{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-07-15", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY--JULY 15, 2014- -7:00 P.M.\nMayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 7:28 p.m. Councilmember Daysog led the\nPledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Chen, Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Tam\nand Mayor Gilmore - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\n(14-302) Mayor Gilmore announced that the resolution commending Captain Boersma\n[paragraph no. 14-305 would be heard after Special Orders; the resolution approving\nthe Jean Sweeney Park Master Plan [paragraph no. 14-316 would be heard first under\nRegular Items; and both Exclusive Negotiation Agreements [paragraph nos. 14-323 and\n14-324 would be continued to July 29, 2014.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(14-303) Presentation by the Park Street Business Association on the Annual Art and\nWine Faire.\nRobb Ratto, Park Street Business Association announced the upcoming event and\npresented the Council with tokens.\n(14-304) Alameda Recreation and Park Department Annual Report for Fiscal Year\n2013-14.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director gave a Power Point presentation.\nMayor Gilmore commended the Recreation and Parks Director and staff for their hard\nwork and commitment.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft echoed the Mayor's comments.\nThe Assistant City Manager acknowledged the Recreation and Parks Director for her\nhard work.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEM\n(14-305) Resolution No. 14952, \"Commending Alameda Police Department Captain\nDavid Boersma for His Contributions to the City of Alameda.\" Adopted.\nThe resolution was adopted by consensus.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 15, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-07-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-07-15", "page": 2, "text": "Mayor Gilmore read the resolution and presented it to Captain Boersma.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(14-306) Ruth Abbe, Alameda County Sustainable Recycling Campaign, discussed\ncompensation for recycling workers; urged Council to request a report which identifies\npotential impacts to Alameda ratepayers if recycling workers' wages are increased.\n(14-307) Irma Garcia, Protect Alameda Campaign, urged the Council to have CalTrans\nenforce a policy to prohibit Anti-Terrorism Contraband Enforcement Team (A-TCET)\nactivity through the tubes.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor Gilmore announced that the replacement of six Police Department vehicles and\none motorcycle [paragraph no. 14-310]; the replacement of a Fire Engine and two Fire\nDepartment staff vehicles [paragraph no. 14-311]; the ordinance adopting the Initiative\nMeasure [paragraph no. 14-321]; and the fiscal responsibility ordinance [paragraph no.\n14-322 were removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.\nCouncilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph\nnumber.]\n(*14-308) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings Held on June 17,\n2014. Approved.\n(*14-309) Ratified bills in the amount of $1,707,231.69.\n(14-310) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager, or His Designee, to Enter\ninto Purchase Agreements not to Exceed $235,000 for the Replacement of Six Police\nDepartment Vehicles and One Police Motorcycle.\nCouncilmember Tam stated spending almost $1 million on replacement vehicles reflects\nthe highest priority to provide the equipment and technology necessary for the safety of\nPolice and Fire officers.\nCouncilmember Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5.\n(14-311) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager or His Designee to Negotiate\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 15, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-07-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-07-15", "page": 3, "text": "and Execute a Lease-Purchase Agreement and Enter Into a Financing Agreement Upon\nTerms Acceptable to the City Attorney for an Amount Not to Exceed $673,799 (Principal\nAmount) for the Replacement of a Fire Engine; and Enter into Purchase Agreements for\nan Amount not to Exceed $74,000 for Two Fire Department Staff Vehicles. Accepted.\nRefer to the replacement of six Police Department vehicles and one motorcycle\n[paragraph no. 14-310 for the discussion and motion.\n(*14-312) Recommendation to Reject the Sole Bid and Authorize a Call for Rebid for the\nShore Line Drive/Westline Drive/Broadway Bikeway Project. Accepted.\n(*14-313) Recommendation to Accept the Work of Rosas Brothers Construction for the\nRepair of Concrete Sidewalk, Curb, Gutter, Driveway, and Minor Street Patching, FY13-\n14, Phase 14, No. P.W. 05-13-05. Accepted.\n(*14-314) Recommendation to Award a Contract in the Amount of $171,931, Including\nContingencies, to JJR Construction, Inc. for Raised Median and Curb Bulb-out\nImprovements on Grand Street at Wood School, No. P.W. 03-14-16. Accepted.\n(*14-315) Resolution No. 14953, \"Declaring Intention to Establish a Community\nFacilities District and to Authorize the Levy of Special Taxes - Community Facilities\nDistrict No. 14-1 (Marina Cove II). Adopted.\n(*14-316) Resolution No. 14954, \"Authorizing the City Manager to Submit a Grant\nApplication to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission for $2,520,104 to Design\nand Construct the Cross Alameda Trail through Jean Sweeney Open Space Park from\nSherman Street to Webster Street and to Execute All Necessary Documents.' Adopted.\n(*14-317) Ordinance No. 3098, \"Amending Alameda Municipal Code Chapter XXVII,\nSection 27-3 (Citywide Development Fees) and Adding Section 27-4 (Alameda Point\nDevelopment Impact Fees). Finally passed.\n(*14-318) Ordinance No. 3099, \"Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending\nCharter XXVII (Development Fees) by Repealing Section 27-2 (Police and Fire Fee\nRequirements) in Its Entirety and by Amending Chapter III (Finance) by Repealing\nSection 3-60 (Residential Dwelling Unit Tax) in Its Entirety.' Finally passed.\n(*14-319) Ordinance No. 3100, \"Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City Manager to\nExecute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of The First Lease Amendment\nwith Environmental Management Services for Twelve Months in a Portion of Building 7,\nSuite 103 and 112 Located at 851 West Midway Avenue at Alameda Point.\" Finally\npassed.\n(*14-320) Ordinance No. 3101, \"Adopting the Alameda Point Waterfront Town Center\nPlan. Finally passed.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 15, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-07-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-07-15", "page": 4, "text": "(14-321) Ordinance No. 3102, \"Adopting Initiative Measure to Amend City of Alameda\nGeneral Plan Including the 2007-2014 Housing Element and the Zoning Ordinance to\nClassify Approximately 3.899 Acres of Land Adjacent to Mckay Avenue to Open\nSpace.\" Finally passed.\nMayor Gilmore proposed striking Section b) of the Fiscal Responsibility Ordinance to\nensure the General Fund is not at risk; stated Section b) makes reference to the use of\nthe General Fund to pay for any judgments against the City in the event of a lawsuit.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated there are limited resources and the Council needs to\nprioritize; that he developed Section b) as a third approach; raising property taxes does\nnot adequately reflect the will of the voters; there may have to be cuts in services to\ncover any outstanding fiscal issues; fulfilling the people's wishes is a challenge.\nCouncilmember Chen inquired how the City would pay for a lawsuit settlement if Section\nb) is deleted.\nCouncilmember Tam noted the Fiscal Responsibility Ordinance states a vote of the\nelectorate could authorize any new revenues to pay for a judgment associated with a\nlawsuit; there are options, including selling the property to a third party, which includes\nthe East Bay Regional Parks District (EBRPD); in 2008, EBRPD raised funds under\nMeasure WW to pay for the property and to pay for any judgment.\nCouncilmember Chen stated he likes the proposed options; inquired whether there is\nenough Measure WW money to cover potential liability if the City is sued.\nThe City Manager responded the City does not know and the question should be posed\nto the EBRPD; stated Measure WW has approximately $4.4 million allocated to\nAlameda.\nCouncilmember Chen stated that he would like to ensure there is enough funds in\nMeasure WW to pay for a judgment in the event of a lawsuit; inquired whether Election\nCode Section 9217 directly conflicts with the Fiscal Responsibility Ordinance.\nThe City Attorney responded a conflict of the Fiscal Responsibility Ordinance would\nhave to be determined in Court; stated Election Code 9217 provides that the Council\ncannot modify or repeal a measure that is put in place by a voter initiative; if the Council\nfinally approves the initiative tonight, it retains the flavor of being a voter initiative; the\nFiscal Responsibility Ordinance is not a repeal or modification of the initiative, it is\nintended specifically as a companion measure and to be consistent; the companion\nmeasure does not do anything and only goes into effect if a lawsuit is brought within 120\ndays of its effectiveness; at which time the Council would have the ability to take certain\nactions; the Fiscal Responsibility Ordinance does not require the Council to take action,\nnor does it automatically put provisions into effect; therefore, the Fiscal Responsibility\nOrdinance is not inconsistent.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 15, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-07-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-07-15", "page": 5, "text": "The City Manager noted the EBRPD website for Measure WW lists $6.5 million for\nAlameda.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Fiscal Responsibility Ordinance was created to\ndeal with potential costs associated with a lawsuit without decimating the budget; there\nare three possible sources set forth in Sections a), b), and c); Section d) allows any\ncombination of a), b), and c); the Council needs to be able to rely on all the possibilities.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the Fiscal Responsibility Ordinance is about full disclosure\nand letting the public know the Council's intent, how priorities are set, and how Council\ndeals with tradeoffs; that she is comfortable eliminating Section b) as proposed by the\nMayor; the companion measure protects the City and nothing changes by virtue of\nproviding mitigation in the event of a lawsuit.\nThe City Manager concurred with Councilmember Tam; stated there have been many\nemails claiming that a Fiscal Responsibility Ordinance would make it more likely for the\nCity to be sued; there would be no changes for the federal government or developers as\na result of approval of the companion measure.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the threat is related to items in the Fiscal\nResponsibility Ordinance; the City could be sued for inverse condemnation.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the Fiscal Responsibility Ordinance is a contingency; a\nlawsuit is highly unlikely because the developer that has the option to purchase the\nproperty has other interests in town and the federal government is not bound by the\nCity's zoning ordinance and can allow anything built on the site without City approval;\nthe risk of being sued by virtue of having a contingency plan is unlikely.\nStated she does not support the Fiscal Responsibility Ordinance; stated the ordinance\nencourages a lawsuit from the developer: Lynn O'Connor, Alameda.\nStated anything Council does to affect a citizen's initiative could be construed as a\nviolation of Elections Code 9217; that she is against including the stay or suspend\nlanguage in the Fiscal Responsibility Ordinance and removing Section b): Jane\nSullwold, Alameda.\nStated that she does not support the Fiscal Responsibility Ordinance and considers it\ncondescending to the citizens; urged Council to end the lawsuit with EBRPD: Irene\nDieter, Alameda.\nIn response to the City Manager's inquiry, Ms. Dieter stated if the Fiscal Responsibility\nOrdinance is enacted, EBRPD and the voters would not know when the open space\nwould be realized; a lawsuit could linger for a decade; the \"stay or suspend\" option goes\nagainst the voter's intent.\nMayor Gilmore stated neither the EBRPD or the City own the property; the federal\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 15, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-07-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-07-15", "page": 6, "text": "government owns the property and could decide to do something else with the property\nwhile the City and the EBRPD are litigating in court; the federal government can sell it to\nanother developer; that she wants to make it clear to the public that the matter being\ndiscussed tonight does not bring EBRPD closer to owning the property.\nStated no one from the Friends of Crown Beach has stated a lawsuit would not occur;\nthat she does not support the Fiscal Responsibility Ordinance which invites a lawsuit;\ninquired whether the Council is trying to defeat the will of the voters: former\nCouncilmember Karin Lucas, Friends of Crown Beach.\nMayor Gilmore inquired why Ms. Lucas feels the Fiscal Responsibility Ordinance is\nmore likely to draw a lawsuit from the developer or the federal government.\nMs. Lucas responded the developer has an interest in maintaining the current\nresidential zoning and the Fiscal Responsibility Ordinance allows the Council to\nsuspend the open space zoning.\nThe City Manager stated the citizen's initiative already changes the zoning and creates\nthe cause of action; inquired what about the Fiscal Responsibility Ordinance creates\nmore of an incentive for the developer or the federal government to sue the City.\nMs. Lucas responded the City Attorney has stated it would be legal for the Council to\nstay or suspend the citizen's initiative.\nThe City Manager stated that he and Ms. Lucas are not understanding each other; that\nhe takes issue with Ms. Lucas statement that Council passed zoning of the property into\nresidential without concern for financial consequences; the property was zoned\nresidential as part of the Housing Element which was passed because of the State's\nthreats to pull Alameda's transportation funding; finances were a factor.\nMs. Lucas stated there was no need to include the Neptune Point parcel in the Housing\nElement and it has since been excluded.\nThe City Manager stated the Neptune Point parcel has been excluded since the Council\npassed the Housing Element without being penalized; had the Council not passed the\nHousing Element when it did, more sites would have had to be included.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she does not believe the Council is trying to defeat\nthe will of the voters; inquired where funds to pay costs related to a lawsuit would come\nfrom.\nMs. Lucas responded the Council is responsible for managing the City's funds; stated\nthe voters would like to see the property incorporated into EBRPD's system; the City is\nnot paying for the EBRPD expenses; the City has Crown Beach for free and the voters\nare paying for the property through property taxes.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 15, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-07-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-07-15", "page": 7, "text": "Mayor Gilmore stated based on Ms. Lucas statement regarding paying through property\ntaxes, inquired whether the voters are willing to pay for the property twice.\nMs. Lucas responded the voters are not paying twice.\nMayor Gilmore stated the voters passed Measure WW to pay for the property; if the City\nis sued and the Council has to find funds to pay the judgment, taxpayers would be\npaying for the same property twice.\nMs. Lucas stated EBRPD has funds to acquire the property and to develop it; costs\nwould not be piled onto the price of the property to make it more expensive than market\nvalue; EBRPD could not buy the property in the event the City acquired the property.\nThe City Manager stated the $1.5 million price was done by EBRPD's own appraiser, an\nobjective third party has not determined the value of the property is $1.5 million; the\nvalue of the property is whatever someone is willing to pay for it.\nMs. Lucas stated the value of the property must be less than $3 million because Tim\nLewis Developers would have paid it already.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated if the combined cost of the land and any outstanding\nlegal issues cost more than the $6.5 million available through Measure WW, it would be\nCouncil's decision to exercise options to pay for the delta above Measure WW funds.\nMs. Lucas stated the price increase is an attempt to milk EBRPD for available funds; the\n$6.5 million includes development of the property; the property value is below $3 million.\nThe City Manager stated the fact that Tim Lewis Properties has not paid for the property\nis not indicative of its value; the City has nothing to gain by using the formula in the\nFiscal Responsibility Ordinance.\nIn response to Ms. Lucas' inquiry, the City Manager stated the Fiscal Responsibility\nOrdinance is needed to protect the City and taxpayer's money.\nMs. Lucas stated the property will not be worth $3 million to anyone without access.\nThe City Manager stated no one will know the value of the property until the federal\ngovernment resolves the access issue.\nStated the Fiscal Responsibility Ordinance increases the risk of litigation, is\nunnecessary and misleading; the federal government does not have access to property:\nWilliam Smith, Alameda.\nMayor Gilmore noted the federal government does have access to the property.\nUrged the Council not to belabor the issue; stated he is concerned about the cost to\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 15, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-07-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-07-15", "page": 8, "text": "carry on the lawsuit with EBRPD: former Councilmember Doug deHaan, Alameda.\nStated the Fiscal Responsibility Ordinance does not support the citizen's initiative and is\nperceived as provocative: Debra Arbuckle, Alameda.\nStated the Fiscal Responsibility Ordinance is a political and strategic signal which\ndiscourages cooperation: Alison Greene, Plan! Alameda.\nStated the Fiscal Responsibility Ordinance is not a solution; urged Council to support\nthe will of the voters: Gretchen Lipow, Alameda.\n***\nCouncilmember Tam left the dais at 9:15 p.m. and returned at 9:17 p.m.\nMayor Gilmore stated the Council's goal is to make sure Alameda Residents do not pay\nfor the property twice.\nCouncilmember Chen stated that he supports the Mayor's proposal to remove Section\nb), as long as Measure WW is the single revenue source; inquired whether Council\ncould still suspend the open space initiative without the language in Section b).\nThe City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated the Fiscal Responsibility\nOrdinance is a measure of transparency and openness; if Section b) language is\nremoved, Council still has the ability to mitigate to find funds in the event the City is\nsaddled with a judgment.\nIn response to Councilmember Chen's inquiry, the City Attorney stated theoretically, the\nCouncil would still have the option outlined in Section b) even if the language is\nremoved from the Ordinance, but that the Council would have to overcome the fact that\nthe option was removed.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Councilmember Chen is suggesting the\nCouncil be less clear with the public, to which Councilmember Chen responded in the\nnegative; stated that he agrees with a speaker who inquired why the language is\nincluded if the Council has the ability to suspend the initiative regardless.\nIn response to Mayor Gilmore's inquiry, Councilmember Chen stated the companion\nmeasure causes more incentive for the City to be sued because the measure opens the\ndoor to show an escape clause and a loop hole; that he is not comfortable with the\nlanguage.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated his approach is a reflection of the will of the people; to\ninclude the phrase \"suspension or stay\" goes against the will of the people; how\nremoval of the phrase will be interpreted is up to the people; the City has to have a\ncompanion measure.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 15, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-07-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-07-15", "page": 9, "text": "Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired what is the property zoning designation after the\nFiscal Responsibility Ordinance is passed.\nThe City Attorney responded that when the open space initiative is adopted and goes\ninto effect on August 14, 2014, the site is zoned open space; if the Fiscal Responsibility\nOrdinance is modified, it would have to come back on July 29; if the Fiscal\nResponsibility Ordinance goes into effect and the City is sued within 120 days, it is up to\nthe Council whether or not to take action; the Fiscal Responsibility Ordinance does not\nrequire the Council to do anything.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the zoning designation of open space is\nupheld if the Council decides to stay and/or suspend the ordinance.\nThe City Attorney responded in the negative; stated a stay or suspension means\nCouncil has suspended the effectiveness of the open space initiative, the open space\nzoning would not apply and the property revert to its existing zoning which is residential.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether language could be added to the Fiscal\nResponsibility Ordinance which carries out the intent to ultimately keep the property\nzoned as open space.\nThe City Attorney responded the Council would not do a stay or suspension in order to\nretain the open space designation; the Council would only exercise the stay or suspend\noption so as not to incur the harm that gives right to the claim until the Council is able to\npay for it.\nCouncilmember Chen inquired why include the stay or suspend option if Council might\nnot exercise the option.\nMayor Gilmore responded if the City is sued within 120 days, the Council has to\naffirmatively decide whether or not to suspend or stay the open space ordinance, it is\nnot automatic.\nCouncilmember Daysog moved final passage of the initiative ordinance.\nCouncilmember Chen seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(14-322) Final Passage of Alameda open space Fiscal Responsibility Ordinance\nPertaining to the Initiative Measure to Amend City of Alameda General Plan Including\nthe 2007-2014 Housing Element and the Zoning Ordinance to Classify Approximately\n3.899 Acres of Land Adjacent to Mckay Avenue to open space. Amended and\nintroduced.\nRefer to the ordinance adopting the Initiative Measure [paragraph no. 14- 322 for the\ndiscussion.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 15, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-07-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-07-15", "page": 10, "text": "Councilmember Daysog moved introduction of the ordinance with amendment to strike\nthe phrase \"including but not limited to suspension or stay of the effectiveness of the\ninitiative ordinance\".\nCouncilmember Chen inquired whether Councilmember Daysog would amend the\nmotion to also delete Section b).\nCouncilmember Daysog did not agree to amend the motion.\nThe motion failed due to lack of a second.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the reason why she did not second Councilmember\nDaysog's motion is the findings under Section 2 of the ordinance deal precisely with\nSection b); she would like to inform the public that it is not the Council's intent to cut City\nservices in order to pay a judgment.\nCouncilmember Tam moved introduction of the ordinance with amendment to strike the\nphrase \"including but not limited to suspension or stay of the effectiveness of the\ninitiative ordinance\" and elimination of Section b).\nCouncilmember Chen seconded the motion.\nIn response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry, Councilmember Tam stated there has\nbeen discussion in closed session about the exposure to litigation; it is awkward to have\nthe same discussion in open session because there is still a pending lawsuit against the\nCity by the EBRPD; there are a number of offers and mediation, but the inability to settle\nhas nothing to do with the Council's actions this evening.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Council is bound by law and advised by the City\nAttorney; people do not know what the Council has to deal with regarding pending\nlitigation; the EBRPD issue is separate from tonight's discussion; the City should leave\nas many options as possible to pay for potential litigation.\nMayor Gilmore stated she that has great respect for the citizen's initiative; over 6,000\npeople want the property to be open space; she struggles with the notion of whether the\n6,000 people want the open space at the expense of everything else; Council included\nthe \"suspend or stay\" language in the Fiscal Responsibility Ordinance to be transparent;\nremoval of the language does not eliminate Council's ability to exercise the option.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated he included Section b) to deal with any outstanding\nfiscal consequences; the option of cutting services has to be on the table; there is a\ndifference between options and actions; the most important part of the ordinance is the\noperative clause, the action taken; one of the options includes raising property taxes,\nwhich is not consistent with will of the people; hopefully, the actions would not come to\npass.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 15, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-07-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-07-15", "page": 11, "text": "Councilmember Tam stated the clause is a power the Council already has; striking the\nclause does not remove Council's authority to take action; the ordinance lets the\ncommunity know the Council's intent and priority; having the Fiscal Responsibility\nOrdinance is appropriate and clear.\nMayor Gilmore stated Section a) is a tax which would indicate how the citizen's feel\nabout paying for the open space and the priority; that she made the argument that the\npeople would be voting to pay for the property a second time because they have\nalready been taxed under Measure WW; if there is a shortfall, voting to tax themselves\nagain to pay for the property would be the ultimate will of the people.\nCouncilmember Tam restated her motion.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:\nCouncilmembers Chen, Tam and Mayor Gilmore - 3. Noes: Councilmembers Daysog\nand Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 2.\n***\nMayor Gilmore called a recess at 9:57 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 10:07 p.m.\n***\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(14-323) Resolution No. 14955, \"Approving the Jean Sweeney Open Space Park\nMitigated Negative Declaration and Master Plan.' Adopted.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director gave a Power Point presentation.\n***\n(14-324) Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of hearing the four remaining\nagenda items after 10:30 p.m.\nCouncilmember Chen seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote:\nAyes: Councilmembers Chen, Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft and Councilmember Gilmore - 4.\nNoes: Councilmember Tam - 1.\nMayor Gilmore stated it is exciting that one of the City's own was instrumental in making\nland available to Alameda; that she is optimistic funding will be secured.\nCouncilmember Chen concurred with Mayor Gilmore; commended the Recreation and\nParks Director; stated the Jean Sweeney Open Space Park is the Central Park of\nAlameda.\nDiscussed Jean Sweeney's accomplishments; urged approval of the Master Plan:\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 15, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-07-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-07-15", "page": 12, "text": "Dorothy Freeman, Alameda.\nSubmitted and read a letter from Jim Sweeney urging approval of the Master Plan:\nJoseph Woodard, Jean Sweeney Open Space Park Fund.\nStated that he supports the design and urged approval of the Master Plan: Bill Delaney,\nRecreation and Park Commission/Sweeney Park Design Committee.\nStated that he supports the Master Plan, specifically the Bike Skills Loop; urged\napproval of the Master Plan: Aaron Thies, Alameda.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved adoption of the resolution.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5.\n(14-325) Resolution No. 14957, \"Certifying a Negative Declaration and Approve a\nGeneral Plan Amendment to Amend the Housing Element for the Period 2015 through\n2023.' Adopted.\nThe City Planner gave a Power Point presentation.\nIn response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry, the City Planner stated the Land Use\nElement and Housing Element are interconnected to make transit oriented\ndevelopment.\n(14-326) Councilmember Daysog moved approval of continuing the meeting past 11:00\np.m.\nCouncilmember Chen seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote:\nAyes: Councilmembers Chen, Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft and Councilmember Gilmore - 4.\nNoes: Councilmember Tam - 1.\nMayor Gilmore stated there were 16 speakers; inquired whether the speaker's time\nshould be reduced.\nCouncilmember Chen proposed reducing the speaker time to two minutes.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated often times speakers do not use all three minutes; the\nHousing Element is important; that she does not support reducing the speaker's time.\nThe City Manager stated leases [paragraph no. 14-330 and 14-331 would be continued\nto the September 2nd Regular City Council meeting.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 15, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-07-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-07-15", "page": 13, "text": "The Council agreed not to reduce the speaker's time.\nThe City Planner stated the packet includes the program recommended by the Planning\nBoard; the Housing Element does not include the Planning Board program; staff\nrecommends adopting the General Plan amendment without the Planning Board\nprogram; the City received a letter from the State that the Housing Element\nrecommended by staff is compliant with State law.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he is concerned about including transit oriented\ndevelopment in the Housing Element, which has not been included in the previous\nHousing Element; rent stabilization and rent control should be contemplated.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she supports a formation of a subcommittee;\nissues exist but some residents are not aware of the Rent Review Advisory Committee\n(RRAC); any new task force needs to make information readily known.\nCouncilmember Chen stated that he likes the idea of a task force and is eager to know\nthe survey results.\nCouncilmember Tam stated forming the task force is important; Housing Element data\nshould be used to evaluate trends and housing stock; that she concurs with the City\nManager's comment \"what gets measured gets done, what gets funded happens\".\nCouncilmember Daysog suggested receiving input from a variety of sources on how to\nproceed, including the Housing Authority, the RRAC, and the Social Services Human\nRelations Board (SSHRB).\nMayor Gilmore stated including a task force in the Housing Element is a bad idea; that\nshe does not want to voluntarily invite the State into a local process which affects\nAlameda citizens; the first step is to put resources behind the RRAC to help put more\nteeth in what they do; funding, scope, and how long the process will take needs to be\nclear if Council moves forward with a task force.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with the Mayor; stated a transit oriented\ndevelopment belongs in the Housing Element.\nDiscussed the Bay Area real estate market; urged creation of the rent task force: Doyle\nSaylor, Renewed Hope.\nStated the Chamber of Commerce Government Relations and Economic Development\nCommittee supports the Housing Element: Michael McDonough, Chamber of\nCommerce.\nStated that she supports the creation of a rent task force: Irma Garcia, Alameda.\nStated that he supports passing the Housing Element and the creation of a rent\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 15, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-07-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-07-15", "page": 14, "text": "stabilization task force; discussed survey results: William Smith, Renewed Hope\nHousing Advocates;\nStated that he supports passing the Housing Element but is concerned with the 50%\nincrease of housing units; further stated the City seems to be figuring out ways around\nMeasure A: Jim Smallman, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society.\nThe City Manager invited Mr. Smallman to talk to the City Planner about his concerns\nas some of his information is factually incorrect.\nMayor Gilmore stated showing where housing could be built is a State requirement.\nIn response to Mr. Smallman's inquiry, the City Planner stated Alameda has to show\nthere is enough land to accommodate 1,725 units; the Housing Element can\naccommodate more than 1,725, but the 1,725 amount gives the City flexibility at each\nindividual site.\nCongratulated staff and the Planning Board on the Housing Element which emphasizes\nsenior housing and rental issues; that she supports a task force which is not attached to\nthe Housing Element: Diane Lichtenstein, Alameda Home Team and Housing\nOpportunities Make Economic Sense (HOMES).\nStated that she supports the Housing Element, communication on housing in Alameda,\nand is impressed by RRAC; submitted letters: Ann DeBardeleben, Alameda Association\nof Realtors.\nUrged approval of the Housing Element with the Planning Board recommendation:\nAmparo Adlao, Alameda.\nStated every city has a rent stabilization problem; that she does not support the plan or\nchanging Measure A: Debra Arbuckle, Alameda.\nStated Renewed Hope conducted a rent survey; that she supports forming a task force\nthat is evenly balanced between property owners and tenants: Laura Thomas, Renewed\nHope Housing Advocates.\nInquired whether RRAC members should have term limits; urged spreading the word\nabout the RRAC: Lois Pryor, Renewed Hope.\nStated that she supports the multi-family overlay and Density Bonus for Affordable\nHousing in the plan; proposes the City do a study on the effectiveness of the overlay\nand current density bonus incentive; submitted letter: Lynette Lee, Renewed Hope.\nUrged the creation of a rent stabilization task force; submitted survey results: Catherine\nRelucio, Renewed Hope.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 15, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-07-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-07-15", "page": 15, "text": "Urged the creation of a rent task force; stated that he has benefitted from Renewed\nHope's services: Nilo Garcia, Alameda.\nStated that she conducted phone surveys regarding rent stabilization; urged creation of\na rent task force: Joy Malloy, Renewed Hope.\nStated that rent issues are both regional and local; that she supports the creation of a\nrent stabilization task force: Jeanne Lahaie, Alameda.\nStated that she concurs with Mayor Gilmore regarding keeping a task force at the local\nlevel and not combining it with the Housing Element; urged strengthening the RRAC's\nauthority: Karen Bey, Alameda.\nStated that he supports staff recommendation regarding the Housing Element; stated he\nis against State involvement: Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved adoption of the resolution.\nCouncilmember Chen seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote:\nAyes: Councilmembers Chen, Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft and Mayor Gilmore - 4.\nAbstention: Councilmember Tam - 1.\nMayor Gilmore requested the discussion of the task force be placed on a future\nmeeting.\nThe City Manager responded staff would bring the matter back in September after\nconsulting with the Chamber of Commerce, Renewed Hope, SSHRB, RRAC, Housing\nAuthority and other real estate organizations.\nCouncilmember Chen requested the exploration include giving the RRAC enforcement.\nThe City Manager stated staff should not drive the discussion; the task force could\naddress said matter.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Assistant City Manager compiled information\nregarding other cities; requested the report back include said information as well as\ninformation on RRAC cases; suggested developers also be included.\nCouncilmember Daysog concurred with the City Manager regarding casting the net\nwidely; stated the City needs to learn from the 2003-04 mass evictions.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the efforts of the Planning Board and the Renewed Hope\nsurvey are good starting points in discussing the task force matter; stated there is no\nneed to reinvent everything.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether there is a consensus that the City Manager and staff\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 15, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-07-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-07-15", "page": 16, "text": "should go forward and bring the matter back in September.\nThe City Manager responded the record should reflect that the Council's nodding heads\nis affirmative.\nCouncilmember Daysog requested the survey be included in the minutes.\n(14-327) Introduction of Ordinance Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City\nManager to Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a Lease\nAmendment with Walashek Industrial & Marine, Inc. for Twelve Months in Building 517\nLocated at 150 West Trident Avenue at Alameda Point. [Continued to September 2,\n2014.]\n(14-328) Introduction of Ordinance Approving the First Lease Amendment for Eight\nYears with Pacific Fine Foods, Inc. in Building 42 Located at 2480 Monarch Street at\nAlameda Point. [Continued to September 2, 2014]\n(14-329) Public Hearing to Determine Whether a Majority Protest Exists in the\nProceeding to Increase Assessments in Island City Landscape and Lighting District 84-\n2, Proposed Zone 8 (Webster Street); and\n(14-329 A) Resolution No. 14956, \"Confirming the Ballot Results and Providing for no\nMajority Protest and the Levy of an Annual Assessment for Island City Landscaping and\nLighting Maintenance District No. 84-2 Zone 8 (Webster Street). Adopted.\nCouncilmembers Daysog and Chen recused themselves and left the dais.\nThe Public Works Administrative Services Manager gave a brief presentation.\nMayor Gilmore called for the submission of any assessment ballots or replacement\nassessment ballots before the close of the public hearing.\nThere being no submissions, Mayor Gilmore called a recess at 12:23 a.m. to allow the\nCity Clerk to tabulate the assessment ballots received prior to the close of the public\nhearing and reconvened the meeting at 12:37 a.m.\nThe City Clerk reported the following results: 70 ballots were mailed to business owners\nwithin boundaries of the assessment district; 24 ballots were received prior to the close\nof the public hearing; 14 ballots representing $12,343.87 of assessments support the\nlevy of the proposed assessment within the assessment district; 10 ballots representing\n$6,556.80 of assessments opposed the levy of the proposed assessment within the\nassessment district; the majority of protest was not received and the Council can\nproceed in considering the resolution.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved adoption of the resolution declaring the results of the\nassessment ballot tabulation, approving the Engineer's Report, increasing assessments\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 15, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-07-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-07-15", "page": 17, "text": "for Island City Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance Assessment District No. 84-2\nZone 8 (Webster Street), ordering maintenance work therein, confirming the diagram\nand assessments and providing for the levy of an annual assessment therein.\nCouncilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 3.\n[Absent: Councilmembers Chen and Daysog - 2.]\n(14-330) Recommendation to Approve an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement between\nthe City of Alameda and Alameda United Commercial LLC for the Bachelors Enlisted\nQuarters. [Continued to July 29, 2014]\n(14-331) Recommendation to Approve an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement between\nthe City of Alameda and Alameda United Commercial LLC for an Approximate 5.5-Acre\nSite on the Taxiways along the Seaplane Lagoon. [Continued to July 29, 2014]\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\nNone.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 12:45 a.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 15, 2014", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-07-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-07-15", "page": 18, "text": "Attachment to July 15, 2014\nRegular City Council Minutes", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-07-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-07-15", "page": 19, "text": "Rent Survey for City of Alameda -Summary of Survey Results as of July 15, 2014\nThe purpose of this rent survey is to gather data on the extent and impact of rising rents in the City of Alameda.\nAbout Renewed Hope Housing Advocates: This rent survey is administered by Renewed Hope Housing\nAdvocates, a volunteer nonprofit organization. Since 1998, Renewed Hope has advocated tenant protections\nand affordable housing in Alameda. Renewed Hope has achieved a 25 percent affordable housing settlement\nfor Alameda Point, and has pushed for a revision of the current Housing Element to allow more affordable\nhousing development.\nwww.RenewedHopeHousing.org\nContact Renewed Hope Housing: RenewedHopeHousing@gmail.com or Laura Thomas at (510) 522-8901\nSurvey launched in April 2014\nTotal # of responses to Date: 189\n1. In what neighborhood of Alameda is your home located?\nCentral Alam\nWest End\n25%\nHarbor Bay\nOther\nEast End\n20%\nCentral Alameda\n45%\nHarbor Bay\n3%\nWest End\nEast End\nOther\n8%\n2. How long have you lived in your current unit?\n5 10 years\nLess than 1 year\n15%\n1 - 2 years\n22%\nMore than 10\n3 5 years\n3 5 years\n32%\n5 - 10 years\n17%\nLess than 1\nMore than 10 years\n15%\n1 2 year\nSubmitted by Catherine Relucio\nRe: 6-E -\n7-15-14\nRent Survey for City of Alameda - Summary of Survey Results as of July, 15, 2015\n1\nwww.RenewedHopeHousing.or\nRenewedHopeHousing@gmail.com\nI\nLaura Thomas (510)522-8901", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-07-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-07-15", "page": 20, "text": "3. I pay rent to:\nGalagher & Li\nOMM, Inc. Ma\nHarbor Bay Re\n1\nLapham\nLandlord\n65%\nOther\nHarbor Bay Realty\n3%\nGalagher & Lindsey\n5%\nOMM, Inc., Mason Management\n5%\nLapham\n1%\nLandlard\nOther\n21%\n4. What was the amount of your rent increase in the past 12 months?\n0% rent increase - 42% of respondents\n1 - 5% rent increase - 23% of respondents\n6 - 10% rent increase - 19% of respondents\n11 - 20% increase - 8% of respondents\n21 -30% rent increase - 6% of respondents\n30 +% rent increase - 1% of respondents\nUnknown - 2% of respondents\n5. Concerns about your rent increase\nI was one of the 84 tenants evicted from XXX in June 2013. We had no protection contrary to what the\nAlameda City Manager stated at a City Council Meeting. We did have financial hardship. The only\nbenefit we received was an offer to pay for moving expenses not beyond 3 hours. The time over the\nthree hours was to be paid by the tenant. We only had the use of one elevator either morning or\nafternoon. For additional relocating costs and higher deposits I am out $5000+. In addition, what many\nof us thought odd was how fast permits were approved for the current demolition and retrofitting. This\nis generally not the norm for the permit process in Alameda. Just watch citizens approach the planning\nboard to improve a personal property and it practically takes an act of Congress. I am personally for\nrent control. I am an active citizen who contributes both time and money to many organizations in\nAlameda.\nI am not yet concerned, but I am aware of the trend in Alameda and have much anxiety due to a limited\nincome.\nRent Survey for City of Alameda - Summary of Survey Results as of July, 15, 2015\n2\nwww.RenewedHopeHousing.org\nI\nRenewedHopeHousing@gmail.com\nI\nLaura Thomas (510)522-8901", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-07-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-07-15", "page": 21, "text": "I wish Alameda would have rent control. I love Alameda but I think I will soon be pushed to Oakland.\nBut at least Oakland is rent controlled. It's hard to save money to move into a bigger spot when you're\non a fixed income and know you will be getting an increase every year.\nRent is very high for us.\nStudent and can't afford to pay more and have to look for new apartment also because roommate is\ngetting married. Can't find affordable housing.\nIf increases persist in the neighborhood in which I live will change. Community will change.\nI don't want rent increase. I am saving up money to send my kids to private school and buy a Mercedes\nSUV.\nOur landlord tried to illegally raise our rent by $100 three months after we moved in, on a year lease\nrental.\nin the past two years my rent has increased 300.00\nAlready high and only lived here less than a year and half. Due to losing my home and fear of\nforeclosure was rushed into finding a rental and only could only find a 2 bedroom. My daughter was in\nher senior year of high school so that and many reasons we wanted to stay in Alameda as it is HOME.\nIncrease rent but still does not maintain property. Or respond in timely manner. Ex: Fridge not working\nI had to replace. Broken Faucet - I paid for repairs.\nWe are able to handle the current rate, but have concerns if it should continue annually. My husband\nhas had a difficult time maintaining employment though he is a professional. His age does not work in\nhis favor. I am establishing a practice having moved here knowing no one. We market ourselves\nconstantly, but have concerns regarding our ages. We are both on social security.\nOriginally my rent was to be increased by 50% ($400.00), but after all the renters of this property having\ngone to the Alameda Housing Authority, My rent was cut back by $100.00. That was the lowest they\nsaid they would go. Originally they agreed to a 6 month lease, when it came time to renew the lease,\ninstead of providing a 1 year lease as was the \"talk\" from representatives for XXX, they siad they were\n\"extending the original 6 month lease agreement to a year lease. Meaning they only provided me a 6\nmonth lease and not the 1 year lease as was mentioned. This current lease is up at end of July, where I\nfeel they will try to increase my rent again more than $100.00. If I had not agreed to the 6 month\n\"extension\" the month to month rent would have been $1300.00 for the studio that I rent.\nyes, reason given was that fact that tech people are moving to east bay and rents are increasing,\ngenerally. other words, no good reason.\nI've lived here for 8.5 years. I opened a small home daycare in January 2013. August 2013 my landlord\nraised my rent by $300. Then he raised it another $300 in March 2014. However, I negotiated with him\non the second increase to $150. So, since Aug 2013 my rent went up $450. He also told me that it will\ngo up yet again $100 next year. Prior to me opening my daycare, my landlord had not raised my rent.\nI'm concerned that he is raising the rent so significantly in order to push me out. He has made several\nRent Survey for City of Alameda - Summary of Survey Results as of July, 15, 2015\n3\nwww.RenewedHopeHousing.org\nRenewedHopeHousing@gmail.com\nI\nLaura Thomas (510)522-8901", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-07-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-07-15", "page": 22, "text": "comments to me over the past year that indicate that he does not like my home daycare business. He\nalso has said that he wants market rate rent for my unit. However, it is also noteworthy to mention that\nin\nthe entire time I've lived here, he has not made any improvements and there are a number of\nproblems. Such as, dry-rotted front porch and steps, dry-rot fence, chipping house paint, hole in my\nceiling and water damage due to upstairs leak, leaking roof and mold.\nNeighbor across hall just had rent increased $ 500.00 a month. I will be next but can't afford it & can't\nfind safe space for cheaper so I will leave East Bay.\nAfraid of spike increase when my lease is up. Pet rules are changing and I have a working relationship\nw/ dogs. I am concerned about increasing pet rent.\nBeing Evicted because of Renovation\nAs units become filled, mgmt feels it can raise rents (supply and demand) to 'what the mrkt will bear'\nI lived previously on San Jose Avenue in a townhouse where my rent was raised $100.00 a month\nyearly from $950.00 to $1800.00 with no repairs done. Now where I live nothing is repaired cleaned up,\nor fixed yet landlord is taking another increase. I pay 50 percent of my monthly income to rent.\nAlthough I receive rental assistance from the Housing Authority, the owners seem to be feel like they\ncan increase the rent as much as they want. The housing authority doesn't advocate against this - their\nattitude is either pay the increase or move. The reason I am on housing is because of low-income so\npicking up and moving is not financially an option. We need someone who can help fight for our rights.\nI think they are going to do major repair on my unit but won't give me any information.\nSomething funny is happening at my apartment. I live in a Victorian house split into 4 units. Upstairs\none unit became vacant the other was not. The owners gave the non-vacant unit resident (who has\nlived here 10 years) a month and half to move claiming his son was going to take the apartment. A\nmonth after that he put a sign on my door saying that he would be entering with an inspector to prepare\nfor major renovations. I called him and asked him to give me more information and he emailed me and\nsaid he didn't have any yet. I was home when they came and I asked again and he said they were\ngoing to take the ceilings off and raise them \"\"soon.\"\" I said what does that mean? He said I will tell you\nlater.\nThe 10 year evicted tenant said he thought the owner was going to add a third floor. I am on the bottom\nnot the second where everyone has been evicted or vacated. This property belongs to XXX. I was\nraised in Alameda, left the area for school and came back. I have moved in here last November. Less\nthan a year and I have a year lease. I don't see how I can live here if they are raising the ceiling. I have\nno information other than that and that it is happening soon. There is an engineer coming by. I certainly\ndo not want to be stuck with only a month and half to move in this market. Can they claim their son is\nmoving in to evict tenants and then have him move in and out to make repairs? XXX\nPlease advise on what I can do to get more real information and where I can learn about my rights.\"\nRent Survey for City of Alameda - Summary of Survey Results as of July, 15, 2015\n4\nwww.RenewedHopeHousing.org\nRenewedHopeHousing@gmail.com\nLaura Thomas (510)522-8901", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-07-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-07-15", "page": 23, "text": "I am saddened on how this has really affected my budget the last past 12 months. I can't seen to save\nany money with the way our economy is still below percentage for jobs and resources to improve\nemployment status.\nCurrently unemployed. No income. Paying rent from savings. Cannot afford another rental increase.\nWhere will I move?\n\"NO REAL CONCERN BEYOND NORMAL. LANDLORD USALLY HAS ASKED ME IF I COULD\nAFFORD A RENT INCREASE? SOME TIMES HE DOES NOT INCREASE'S IT. 3% IS Fair. I LIVE\nIN A GOOD AREA OF ALAMEDA. ALAMEDA IS WORTH MORE TO LIVE HERE.\nCOMPARED TO S.F. SAFER THAN NEIGHBORING TOWN'S. I PAY ELECTRIC ONLY.\nI SEE CITY VARIOUS BUSINESS FEE'S GOING UP. I SEE IN THE NEWS THAT PROPERTY TAX'S\nARE GOING UP.LANDLOARD PAY'S ACI, EBMUD AND PG&E. LANDLOARD SAY'S LOAN IS ON A\nVARIABLE %.\nGreater than 10% increase in single month.\nThis landlord purchased the two buildings 2 months before I moved in. ALL the tenants save 2 have\nmoved out because she increased the rent by $200 if not more. One tenant was an 85 yr old SICK\nwoman who ran out of money & had to move into state run home- she died after being there 4 days! All\nthe tenants who moved in after me are paying $1650 & over. After a fire in one unit & subsequent\nconstruction ( still ongoing), landlord is trying to get $1850 + for 1 bedroom apts. I'm sure she will raise\nmy rent at end of lease in November.\nWe are mostly concerned about the reasons for the increase: HOA dues, parcel tax increase, and other\nincreased expenses. The dues we discovered increased by only 11.00 and if there we are asked to\nvote on parcel tax increase, we now feel we'd be charged for those increased expenses so it's\npressured us to offer a negative vote regardless of the issue.\nI'm disabled and my social security disability is my only source of income because I receive my benefit\non the 2nd Wednesday of the month I am always late and pay a $100 fee. In addition I locked myself\nout and he onside manager charged me $50 to unlock my door! I am paying 90 percent of my income\non rent\nMy husband and I live in a studio apartment that we moved into when I was on a contract job and he\nwas just starting a new job because we figured in 6 months or a year when our employment situations\nstabilized, we would move to a 1 bedroom, which was going for about $1200 at the time, I would say.\nThey have gone up so much that we consider something in the $1400-1500 range a bargain, but not a\ngood enough price to consider moving. Meanwhile we are in fear of our rent going up to what a 1\nbedroom was when we first came to Alameda just over 1 year ago.\nThe building I have called home for the last seven years recently changed hands and the rent was\nincreased. The increase was uneven and I believe illegally applied. This is a five unit converted\nVictorian with 4 one bedroom units and a studio. Two of the one bedrooms have a small bonus space,\nmaybe big enough for an office or a nursery, with a window and a door but no closet. When XXX was\nmanaging the building they said they did not qualify as bedrooms.\nRent Survey for City of Alameda - Summary of Survey Results as of July, 15, 2015\n5\nwww.RenewedHopeHousing.org\nRenewedHopeHousing@gmail.com\nLaura Thomas (510)522-8901", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-07-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-07-15", "page": 24, "text": "When the building was sold and the rents were raised to \"\"market value\" those two units were raised\nto $1600 while the other two units, one of them mine, were only raised to $1400. This seemed unfair to\nme, we all had the same rental descriptions when we moved in. My unit went up $350 theirs went up\n$475\nOne other (a studio) had to vacate due to pending construction.\nI cannot find anywhere else to live and will have to stay during a foundation replacement and feel it may\nbe unsafe, but what are you going to do? This island is railroading existing tenants out with huge rent\nincreases and pulling in the highest bidders. The two tenants who just left chose to leave the state and I\nam considering the same option. In the last 90 days I've only seen two decent units at the $1200 price\npoint, I and many others applied, there just aren't any vacancies at a reasonable price.\nWho can afford a 30 to 60 percent housing price hike on short notice? Gotta love gentrification, I\nthought you should have a record of this situation here as part of your case file.\nAlthough my rent is reasonable, they are now renting these units for nearly $1,700-1,800. I cannot\nafford my place (barely), but I cannot move because I will lose this rate. Investigating nearby options,\nthe price appears to have SKYROCKETED.\nI have a decent deal since I am sort of a \"On site manager\" but there's no way I could stay in the bay\narea if I lost this place. That said I still think I pay way too much given the blue collar job situation these\ndays. It's an unfortunate fact that the housing market is predicated on the idea that \"The dumbest tool\nwith more money than they can handle responsibly wins.\". In a nutshell this means that whenever\nsomeone buys a home it's because they out bid a whole lot of much smarter people just because they\ncould get more financing. That's bullshit and it creates homelessness meaning better people than them\nare living on the street. I think we need to lose the idea that property values and housing prices are one\nand the same. They aren't. The \"real\" in \"real estate\" means that property values remain stable over\ntime. The Native Americans didn't believe in property ownership, therefore real estate was worth $0 to\nthem. There's your \"property value\" right there. It's long overdue for housing prices to get back to\nreality. Overpaid yuppies are the problem and I don't allow them in my economy.\nWe saw a 6 percent increase with no improvements to our unit just after the first year. We spent much\nof the year arguing to repair items that we noted were in need within our move in checklist, and the\nresponse that we received was largely that the property owner did not want to invest in the repairs, and\nthat the unit was in high demand and we could leave if we wanted. We don't feel like valued renters,\n\"repairs\" are done in a patchwork manner if at all, and yet even still we have to watch as the rent\ncontinues to increase. We're worried about future planning as there are no standards, for all we know it\ncould continue to increase by 6% annually, thus pricing us out of Alameda (where we own a small\nbusiness and is important to us to stay).\nI think it's an outrageous increase. I have no storage, I pay all the utilities, I have no parking. The\nlandlords do no gardening. It's all about money with no care for the people who actually live there. I've\nlive in Alameda all my life, I'm 42, why should I move because money hungry slum lords think they\nneed more money for a run-down piece of property?\nI have been living in my apartment for over 28 years. In January, the property was sold and I received\na $350.00 rent increase. The new landlord will not repaint, fix or do anything to my apartment. My\nRent Survey for City of Alameda - Summary of Survey Results as of July, 15, 2015\n6\nwww.RenewedHopeHousing.or\nRenewedHopeHousing@gmail.com\nI\nLaura Thomas (510)522-8901", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-07-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-07-15", "page": 25, "text": "apartment has not been painted inside except for once where the old landlord paid for the paint and I\nhad to pay for the painters.\nMy concern is that with the demand for housing and the proposed development of the del monte\nbuilding just a stones throw away, my landlord will continue to raise the rents because of the willingness\nof people trying to move to the island to pay more than something is worth to move in. Being month to\nmonth and not on a lease, I fear that any day we can get another increase (that we won't be able to\nafford) in order for him to maximize his profits and because other people are willing to pay more.\nKnowing how the market has changed so quickly recently, my wife and I are terrified that we will then\nbe unable to find affordable housing on the island and have to move somewhere less desirable. We are\nboth small business owners trying to make something out of our lives. This is unfair.\nWe couldn't afford to move anywhere else in Alameda or in a decent part of Oakland for that matter.\nWe feel stuck and without options. Our landlord would be happy to have us leave because they can\nturn around and rent our $1000 one-bedroom for $1350 to new tenants\nI can't afford a private apartment for myself and my son in Alameda because I don't make enough\nmoney working as a teacher's aide for the school district.\nI'm concerned of future increases. I'm barely scraping by and an increase would cause me to find\na\nsmaller place or leave Alameda, which is something I don't want to do. I have lived here all my life.\nMy husband and I are both on disability, we barely get $2k between the two of us.\nI'm not concerned about my rent increase. I understand that my landlord has expenses too.\nOur lease will be up in a few months are we are concerned about them raising the rent an\nunsustainable amount. I have heard horror stories about rents being raised by hundreds of dollars.\nMy current landlord ha been completely fair and only raised the rent once in the past 5 years, my\nconcern is if I have to find another rental in alameda I am completely priced out!\nLow supply + high demand = increasing rents.\nI've lived in the same address for 17 years. It's a 7 unit bldg. I don't have issues with the rent since\nthat's the reason I've stayed here for yrs. Privately owned.\nIt was 10.4 percent and they only gave me 30 days notice. I decided not to push back for a 60 day\nnotice because I was afraid of retaliation.\nI\nam on a limited fixed income it is very stressful when my rent is increased. I have taken on cleaning\nthe laundry room and handling the trash bins in lieu of a reduction in my rent because it was the only\nway to make ends meet.\nIf it continues to increase I may have no place to go. Increases don't mean owners are taking care of\napt bldg or inside of apt. Was told increase was due to people moving to area so the can charge more.\nI currently pay slightly more than 45 percent of my monthly income (net) on rent. I realize that this is\npartly because I work at a non-profit agency serving seniors and persons with disabilities, but since the\nRent Survey for City of Alameda - Summary of Survey Results as of July, 15, 2015\n7\nwww.RenewedHopeHousing.or\nenewedHopeHousing@gmail.com\nI\nLaura Thomas (510)522-8901", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-07-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-07-15", "page": 26, "text": "agency serves many persons in Alameda (and receives some city funding to do so), I would just like to\nstress the need for having livable & affordable housing for those who do this kind of service work. I\nalso volunteer my time for one of the City's Commissions and try to contribute to the community on a\nvoluntary basis. I would hate to leave Alameda.\nRent in Alameda is very cheap compared to the rest of the Bay Area.\nI'm a single mom. If there's another rent increase, I will have to move to a less safe city, further away\nfrom my job. We've lived here for 18 years.\nThe rent increase has occurred, but the quality of service from the property manager and/or property\nowner has been inconsistent.\nI'm always worried I can no longer afford to rent in alameda and real estate pricing has sky rocketed so\nthe idea of buying a home that I can live with my two kids remains that of a dream\nI will eventually have to move out of Alameda.\nVery concerned that our rent will go up by a lot after our one-year lease is up\nIn comparison to other apartments in the same area, the amount is much higher. In addition, I pay an\nadditional $80-90 per month for trash/sewage that is not included in the rent and based on the overall\nuse of all tenants. I can't afford a $125 annual increase. In addition, I don't have normal amenities such\nas a microwave or dishwasher. Supposedly, the hike was in comparison to other comparable\napartments in the area. Yet we don't have the amenities as other apartments in the area for the same\nprice. There's other areas as well that have security for the same price. I've had my brand new car\nkeyed in the very front of the building facing the street.\nThe concern is that there seems to be no purpose to raise the rents other than across the board greed.\nI have no choice but to look to move out of the state of California seeing that my current rent for a one\nbedroom apartment is more than most mortgages for a 4 bedroom house outside California. I am\nthrowing this money away instead of investing in my future.\nLandlord thinks he can get 1700.00 for a 2 bed room that has sub par electoral (4 fuses for the hole\nhouse and one plug per room a bathroom that is from the 50s ) has a illegal apartment on the ground\nfloor ceilings are under 7' and is just a slum lord\nNo increase in maintenance and upkeep.\nI could barely afford this one. If it goes up $100 every year or two, will need to move some place\ncheaper, which will mean moving out of Alameda. This seems like a sad reality. Already looking at San\nLeandro.\nThere is 1 elderly adult and 1 disabled adult living in the home with me. We cannot afford to move, and\nwe cannot afford the outrageous rent increases either. We are very friendly with all the neighbors and\nfeel like this is home. We cannot afford to buy -- one nearby condo sold for $480,000 recently.\nThe only concern I have is the landlord or management company may decide to \"market correct\" our\nrent. Currently units of a similar size and nature are fetching nearly double what we currently pay. This\nRent Survey for City of Alameda - Summary of Survey Results as of July, 15, 2015\n8\nwww.RenewedHopeHousing.or\nRenewedHopeHousing@gmail.com\nI\nLaura Thomas (510)522-8901", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-07-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-07-15", "page": 27, "text": "has left us in a strange place where we've stopped contacting the management company for anything\nother than major repairs. Our policy has been to keep as far below the radar as we can.\nWe can't afford to live here if our rent increases again next year. My Husband is a temp making only\n$14.50/hr at nearby XXX, and I am a contractor, read, not full time employee, at a tech company in\nSilicon Valley. Of course no significant upgrades or work has been done to our house, either.\nI'm concerned it's going to continue to go up as more affluent people continue to move to the island.\nI\nknow I am very lucky to have a landlord interested in long term retention of tenants. My commitment\nto\nbeing here for years was a major factor in them accepting my application.\nI received an initial increase from $900 to $1, 150. After attending a meeting with Alameda Housing\nAuthority, the rent was reduced to $990. Am I to expect a minimum of 10 percent each year.\nI moved to a different apartment complex and a smaller apartment after less than a year at my previous\nlocation, because I knew the rent was going to increase from 2095 for a 3 bedroom, at least $150 and\nthe landlord would not let me move into a smaller apartment, even when my one year lease was up.\nI have no concerns - the rent is very reasonable.\nI moved in years ago. Now, since Alameda is the place to move, my rent has gone up just so the\nmanager can pocket profit to keep up at the market rate.\nConcerned that the owner will recognize how much they could charge (3000) VS. what they do charge\nme! Live month by month waiting for the other shoe to drop\nI've been lucky to have a landlord who wants us to stay so hasn't raised the rent but relocation would\nbe impossible. Too expensive now!\nNo moderate income housing; no rent control\nUnfortunately, continuous increases are the standard, not the exception. This is regardless of the actual\nwork being done and the market. While the percentage may fluctuate, the increase has become all too\n\"normal.\" I have lived in two units in this complex and even in probably one of the least favorable units\n(in terms of location - bottom floor, between units, no view, facing a wall and a studio) increases were\nstill standard. You are all but forced into a one-year lease if you do not have something ready for move-\nin because the shorter term lease options have such a steeper increase. And with the 1-year, they still\ntry to shave days so you don't even get that rate for a full year.\nWe moved in December and within just 6 months the rents have skyrocketed! Our rental company said\nthat if we were to walk in off the street today they would charge almost $800 more o month! This is\nridiculous! They have told us to expect at least a 5%-10% increase in rent when our lease is up\n(perhaps more depending on the market).\nOur last building was bought and the new owner had everyone leave. The new owner redid the floors\nand painted, over doubling the rent. My concern is that I am being pushed out of my city of birth. I have\nworked at the same non-profit institution for 30 years, have a Bachelor's degree. My salary is far under\nthe median. Soon, rents will be at over a third of my income so no one will rent to me. I am concerned\nRent Survey for City of Alameda - Summary of Survey Results as of July, 15, 2015\n9\nwww.RenewedHopeHousing.or\nRenewedHopeHousing@gmail.com\nI\nLaura Thomas (510)522-8901", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-07-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-07-15", "page": 28, "text": "that money is the bottom line for Alameda owners, rather than diversity. I am concerned that I will end\nup on the street. There have got to be some housing alternatives in this day and age. I saw the low cost\nstudios on Park Ave and Central, but seriously, studios? Maybe for the young, but not the majority. This\nseems like a sad attempt to pad affordable housing numbers.\nIt's been ridiculous now for many years at the XXX apartments! A 6% increase one year, 5% the next,\nback up to 6% last year, and 6% again this year. We've gone to the Alameda Housing/Rental Board 3\ndifferent times up against the property manager and XXX, all to no avail. EVEN THOUGH the Board\nhas \"strongly recommended\" against these increases, especially since we've lived here since 1997,\nAND since certain concessions made by the manager made weren't fulfilled. The property isn't the\noldest in town, but still could use some major improvements and upgrades without the tenants paying\nthrough the nose for them! We are S00000000 sick of hearing, \"Well, you SHOULD be paying us much\nmore for your apartment/floor plan/view!\" after all these years, this is very frustrating, rude, and even\ndisrespectful. We've seen this place go so far downhill that it was only approximately 25% occupied at\none time in this 450-unit property! Pet rules/acceptance has come and gone, and is back on at this\ntime. Our barbecue grills have been removed and tenants are only allowed to have the equivalent of a\ncamp sized propane stove on patios/balconys. Plants were asked to be removed, but the new (only\npart-time, by the way) manager is a bit more lenient. Oh boy, the list goes on, but we feel it is all\nreflective in the amount of rent we ALL pay here, even with constant parking garage and car breakins,\nthefts and internal burglaries does all this justify the rental increases and poor treatment we get\nin\nreturn? We think not.\n\"My friend looked to get a place here last week. She was quoted $1,969/mo + pet rent for a year in a\nJUNIOR one bedroom---not even a one bedroom! She looked into a place here six months ago--I\nbelieve she was quoted - $1,800. She ended up renting at XXX for ~ low $1,750. Rent here has gone\nup nearly $200 in six months! Not to mention the theft in the buildings and additional $50/mo for an\nextra parking space.\nI cannot afford the increase, but I cannot move. Rent has gotten so expensive in alameda, I am\ncompletely stuck. Next year I anticipate moving out of alameda because l'll be priced out of my\napartment.\nI am a ferry rider -> SF, an artist that participates in the local art community, and I'm worried I will no\nlonger get to be a part of this community I love so much. Options are severely restricted because of dog\nownership. Looking online (craigslist), there is nothing available for less than ~$2,000.\n6. When I call on maintenance or repair issues, it takes\nto receive a response and have it fixed.\n24 hours\n36%\nNever\nOne week\n25%\nOther\nOne month\nOne month\n4%\nNever\n5%\nOne week\nOther\n30%\n24 hours\nRent Survey for City of Alameda - Summary of Survey Results as of July, 15, 2015\n10\nwww.RenewedHopeHousing.org\nRenewedHopeHousing@gmail.com\n|\nLaura Thomas (510)522-8901", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-07-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2014-07-15", "page": 29, "text": "Attachment to July 15, 2014\nRegular City Council Minutes", "path": "CityCouncil/2014-07-15.pdf"}