the project will help other businesses at Alameda Point; expressed support for
the project: JP Frey, Alameda Point Studios.
Councilmember Oddie stated the City has to decide whether to move forward with the
developer or move on; the teacher housing created by the project is great; the
commitment to labor and the jobs that will be created are critical; the risk is will the
developer make the deadline and secure the financing; he is willing to trust the
developer and support the project.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he will support the project for following reasons:
the project will create a substantial amount of infrastructure; the potential for affordable
housing; he is willing to gamble on not receiving the $4 million for the sports complex
because it is off-set by the value added to the property by the infrastructure; he would
like staff to ensure there is no right left to the developer if they cannot complete Phase
3; he would like the City to finish the commercial development; he does not want to be
tied to the developer; he would like staff to plan for the failure of Phase 3 on behalf of
the developer to be able to complete the commercial development.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated she agrees with Mr. McDonough; questioned who
is really being punished if the project does not go through; stated looking for a new
developer will take too long; she would like to see the World War Il infrastructure
replaced; Alameda is in need of housing; markets are changing and the time to act is
now.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
23
July 5, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-07-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-07-05,25,"***
(17-434) Mayor Spencer stated a motion is needed to continue past 11:00 p.m.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of continuing the meeting past 11:00 p.m.
Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
5.
***
Vice Mayor Vella stated there are risks; if Council votes against the project, the City will
not receive all of the benefits, like infrastructure and the ferry; she is concerned for the
feasibility of Phase 3 and the sports complex payment; she would like to work with staff
to ensure the City meets the commercial goals; she is prepared to vote in support of the
project.
Mayor Spencer stated the charge when the U.S. Navy gave the City the property was to
replace 14,000 jobs; without the guarantee that Phase 3 will happen, Phase 1 and 2 are
housing projects, not a job project; she will not support the project; the financing should
be for all three phases; Alameda needs jobs; the property is the people's property and
Alameda needs the commercial project.
Councilmember Matarrese moved introduction of ordinance amending the DDA
between Alameda Point Partners, LLC and the City of Alameda.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by the following
voice votes: Ayes: Councilmembers Matarrese, Ezzy Ashcraft, Oddie and Vice Mayor
Vella - 4. Noes: Mayor Spencer - 1.
Mayor Spencer called a recess at 11:03 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 11:12 p.m.
***
The Assistant City Attorney requested clarified from Council that the vote is on the
second amendment as amended.
Council responded in the affirmative.
(17-435) Introduction of Ordinance Approving a Lease with Friends of Alameda Animal
Shelter. Introduced.
The City Manager stated the item is only an extension of the previous approval by
Council; the second reading will happen in the next meeting.
Councilmember Matarrese moved introduction of the ordinance.
Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
24
July 5, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-07-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-07-05,26,"5.
(17-436) Introduction of Ordinance Approving a 15-Year Lease with Three Five-Year
Extension Options with Teleport Communications of America, LLC for Conduit Space
for One Innerduct Containing Fiber from the Intersection of Grand Street and Fortmann
Way Across the Oakland Estuary to Coast Guard Island [Requires Four Affirmative
Votes]. Introduced.
Councilmember Matarrese requested clarification for the audience.
The City Manager stated the conduit goes from the Island to Coast Guard Island and it
requires approval by Council.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the item is essential for Coast Guard activity.
Councilmember Matarrese moved introduction of the ordinance.
Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
5.
(17- CONTINUED) Recommendation to Award a Five Year Contract for an Amount
Not to Exceed a Total Five Year Expenditure of $8,264,931.69 to West Coast Arborists,
Inc. for Citywide Urban Forest Maintenance Services, No. P.W. 04-17-25.
The City Engineer responded to Vice Mayor Vella's questions regarding funding for the
golf course contract; stated the trees within the golf course are being managed by an
outside entity called Greenway; the golf funds can be used to maintain the trees that are
adjacent to the golf course; if the City Council wants to remove the funds from the
contract, General Fund money would be used instead.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether the amount is for the trees that are adjacent to the
golf course.
The City Engineer responded in the affirmative.
In response to Vice Mayor Vella's inquiry regarding the amount, the City Engineer
stated approximately $20,000.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of adopting the contract, with clarification
that approximately $20,000 is allocated from golf fund to maintain trees adjacent to golf
course.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion which carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
25
July 5, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-07-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-07-05,27,"CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
(17-437) The City Manager thanked the Coast Guard for help with 4th of July parade;
stated Building 91, owned by Joe Ernst, is in line for becoming an organic malt
cultivation facility, the building is being purchased for $3 million, which starts the City's
contribution for improving the infrastructure at Alameda Point.
Councilmember Matarrese requested an update on Public Utilities Board (PUB) local
solar and Renewable Energy Credits (RECs).
The City Manager stated RECs are green credits that the City can sell to other
companies that are not as green; the City has used the money for additional green
efforts; the question at the next PUB meeting will be how to spend the approximately $9
million; the City's previous goals are community solar; AMP is conducting a feasibility
study on Mount Trashmore as a possible site for community solar.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the feasibility study is currently underway,
to which the City Manager responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the REC funds will be allocated.
The City Manager responded direction will be given on how to allocate the funds.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired what is the timeline for the feasibility study.
The City Manager responded that she is unaware but she will find out.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
(17-438) Consider Directing Staff to Propose Regulations to Authorize Convenient and
Safe Cannabis Businesses in Alameda. (Mayor Spencer)
Mayor Spencer made brief comments regarding the referral.
Councilmember Oddie requested an update from staff.
The City Manager stated the previous referral was medium priority due to the timeline
for the State regulations; staff has held an internal workshop regarding cannabis and is
going to have the consultant return to share information with Council tentatively set for
the September 5th Council meeting; Council will address activities that should be
regulated and policy planning; the City has until January 2018; the City's quality of life
survey includes a question regarding opinions on cannabis.
Mayor Spencer stated that she would like to have dispensaries sooner rather than later.
Stated she is a patient and a potential business owner; she owns a topical cannabis
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
26
July 5, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-07-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-07-05,28,"business; urged Council to allow cannabis in Alameda, which will allow for jobs and tax
money: Melody Montgomery, Alameda.
Stated that she would like to ensure residents have access to medicine on the Island;
she is concerned that the timeline will not streamline the process and will go beyond
January 2018: Sharon Golden, Alameda Island Cannabis Community (AICC).
Urged Council to allow the referral to go through; stated three benefits are: sales tax,
employment for community members and reducing traffic: Rich Moskowitz, Alameda.
Urged Council to allow the referral to go through; stated Alamedans should have safe
access to cannabis on the Island: Amber Lopez, Alameda Safe Cannabis Access
(ASCA).
Urged Council to support the cannabis referral and entrepreneurs in Alameda: Abel
Hebtegeorgis, Alameda.
Urged Council to support residency requirements or preferences for cannabis business
owners; stated allowing onsite consumption would discourage consumption on the
streets: Mark Hersman, AICC.
Stated Alameda's cannabis business goes to Oakland and Berkeley; staying on the
Island will help the community: Tim Anderson, Alameda.
Stated that he lost his aunt to cancer and cannabis helped her quality of life; there is
cannabis access everywhere except Alameda; urged Council to not be behind San
Leandro: Ryan Agabao, ASCA.
Stated cannabis can have a medical benefit; he supports the referral: Andrew Huntoon,
Alameda.
Stated cannabis can help a range of illnesses; urged Council to lift the cannabis ban in
Alameda: Juliet Lockwood, Alameda.
Stated that she uses cannabis to heal her ailments; cannabis will give Alameda financial
stability: Doretha McPhatter, AICC.
Stated that she has not personally used cannabis in any form; her husband is a
pancreatic cancer survivor and she attributes that to cannabis; urged Council to allow
the referral to go through: Terri Golden, Alameda.
Councilmember Oddie requested clarification on the timeline regarding when the item
can return to Council
The City Manager responded the item would return to Council September 5th
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
27
July 5, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-07-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-07-05,29,"Councilmember Oddie inquired whether there is commitment to have an analysis on
September 5th; what would the steps be if the City decides it wants an ordinance to lift
the ban on cannabis.
The City Manager responded staff envisioned bringing questions to Council at the
September 5th Council meeting to help draft an ordinance; Council needs to address
issues regarding whether retail dispensaries will be separate from cultivation, setbacks
from schools and zoning.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the ordinance could be drafted by October 3rd
and the second reading by October 17th.
The City Manager responded the timing depends on Council's direction on September
5th. stated taxation can only go on the November 5th, 2018 ballot; the City is already
discussing the issue with consultants and testing the language for the November 2018
ballot; staff will have the information to Council in September.
Councilmember Oddie stated his preference is to get the ordinance drafted as soon as
possible; all options should be evaluated.
The City Manager noted the original referral includes all the options; stated the current
referral is more specific to dispensaries.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the request for the type of ownership could be
part of the analysis that returns to Council; and whether the City could incentivize local
ownership.
The City Manager responded said option will be discussed on September 5th; stated an
option could be to allow two permits on the Island and have a criteria process; Council
can direct staff.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether staff will return with all of the questions that
need to be addressed.
The City Manager responded the questions will address future regulations.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether analysis could be done on onsite consumption.
The City Manager responded onsite consumption is not on the list; stated she will add it.
Councilmember Oddie stated revenue is an important factor.
The City Manager stated there are two revenue sources: a cost recovery recouped from
the business and a tax that would be put on the ballot.
Councilmember Oddie stated Alameda needs to put itself in the position to benefit the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
28
July 5, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-07-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-07-05,30,"City and the residents.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether Councilmember Oddie would like to focus on the
dispensaries and onsite consumption; stated the list is too long; she would like to break
it into parts to address the dispensaries and onsite consumption first.
Councilmember Oddie responded the matter may not require an ordinance; he does not
want to shut the door on any options.
Vice Mayor Vella requested clarification about whether the staff presentation in
September will include adult recreational use, not just medical use.
The City Manager responded staff will include both.
Vice Mayor Vella stated everything tends to be on Alameda Point; inquired whether
Council would be able to review mapping and proposals for zoning for possible
locations; stated her concern is location and options.
The City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated staff needs direction from Council
prior to providing possible locations; selection of a location will be difficult.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired what the impact will be on the work currently being done on
Councilmember Oddie's referral if the ban is lifted.
The City Manager responded the consultants are reviewing the current medical
marijuana ordinance and the State regulations, which will be part of the discussion in
September.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether staff is also reviewing labor relative to businesses of
certain sizes which cities can regulate further than State regulations.
The City Manager responded that staff is currently reviewing State regulations.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she visited Harborside, which makes
deliveries, the City is not cutting off patients who live in Alameda; regulations need to be
put into place to ensure the City maintains local control; she understands the no
smoking ordinance is silent on medical marijuana.
Councilmember Matarrese stated questions still need to be answered so he does not
see a reason not to have the referral go forward as direction; he would like to ensure the
City makes an informed decision using experience from other cities; he would like to
take into account that cannabis is still illegal federally; inquired whether the industry is
a
cash industry, to which the City Manager responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the impacts of an all cash industry need to be
reviewed.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
29
July 5, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-07-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-07-05,31,"Councilmember Oddie stated when staff comes back, he would like to see options and
examples of what other cities are doing with regards to zoning.
Mayor Spencer stated her referral is very specific regarding including options like
preferences for owner operators who currently live in Alameda, conditional zoning
regulations and limiting the number of dispensaries; she would like the support of
Council to give further directions and have staff provide specific options on September
5th and return by September 19th; she would like the process to move faster and not wait
until January.
The City Manager responded that January is when the State regulations will take effect
and recreational use becomes legal.
Mayor Spencer stated the City should be able to do the ordinance now and be prepared
to go forward with recreational use in January; she does not want to wait until January
to go forward with medical use; she would like to expedite the process.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether Mayor Spencer is asking to have medical
dispensaries before January 2018.
Mayor Spencer responded that is what the City Manager stated.
The City Manager responded she understood Mayor Spencer is requesting medical
dispensaries to come in before recreational use.
Mayor Spencer stated medical dispensaries are currently legal within the State; medical
marijuana is available at dispensaries in other cities and not in Alameda; she does not
want to wait until 2018 to discuss medical dispensaries; it is important to move forward
with the medical portion now.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired what is Mayor Spencer's timeline; stated the referral
addresses other options; she does not see anything in the language of the referral that
prioritizes medical dispensaries.
Mayor Spencer responded since medical use is now legal, she would like to focus on
proceeding with the medical aspect now.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether a draft ordinance would be presented
September 5th meeting; stated that he would like to have language for the Council to
review.
The City Manager responded staff could bring examples from other cities to start.
Councilmember Oddie stated that he would also like direction from Council to be taken
into account.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
30
July 5, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-07-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-07-05,32,"Councilmember Matarrese stated that he does not want a first reading on an ordinance
just yet; the survey and polling are critical to understand the community's opinion; he
would like to understand how to gauge the revenue and other things that go along with
a cash economy.
Mayor Spencer moved approval of the referral, incorporating the comments from all
Councilmembers.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion as written in the referral.
Under discussion, Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council has given staff a lot of
direction and she does not see what a vote tonight will accomplish.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:
Councilmember Matarrese, Oddie, Vella and Mayor Spencer - 4. Noes: Councilmember
Ezzy Ashcraft - 1.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(17-439) Designation of Voting Delegates and Alternates for the League of California
Cities Annual Conference.
Mayor Spencer inquired who are the current delegates.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft responded she is the delegate and Vice Mayor Vella is
the alternate.
Mayor Spencer stated a motion is needed to decide the delegates for the League of
California Cities Annual Conference.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of designating Councilmember Ezzy
Ashcraft as the delegate and Vice Mayor Vella as the alternate.
Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(17-440) Consideration of Mayor's Nominations to the Commission on Disability Issues,
Historical Advisory Board (HAB), Planning Board and Public Art Commission (PAC).
Mayor Spencer nominated Thomas Mills for the Commission on Disability Issues and
Ruben Tilos and Steven Goertler for the Planning Board; stated she will make
nominations for the HAB and PAC at a future meeting.
(17-441) Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she attended the League of
California Cities in Monterey; the Fourth of July parade was great; the Coast Guard has
pins for sale that show Alameda scenes, inquired whether community members could
buy one.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
31
July 5, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-07-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-07-05,33,"The City Manager responded anyone is interested in purchasing a pin can contact the
City Manager's Office.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated she is grateful the U.S. Coast Guard renewed
their commitment to be a Coast Guard city for another 5 years.
(17-442) Vice Mayor Vella stated that she attended the Alameda County Lead
Abatement Joint Powers Authority (JPA) meeting as the delegate from the City of
Alameda; East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) has lead contamination in some
of its pipes and in Lafayette; EBMUD is currently trying to remediate that the lead; the
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has publicized that there is lead contamination in
baby food; the FDA will not release names of companies; Gerber is fighting the release
of the names; the City is partnering with food banks and other groups to request release
of the information and for more transparency with the test results; June was lead
prevention awareness month; she would like to have a presentation done by the Lead
Abatement Executive Director Larry Brooks to discuss work that the JPA is doing.
(17-443) Councilmember Oddie thanked Barbara Price and the parade committee for a
great parade; stated that he attended a press conference last week; there is an effort to
move all arraignments to Dublin; if moved, it would make it hard for defendants and
people in custody in Alameda and their families; he would like Council to weigh in with a
letter to the presiding judge.
Vice Mayor Vella stated moving the arraignments to Dublin would also affect staff's
travel time.
(17-444) Mayor Spencer stated that she attended the Relay for Life and the League of
California Cities in Monterey; one item that was raised was timing Councilmembers, not
just the public speakers.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that a 3 minute time limit is already in the City.
Mayor Spencer stated maybe it should be implemented.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the time limit is already implemented; Council does
not follow it.
(17-445) Mayor Spencer stated a delegate from the Sister City, Yeongdong-gun, visited
and participated in the parade; Coast Guard Base Alameda/Pacific Area Ten did the
inaugural festival which turned out really well.
(17-446) Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she attended a ribbon cutting for the
Center for Independent Living; a gift of a streamlined wheelchair was presented to
Alameda Recreation and Parks Department.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
32
July 5, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-07-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2017-07-05,34,"Mayor Spencer stated she toured the facility and encouraged the Center to participate
in a run to benefit Midway Shelter.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 12:32 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
33
July 5, 2017",CityCouncil/2017-07-05.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2017-07-05,1,"Approved Minutes
July 5, 2017
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the
Rent Review Advisory Committee
Wednesday, July 5, 2017
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 6:35 p.m.
Present were:
Chair Sullivan-Sariñana; Members Cambra, Friedman,
Griffiths, Murray
Committee Staff:
Jennifer Kauffman, Claudia Young
2. AGENDA CHANGES
a. Staff informed Committee that item 7-A had resolved prior to the meeting.
3. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS
a. Staff welcomed the members, Sarah Murray and incumbent, Chris Griffiths, to the
beginning of their term on the Committee.
b. Staff explained the schedule for the evening, noting where to find the meeting
agenda and procedures for public comment.
4. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA, NO.1
a. Angie Watson-Hajjem, ECHO Housing representative, spoke about ECHO's fair
housing and tenant- landlord counseling services.
5. CONSENT CALENDAR
a. Approval of the Minutes from the May 1, Regular Meeting.
Motion and second (Sullivan-Sariñana and Griffiths). Approved Sullivan-Sariñana,
Griffiths, Friedman, and Cambra. Murray abstained.
6. UNFINSHED BUSINESS
a. No unfinished business.
7. NEW BUSINESS
7-A. CASE 876- 1835 Santa Clara Ave.
Proposed rent increase: $300.00 (14.3%).
No Committee review. Prior to the RRAC meeting, the tenant and landlord reached
a mutually agreeable arrangement of a 200.00 (9.5%) rent increase.
7-B. CASE 884 - 1336 Park St. Apt 217
Tenant: Patrick Donaldson
Page 1 of 3",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-07-05.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2017-07-05,2,"Approved Minutes
July 5, 2017
Landlord: Vickie Corley
Proposed Rent Increase: $77.50 (5.0%), effective July 1, 2017
Ms. Corley stated that the rent includes water, gas, electricity and garbage/recycle
and these expenses have increased significantly in the past year. She explained that
the unit was renovated before the tenant moved-in and the property anticipates costs
with renovations planned in common areas on the property. Ms. Corely shared that
this increase is partly to keep rents somewhat in balance with the market, but the
amount requested does not bring the total rent up to market rate. She also explained
that all tenants at the property received 5% increases this year.
Mr. Donaldson explained that he requested the rent increase review because he
wanted to understand the rationale for the increase. He stated that he believes the
5.0% is excessive because his tenancy began one year ago. He explained that other
studio units may not be comparable because it is important to factor square feet of
the apartment. He noted that while he feels he can afford this increase, the amount
is substantial and he has concern if the rent will be raised to this level each year. He
explained he considers himself a good tenant and would like to have more information
from the landlord to substantiate this increase.
Members asked several questions of both parties to facilitate dialogue. Discussion
included tenant and landlord perspectives on market trends, increase practices, utility
costs, and rent review process.
The tenant and landlord reached a mutually agreeable arrangement of a $77.50
(5.0%), effective July 1, 2017.
7-C. Committee will consider and vote on Chair and Vice-Chair.
Members Cambra and Friedman self-nominated for the Chair. Cambra voted in as
Chair by Murray and Griffiths; Member Sullivan-Sariñana voted for Friedman as Chair.
Member Griffiths nominated Member Sullivan-Sariñana as Vice-Chair. Committee
members unanimously voted for Sullivan-Sariñana as Vice-Chair.
8. PUBLIC COMMENT, NON-AGENDA, NO. 2.
a. No public comment.
9. MATTERS INITIATED
Page 2 of 3",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-07-05.pdf
RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee,2017-07-05,3,"Approved Minutes
July 5, 2017
a. Staff announced that the upcoming RRAC meeting will be a training for Committee
members and no cases will be reviewed. Staff shared a brief summary of items
proposed for the upcoming training.
b. Staff announced that, at present, the regulations under Ordinance no. 3148 remain
the same.
10.ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was unanimously adjourned at 8:24 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Committee Secretary
Jennifer Kauffman
Approved by the Rent Review Advisory Committee on September 6, 2017.
Page 3 of 3",RentReviewAdvisoryCommittee/2017-07-05.pdf