{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-05-16", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -MAY 16, 2017--7:00 P.M.\nMayor Spencer convened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie,\nVella and Mayor Spencer - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\n(17-305) Mayor Spencer inquired whether Council would agree to move the Mastick\nAnnual Report [paragraph no. 17-307 after the Proclamation [paragraph no. 17-306].\nThe City Manager stated there is a request to move the rent item [paragraph no. 17-\n325].\nMayor Spencer inquired about the number of speakers for each item.\nThe City Clerk responded there is one speaker under Oral Communication, over 40\nspeakers on the rent item, two speakers on the Straws on Request referral [paragraph\nno. 17-328 and one speaker on the Main Street Neighborhood Request for Proposals\n(RFQ) [paragraph no. 17-324 item.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether Council would like to hear items in order or move the\nrent item above the Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC) item\n[paragraph no. 17-322]; proposed the order of be: Mastick Annual Report, ACTC, rent\nand Main Street Neighborhood RFQ.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he would like to hear the rent item first.\nMayor Spencer inquired if Councilmember Oddie would like to hear rent above the\nMastick Annual Report.\nCouncilmember Oddie responded the rent item is more important because it is an\nordinance.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft noted staff from ACTC is present.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated ACTC staff is present to give a presentation; the\ncitizens of Alameda are also present and should take precedence; he would like to hear\nthe rent item first.\nVice Mayor Vella and Councilmember Oddie concurred with Councilmember Matarrese.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nMay 16, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-05-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-05-16", "page": 2, "text": "Mayor Spencer inquired whether the ACTC item needs to be heard or if it could be\nmoved to the next Council meeting.\nThe City Manager responded staff is fine with postponing the Public Hearing [paragraph\nno. 17-323 and the Main Street RFQ.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether ACTC staff could wait to present after the rent item.\nThe City Manager responded staff would rather postpone the ACTC presentation rather\nthan hear it after the rent item.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether a consultant present for the ACTC presentation, to\nwhich the City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the consultant would return\nwhen the issue is heard.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether Council would like the ACTC presentation to come\nback or hear it tonight.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how long is the ACTC presentation; questioned\nif the item could be less than the estimated 30 minutes, to which the City Manager\nresponded the presentation could take 10 minutes.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the ACTC presentation is important to Alamedans.\nMayor Spencer suggested the order be as follows: Mastick Annual Report] after the\nProclamation, the ACTC presentation and then rent.\nCouncil agreed.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated he would like to hold the Public Hearing tonight.\nMayor Spencer stated staff does not want to wait until after the rent item; the Public\nHearing and Main Street Neighborhood RFQ are moved to a later date.\nThe City Manager stated the budget will be adopted at the next meeting.\nThe Base Reuse Director stated the RFQ will not be released until fall; staff can return\nwith the full RFQ in September.\nMayor Spencer stated that she would prefer the RFQ return to Council; inquired what\nCouncil would prefer.\nThe Base Reuse Director stated the RFQ would not be issued without Council approval;\nchanges can be made when the item is brought to Council.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is concerned that the Public Hearing\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nMay 16, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-05-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-05-16", "page": 3, "text": "requires a zoning amendment; inquired whether the matter is time critical.\nThe City Manager responded staff is okay with postponing the matter; the item will be\non the June 6th agenda.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired if the item could be heard after the budget on the May\n17th meeting, to which the City Manager responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Spencer noted that Councilmember Matarrese will be leaving the May 17th\nmeeting at 10:00 p.m.\nThe City Attorney stated the item is a first reading and needs to be heard at a regular\nmeeting.\nCouncilmember Oddie withdrew his request.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether Council understood what was discussed, to which the\nCouncil responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired how many speakers are there for the rent item, to which\nthe City Clerk responded there are 47 speakers.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether Council would consider adjusting the speaking\ntime to two minutes per speaker.\nMayor Spencer stated that her preference would be to keep three minutes for each\nspeaker; speakers have not spoken on the present issues.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she agrees with Mayor Spencer; the issue is\nvery important.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(17-306) Proclamation Declaring May 2017 as Older Americans Month.\nMayor Spencer read the proclamation and presented it to Paul Hauser, Mastick Senior\nCenter Advisory Board.\nThe Recreation Manager and Mr. Hauser made brief comments.\nMayor Spencer urged citizens 50 years old and older to sign up to receive the many\ncommunity benefits from being a Mastick Senior Center member.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEM\n(17-307) Recommendation to Accept the Mastick Senior Center 2016 Annual Report.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nMay 16, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-05-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-05-16", "page": 4, "text": "The Recreation Manager gave a presentation.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry about the disc golf program, the Recreation\nManager stated disc golf is an intergenerational program with teens and seniors.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(17-308) Mayor Spencer announced the City budget challenge tool is available online at\nvww.alameda.budgetchallenge.org to receive community input on how to prioritize\nissues and how to spend the budget.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(17-309) Sharon Golden, Alameda Island Cannabis Community, stated because of rent\nissue she would not make her comments.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor Spencer announced that the Association of Bay Area Governments item\n[paragraph no. 17-321 was removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.\nCouncilmember Matarrese recused himself from the Island Landscaping and Lighting\nDistrict Resolution [paragraph no. 17-319].\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the remainder of the Consent\nCalendar.\nCouncilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph\nnumber.]\n(*17-310) of the Continued April 4, 2017 Regular City Council Meeting Held on April 7,\n2017 and the Special and Regular City Council Meetings Held on April 18, 2017.\nApproved.\n(*17-311) Ratified bills in the amount of $3,603,878.21.\n(*17-312) Recommendation to Set June 20, 2017 for a Public Hearing to Consider\nCollection of Delinquent Business License Taxes and Delinquent Integrated Waste\nManagement Accounts Via the Property Tax Bills. Accepted.\n(*17-313) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager, or Her Designee, to Enter\ninto a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Alameda Unified School District\nto Accept $78,000 for Crossing Guard Services; and Recommendation to Authorize the\nCity Manager, or Her Designee, to Execute a First Amendment to Agreement with All\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nMay 16, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-05-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-05-16", "page": 5, "text": "City Management Services Incorporated Extending the Term 10 Months and Adding the\nAmount of $284,486.40 for a Total Contract Amount of $523,501.40 for Crossing Guard\nServices. Accepted.\n(*17-314) Recommendation to Award Emergency Police & Abandoned Vehicle Tow\nContract to Ken Betts Towing Service; and Authorize the City Manager, or Her\nDesignee, to Negotiate and Execute a Contract with Ken Betts Towing Service for Zero\nCompensation From the City (Provider to be Compensated Through Towing Fee) and a\nTerm of Five Years. Accepted.\n(*17-315) Recommendation to Approve a Consent to Amend the Lease and Leasehold\nDeed of Trust with Safe Harbor Marina Ballena Isle at Ballena Marina to Change the\nCredit Facility. Accepted.\n(*17-316) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Purchase and Install\nPlayground Equipment and Safety Surfacing from GameTime for Woodstock Park in an\nAmount Not To Exceed $260,000. Accepted; and\n(*17-316A) Resolution No. 15261, \"Amending the Recreation Fund and Capital\nImprovement Fund Budget for Fiscal Year 2016-17.' Adopted.\n(*17-317) Resolution No. 15262, \"Accept a Planning Grant in the Amount of $300,000\nfrom the Division of Boating and Waterways, Harbor and Watercraft Revolving Fund\nand Authorize the City Manager to Manage the Planning Grant Agreement.\" Adopted.\n(*17-318) Resolution No. 15263, \"Preliminarily Approving the Annual Report Declaring\nthe City's Intention to Order the Levy and Collection of Assessments and Providing for\nNotice of Public Hearing on June 20, 2017 - Maintenance Assessment District 01-01\n(Marina Cove).' Adopted.\n(*17-319) Resolution No. 15264, \"Preliminarily Approving the Annual Report Declaring\nthe City's Intention to Order the Levy and Collection of Assessments and Providing for\nNotice of Public Hearing on June 20, 2017 - Island City Landscaping and Lighting\nDistrict 84-2 (Various Locations). Adopted.\n[Note: Councilmember Matarrese recused himself.]\n(*17-320) Resolution No. 15265, \"Approving the Application for Grant Funds for\nCalifornia Climate Investments Urban Greening Program for 0.9 Miles of the Cross\nAlameda Trail Project between Main Street and Constitution Way.\" Adopted.\n(17-321) Recommendation to Direct the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)\nDelegate(s) to Vote on the ABAG and Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)\nConsolidation Budget and Work Plan.\nMayor Spencer stated direction being given to the delegate to vote at the joint\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nMay 16, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-05-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-05-16", "page": 6, "text": "ABAG/MTC meeting; she has concerns that the staff recommendation and the letter\nbeing sent have different wording; Council is directing the delegate to oppose the\ncurrent proposed budget and work plan and approve the budget in the report; inquired\nwhether Councilmember Matarrese has any questions regarding the matter.\nCouncilmember Matarrese responded in the negative.\nMayor Spencer moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(17-322) Receive Presentation from Alameda County Transportation Commission on\nthe Oakland Alameda Freeway Access Project.\nThe Base Reuse Director made brief introductory comments.\nChadi Chazbek, HNTB, gave a Power Point presentation.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the project includes adding ventilation in the Posey\nTube, to which Mr. Chazbek responded the air quality in the Posey Tube has been\ntested and is fine.\nMayor Spencer stated the air quality is not fine in the Posey Tube; better air quality is\nneeded.\nMr. Chazbek stated the air quality will be evaluated during the design aspect of the\nproject; continued the presentation.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether the loop coming out of the Posey Tube would\nnot have a stop before getting on to Interstate 880, to which Mr. Chazbek responded in\nthe affirmative.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether a stop would be added at 6th Street and\nHarrison Street, to which Mr. Chazbek responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether funding in place meets the project\nschedule, to which Mr. Chazbek responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether Mr. Chazbek is looking for Council feedback on the\nproject; stated the estimated time for the presentation has been exceeded; inquired\nwhether Council wants to continue the presentation.\nCouncil agreed to allow five more minutes.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nMay 16, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-05-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-05-16", "page": 7, "text": "Mr. Chazbek continued the presentation.\nMayor Spencer inquired when the matter will return for Council feedback.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded updates will be provided to Council prior to the\nmatter being brought back in the fall or winter.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether Council agrees with the matter returning in the fall.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether Council input would change the project.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded ACTC will evaluate comments and potentially\nchange the project; Council can work with ACTC on changes.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether stakeholders are closer to buy-in than\nprior years.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded stakeholders are on the same page and a lot\ncloser than prior years.\nMr. Chazbek stated the stakeholders are close to a buy-in.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the Oakland Chinatown Chamber of\nCommerce supports the project, to which Mr. Chazbek responded the feedback has\nbeen positive.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired when is the deadline to get buy-in from\nstakeholders.\nMr. Chazbek responded the timeline for buy-in from stakeholders is the end of 2019\nwhen the environmental document has to be approved.\nVice Mayor Vella requested an update on the Central Avenue Complete Streets project,\nthe timeline for ACTC construction and the impact the construction will have on traffic.\nThe Base Reuse Director responded as of July 1st, funding will be available for the\nCentral Avenue Complete Streets project; stated the project plans will be finalized soon\nafter July 1st\nMayor Spencer inquired whether staff has a date to return to Council, to which the Base\nReuse Director responded in the negative.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the matter will come back to Council, to which the\nBase Reuse Director responded in the affirmative.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nMay 16, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-05-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-05-16", "page": 8, "text": "Vice Mayor Vella inquired what impact ACTC's construction will have on the West End\ncrossing.\nMr. Chazbek responded work will be done mostly in off-peak hours; stated signage and\noutreach will address closure times and how to maneuver around the construction.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether part of the funding is Senate Bill 1 (SB1)\nmoney, to which the Base Reuse Director responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated the SB1 gas tax just passed a few weeks ago; inquired\nwhether ACTC can be mindful of the current problems with going through the Posey\nTube during the development phase, to which Mr. Chazbek responded in the\naffirmative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he has three requests: 1) that the City receive\nplenty of notice on construction dates and schedules, 2) whether the speed limit could\nbe reduced in the Posey Tube before the Central Avenue project returns to Council, and\n3) the Webster Street issue between the Webster Street Business Association (WABA)\nand Bike Alameda be resolved.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether ACTC received feedback from the City's\nTransportation Commission; stated the bicycle community has concerns about bicycle\naccess, ventilation and ensuring that the focus is multi-modal, which are serious issues\nthat need to be addressed; requested better visuals in the presentation; inquired\nwhether there is a way to make one of the four available lanes for bicyclists only.\nMr. Chazbek responded in the negative.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether there is any way to make the commute better for\nbicyclists.\nMr. Chazbek responded ACTC can review the matter; the challenge would be the\nseparation between bicyclists and motorists; bicyclists need some type of protection.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the multi-modal issue can be reviewed, to which Mr.\nChazbek responded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor Vella stated working in off-peak hours might be a concern for weekend\nevents and beach traffic; requested the multi-modal analysis include more information\non the different types of vehicles that utilize the Posey Tube and how the new design\nwill affect traffic.\n(17-323) SUMMARY TITLE: This Ordinance facilitates shared living facilities in certain\nzoning districts, with a discretionary use permit, to allow private living quarters without\nprivate kitchen facilities.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nMay 16, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-05-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-05-16", "page": 9, "text": "Public Hearing and Introduction of an Ordinance Amending Chapter XXX of the\nAlameda Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) to Allow Shared Living with Approval of a\nUse Permit in the Neighborhood Business, Central Business, and Community\nCommercial Districts. [The proposed amendments are categorically exempt from the\nCalifornia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section\n15305, Minor Alterations to Land Use Limitations]. Not heard.\n(17-324) Recommendation to Provide Direction on an Outline for a Request for\nQualifications and Form of Exclusive Negotiation Agreement for a New Development\nSite in the Main Street Neighborhood at Alameda Point. Not heard.\n(17-325) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by\nAmending Various Sections of Article XV of Chapter VI Concerning (1) Review of Rent\nIncreases Applicable to All Rental Units and Rent Stabilization Applicable to Certain\nRental Units and (2) Limitations on Evictions and the Payment of Relocation Assistance\nApplicable to all Rental Units. Introduced.\nThe Community Development Director gave a Power Point presentation; stated there is\na typographical error in Section 6-58.200(3) \"descriptive\" should read \"declaratory.'\nMayor Spencer inquired what it would mean if the governmental order to vacate\nlanguage is not changed now.\nThe Community Development Director responded the existing language does not\ndistinguish between the reasons for a governmental order to vacate; stated relocation\nbenefits are required if there is a governmental order to vacate; staff is recommending\nthe current language be maintained to allow staff time to study the language and return\nwith a recommendation.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the governmental order to vacate includes a natural\ndisaster, to which the Community Development Director responded in the affirmative;\ncontinued the presentation.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether no cause and no fault evictions are for property sale.\nThe Community Development Director responded the data collection?? is strictly for no\ncause evictions, not for going out of the rental business or owner move-in.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired what the incentive would be for an eviction prior to a\nproperty sale rather than after.\nThe Community Development Director responded that the eviction would probably\noccur in the event a property owner wants to sell an empty unit versus a property with\nan in-place tenant.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether staff found that any of the no cause eviction\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nMay 16, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-05-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-05-16", "page": 10, "text": "cases are due to the tenant being a nuisance.\nThe Community Development Director responded that none of the no cause evictions\nwere for a tenant being a nuisance.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether any cases were no cause evictions for a\nproblem tenant, to which the Housing Authority Rent and Community Programs\n(HARCP) Director responded in the negative.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether any no cause evictions were caused by the\ntenant being an alleged drug dealer, to which the HARCP Director responded in the\nnegative.\nThe Community Development Director noted there were none for the 14 cases which\nstaff was able to get information.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry regarding about how many cases staff does not\nhave any information, the Community Development Director stated ten cases; continued\nthe presentation.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether anything would preclude the Council from\naddressing no cause eviction protections today.\nThe City Attorney responded in the negative; stated the item is agendized for rent\nstabilization possible amendments; the matter can be included as long as there is\nlanguage available to do a first reading of the ordinance.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether Council could include the amendment today\nand have the ordinance second reading at the June 6th meeting.\nThe Community Development Director responded in the affirmative; continued the\npresentation.\nIn response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry about what adding the no cause eviction\nlanguage would entail the Community Development Director stated the City Clerk has\ndraft language available.\nMayor Spencer requested the language be shown on the overhead projector.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether the amendment affects any other changes that\nwere discussed in April, to which the Community Development Director responded in\nthe negative.\nCouncilmember Oddie expressed concern about temporary tenancy; questioned\nwhether a tenant has the option to remain if a temporary tenancy expires when the just\ncause provision would it be effective and whether there are current pending 60 day\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nMay 16, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-05-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-05-16", "page": 11, "text": "notices to vacate; stated that he would like to ensure tenants who have current notices\nare protected.\nThe Assistant City Attorney continued the presentation.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired how the process would work for eviction notices that have\nalready been served.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded if the ordinance is introduced tonight and the\nsecond reading is on June 6th, it would go into effect 30 days later; assuming a\nreferendum petition is not filed, the ordinance would go into effect July 6th; eliminating\nno cause evictions after July 6th would prevent a landlord from bringing any action to\nrecover possession or be granted possession of a rental unit based on no cause; until\nthe ordinance goes into effect, no cause provisions would be applicable.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether there is case law regarding the matter; if a\nnotice expires on July 3rd and the ordinance does not go into effect until July 6th, is there\ncase law that would be an iron clad defense for tenants.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded in an unlawful detainer action, the landlord must\nprove compliance with the ordinance.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether a landlord could argue the law was not in place\nwhen the notice expired on July 3rd\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded courts typically apply the law that is in effect at\nthe time the court considers the decision; he is not aware of a vested right issue in the\ncurrent situation.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether there is a way to bulletproof the ordinance to\nhave any notice after June 6th become invalid; and how the City can protect tenants that\nwere served a previous 60 day notice.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded there is no bulletproof method; the court would\ninterpret the ordinance in the way he described.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated he would like to include language in the ordinance to\nread: \"any notices that terminate after June 6th are null and void.\"\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded the Council could add the language in the\nordinance; he cannot say it will be absolutely bulletproof.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired how the amendment interacts with the fixed term lease\nprovision; and whether the fixed-term lease would act as a loophole.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded under the current ordinance, a fixed-term lease\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nMay 16, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-05-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-05-16", "page": 12, "text": "requires a tenant to vacate the unit at the end of the lease; the proposed amendments\nentitle the tenant to relocation benefits at the end of that fixed-term lease.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired about withdraws from the rental market under the current\namendments.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded the current provision in the ordinance is that the\nlandlord has to file a form with the Program Administrator that he or she is withdrawing\nthe unit from the rental market.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the public should be allowed to speak now.\nCouncilmember Oddie requested staff to work on providing protections for fixed-term\nlease expiring with tenant who wants to stay and landlords who wants to rent the unit to\na new tenant at a higher rate.\nStated that he voted for Measure L1; expressed concern with the amendments to\nOrdinance 3148; the ordinance is working; rental income is a source of financial security\nfor landlords; creating a fair and balanced method for stabilizing rents is imperative; the\nproposed amendments resemble strict rent control: Robert Schrader, Alameda.\nExpressed concern over the ordinance being rewritten; urged the Council to reconsider\nchanges: Camille Khazar, Alameda.\nStated no cause eviction is inhumane; urged Council to get just cause done: Rob\nHayes, Alameda.\nStated that she is not a rich property owner; read stories from different mom and pop\nlandlords about the effects of rent control; stated the rent she charges is well below\nmarket value; the proposed amendments will cause her to leave the rental market:\nBarbara Rasmussen, Alameda.\nStated no cause evictions cause fear in renters; thanked Council for the ordinance\namendments: Catherine Pauling, Alameda Renters Coalition (ARC).\nExpressed concern for relocation fees and the elimination of no cause evictions; stated\nCouncil is going against the vote of the people when the people voted for Measure L1:\nJane Friedrick, Alameda.\nStated that she voted for Measure L1; Council should let Measure L1 run for one full\nyear before making amendments: Susan Aschwanden, Alameda.\nExpressed concern for renters; stated most renters have less financial stability in their\nlives than homeowners; the burden should not be put on those with the least stability:\nHans Kramer, Alameda.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nMay 16, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-05-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-05-16", "page": 13, "text": "Stated no cause eviction causes fear in tenants; expressed support for just cause\nevictions: Gaby Dolphin, Alameda Progressives.\nStated small landlords do not evict a tenant just to raise the rent; he supports, and voted\nfor, the current ordinance: Bruce Carnes, Alameda.\nStated the income from his rental units is his retirement; he voted for the current\nordinance with the understanding that Council could make changes when necessary;\nthe amendments being made are not necessary: Ken Gutleben, Alameda.\nDiscussed the Ellis Act; stated the Ellis Act is a loophole: Cross Creason, Alameda.\nStated voters approved Ordinance 3148; concerns and conditions have not changed to\njustify Council making the proposed amendments: Joe Loparo, Alameda.\nStated any city that has implemented rent control has lost up to 20% of the rental units\non the market; Alameda will lose more rental housing because the amendments will\ncause landlords to sell their properties: Eric Grunseth, Alameda.\nSubmitted information; stated the amendments to Ordinance 3148 transform Measure\nL1, which was passed by voters: Alan Teague, Alameda.\nUrged Council to consider working together to protect all Alamedans, not just one\ngroup; stated votes show that many Alamedans do not want rent control: Lori Moe,\nAlamedans for Better Rent Control.\nExpressed concern for no cause evictions; stated tenants do not bring up necessary\nrepairs for fear of being evicted: Eric Strimling, ARC.\nStated that he does not support the current amendments to Ordinance 3148: Carl\nSearway, Alameda.\nStated the current amendments turn Measure L1 into Measure M1; the voters passed\nMeasure L1: Dennis Cox, Alameda.\nStated that he represents several tenants from 1602 Sherman Street; the building\nconditions are unsafe and unacceptable; tenants are being harassed by the landlord:\nBrad Hirn, ARC.\nStated that she was evicted from her apartment for no cause; she would like her case\nreviewed; she submitted paperwork to the Housing Authority: Maria Neri.\nStated that she faces health issues because of a negligent landlord; she received an\n11% rent increase with no notification of a Rent Review Advisory Committee (RRAC)\nhearing; requested a meeting with the City, the Housing Authority, the tenants of the\nbuilding and the landlord to ensure the apartment complex is up to Code: Crystal Chan,\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n13\nMay 16, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-05-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-05-16", "page": 14, "text": "Alameda.\nStated that he received a no cause eviction notice from his landlord; requested the City\nto intervene; stated the tenants in his building are being harassed by the landlord:\nRommel Laguardia, Alameda.\nStated that he lives in Bayview Apartments; he was served with a 60 day notice to\nvacate; no cause eviction is not fair: Christian Munoz, Alameda.\nStated Council can help the vulnerable community and working class feel secure and\nknow they have a place to call home; just cause eviction is justice: Mariele Dacaron,\nFilipinos Advocates for Justice and Bayanihan Youth Group.\nSubmitted information; urged Council to end no cause evictions: Fred Pinguel, Filipinos\nAdvocates for Justice.\nStated tenants are afraid to show up for fear of retaliation; no cause evictions cause fear\nin tenants: Lester Dixon, Alameda.\nUrged Council to pass just cause eviction and protect vulnerable community members;\nstated RRAC hearings should be more meaningful and more equal for renters and\ntenants: Carrie Rosenbam, Alameda.\nSubmitted information; read a letter from a co-tenant, Mrs. Brown; urged Council to\nfactor in small landlords who will have difficulties paying relocation fees; stated tenants\nlive in fear of no cause evictions: John McKean, Alameda.\nStated that she strongly supports just cause eviction: Toni Grimm, Alameda.\nStated that she supports just cause evictions; many people have had to move out of\nAlameda due to no cause evictions: Jenya Cassidy, Alameda.\nStated that she would not appear before the RRAC for fear that her personal\ninformation will be made public; she lives in fear that she will be given a notice of\neviction: Mari Perez-Ruiz, ARC.\nUrged Council to support vulnerable community members; eliminating no cause eviction\nwill bring justice to Alameda: Austin Tam, Alameda.\nUrged Council to pass just cause protections: Maria Dominguez, ARC.\nUrged Council to allow Ordinance 3148 to have a full year to see what does and does\nnot work; stated more data is needed to assure the RRAC works effectively: Marilyn\nSchumacher, Alameda.\nStated tenants are afraid of no cause evictions; Council has the opportunity to assure\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n14\nMay 16, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-05-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-05-16", "page": 15, "text": "tenants do not feel like less simply because they do not own property: Jeanne Nader,\nAlameda.\nStated her voice as a landlord also need to be heard, not only the voices of the tenants:\nDometer Lamb, Alameda.\nStated that he lives in fear of no cause evictions; he feels like a second class citizen as\na renter; Measures M1 and L1 were confusing to voters: Matt Langwerowski, Alameda.\n***\n(17-326) Mayor Spencer stated a motion is needed to consider the referral [paragraph\nno. 17-328].\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of hearing the remaining item.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would not support the motion.\nMayor Spencer seconded the motion, which requires four affirmative votes, which\nFAILED by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Matarrese, Vella and Mayor\nSpencer - 3. Noes: Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft and Oddie - 2.\nStated Ordinance 3148 is working; the amendments are too strict; tenants with issues\nshould be allowed to meet with the RRAC immediately; the Council needs to come up\nwith a solution for everyone, not only one side: Lester Cabral, Alameda.\nStated the RRAC process works well; just cause evictions are not fair for housing\nproviders: Eunice Edwards, Alameda.\nStated just cause evictions make it difficult to evict problem tenants; the majority of\nvoters voted for Measure M1; Ordinance 3148 is working: Malcolm Lee, Alameda.\nStated just cause evictions will cause problems for small mom and pop landlords; he is\nalso a minority and has worked hard to become a landlord: Daniel Lee, Alameda.\nStated the voters of Alameda voted for Measure L1 by an overwhelming margin;\nOrdinance 3148 has not been given a chance to work: Tony Charret, Alameda.\nUrged the landlords and tenants to listen to the other side; stated Council should vote\nbearing in mind the children that are involved: Nghi Lam, Alameda.\nStated that she voted for Measure L1; good landlords are being punished because of a\nfew bad landlords: Karen Bey, Alameda.\nStated there are already plenty of tenant protections in place; the eviction process is\ndifficult: Chunchi Ma.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n15\nMay 16, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-05-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-05-16", "page": 16, "text": "Stated there is fear among renters; he is a coach at the local high school and sees fear\nin children; urged Council to see what just cause will do for the vulnerable people of the\ncommunity: Nelson Layag, Alameda.\nStated rent control has not worked in other cities; rents will only increase with the\namendments to Ordinance 3148: Jose Cerda-Zeen, Alameda.\nStated that she fears her involvement in renters rights will jeopardize her housing\nsecurity; urged Council to protect the most vulnerable citizens: Julie, Alameda.\n***\nMayor Spencer called a recess at 10:53 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 11:00 p.m.\n***\n***\n(17-327) Mayor Spencer stated a motion is needed to continue the meeting past 11:00\np.m.\nVice Mayor Vella moved approval of continuing the meeting.\nCouncilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated the issue is very emotional on both sides; families are still\nbeing faced with losing their homes; landlords and tenants will never be on equal\nfooting, which is the reason for additional renter protections; Measure M1 had some\nvery controversial provisions; he would rather be on the side of justice than the side of\npopularity by implementing just cause evictions; stated none of the data shows tenants\nwere evicted for dealing drugs; suggested the landlord community develop a trust fund\nto help other landlords; stated everyone deserves due process; property owners may\nown the properties, but they are people's homes and Council has a right to protect\npeople's homes.\nCouncilmember Oddie moved introduction of the ordinance with just cause provisions.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated people cannot afford to live in Alameda; the\nCouncil has the right to make amendments to the ordinance; the impact to renters is\ngreater with no cause evictions; urged landlords to give the amendments a chance to\nwork; stated that she supports the ordinance with the amendments; tenants and\nlandlords should sit down together and discuss solutions; there needs to be more\nprotections for tenants.\nMayor Spencer stated the amendments will be the detriment to the long term health of\nthe community; the result will be fewer housing units and more conversions of\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n16\nMay 16, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-05-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-05-16", "page": 17, "text": "Victorians; she supported Measure L1 to promote a balanced community; if mom and\npop landlords get out of the rental market, more corporate landlords will come in and the\nresult will be worse for renters; the data does not support the change; as a renter, she is\nconcerned about the unintended consequences.\nVice Mayor Vella stated a number of provisions already in the ordinance are exempted\nfrom the just cause provision; Ordinance 3148 has been in place and tenants are still\ngoing through evictions; in many ways, Ordinance 3148 is not working because\nevictions are still happening; Council taking action is important; rent control and just\ncause eviction are two different things; the amendments to the ordinance do not make it\nstrict rent control.\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, with amendments: 1) she would like staff to\npresent language as to units being withdrawn from the market, Ellis Act language, 2)\nshe would like to hire a consultant for an in depth analysis to have more holistic\nfeedback and analyze the data, 3) to remove Subsection A, relative to the just cause\nevictions, should include the 470 Central Avenue tenants.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification on the first amendment regarding\nthe Ellis Act.\nVice Mayor Vella responded that she would like to include language for instances in\nwhich rental units are being permanently withdrawn from the market.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Vice Mayor Vella is requesting staff to\ngather data and return to Council or add another amendment; stated that she does not\nsupport another change to the ordinance that Council has not discussed.\nThe City Manager stated Vice Mayor Vella is requesting staff return with the pros and\ncons.\nVice Mayor Vella stated staff should also return with potential language.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if the reason for the potential language is to\nhave a cost imposed on a potential landlord who withdraws from the rental market.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded an Ellis Act Policy provides a lengthier notice\nbefore the tenants have to leave if the tenant is older, disabled or has children; stated\nstaff would return to Council with language.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the issue needs to be studied before language is\nadded.\nVice Mayor Vella stated that she is requesting information on an Ellis Act policy.\nThe Community Development Director stated if Council is interested in an Ellis Act\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n17\nMay 16, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-05-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-05-16", "page": 18, "text": "policy, it would not be an amendment to the ordinance; the ordinance has provisions\nthat say policies can be adopted that further implement the intent of the ordinance.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired what the City can do about the living conditions of\ncertain properties and the harassment at 470 Central Avenue; stated the activities are\ncriminal and the City has an obligation to ensure people are being housed safely; he\nwould like the City Manager to report back on addressing the testimonies that people\nare being threatened; stated he is unclear why when there is a fixed-term lease which\nthe tenant would like to extend beyond the fixed-term, the landlord can increase the rent\nhigher than 5% and the parties do not need to appear before the RRAC; he would like\nthere to be a revision to ensure the intent matches the interpretation of the law.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded that one of the amendments does so.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated there should be a mediation process prior to a just\ncause eviction; he has been told by the Assistant City Attorney there is no way to legally\ndo mediation; he does not believe the amendments serve the long term interest of the\nCity; the price of relieving the fear is that owners will get out of the rental market; there\nshould be an exemption for owners with less than 10 units with stipulation that everyone\nhas to record why a tenant is evicted; data needs to be gathered and evaluated.\nCouncilmember Oddie requested language that would bulletproof for the 470 Central\nAvenue tenants.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated language could be added to read: \"in addition to any\nsubstantive provisions of this ordinance, the effect of this ordinance shall render null\nand void any action that a landlord has taken between May 3, 2017 and the effective\ndate of this ordinance to terminate any tenancy, including but not limited to, serving any\nnotice to quit or other eviction notice, bringing an action to recover possession of a\nRental Unit, or being granted possession of a Rental Unit, based on Section 6-58.140.A\nof Ordinance No. 3148.\"\nMayor Spencer requested clarification for the reason for the May 3, 2017.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded May 3, 2017 is the date the notices to vacate\nwere served on the 470 Central Avenue tenants.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the date is going to be considered\narbitrary.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded staff tried to arrive at a date that would be\nappealing to Council.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft expressed concern over the legislation appearing to be\ndirected towards a particular party.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n18\nMay 16, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-05-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-05-16", "page": 19, "text": "The Assistant City Attorney stated staff heard a particular concern from Council and\naddressed said concern.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the language would be upheld in court.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded staff believes the provision is not without legal\nrisk but is defensible and will preclude the evictions from moving forward.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired what can be done about the harassment of 470\nCentral Avenue tenants.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded staff will look into the matter and report back to\nCouncil.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether the language can read any 60 day notice that\nexpires on or after June 6th, which would be less specific to one particular group.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded the 60 day notice to vacate will not expire until\nJuly 3rd; inquired what the June 6th date refers to.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated June 6th is the second reading of the ordinance; the date\nwould be going forward instead of backwards.\nThe City Attorney stated the June 6th date would go back to April and add additional\nparties.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether language could be added to allow a tenant\nunder a fixed-term lease to receive first right of refusal or the opportunity to take a rent\nincrease to the RRAC.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded he is unaware of any law or ordinance the\nCouncil could adopt that would require the landlord to offer a new lease to a tenant\nwhose lease has expired.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether a landlord could call any lease a temporary\nlease and not fall under the 5% rent increase limit or have to pay relocation.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded a temporary tenancy has been addressed in the\namendments; landlords can enter into a one year fixed-term lease and not have to pay\nrelocation benefits.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired how tenants know if a one year lease will protect them\nor if they are eligible for relocation fees.\nThe Community Development Director responded the ordinance amendments make a\ndistinction between a temporary tenancy and a fixed-term lease and contain language\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n19\nMay 16, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-05-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-05-16", "page": 20, "text": "to address fixed-term leases.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Oddie stated that he accepts the amendment to the\nmotion regarding an in depth analysis; he would also be open to hearing the language\nfor an Ellis Act policy.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated both landlords and tenants need to be considered;\nshe believes landlords need to be given an opportunity to adjust to the current changes\nbefore adding more; she would like to work with the community and have landlords and\ntenants come together to discuss options.\nVice Mayor Vella stated other cities have adopted Ellis Act policies and she would like\nto hear options; she is concerned about closing a loophole; she heard staff recommend\nlooking into the Ellis Act policy due to adding a just cause provision.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated Alameda is unique and the City has done a good\njob with Ordinance 3148; she would like to wait to see how the current amendments\nwork.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he agrees with Councilmember Matarrese's\nsuggestion to gather data on all evictions to see if provisions are needed.\nThe Community Development Director stated reporting is not required on for cause\nevictions; data is only collected for owner move-ins, withdrawing from the rental\nbusiness and previously for no cause evictions; further stated taking on for cause\nevictions would be a large effort; there is a cost associated with gathering data.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he would like information on the reason for the for\ncause evictions due to the abuse by large building owners; he would like mandated\noversite to gather the data to know if there needs to be a next step.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the problem is not only large building landlords;\nshe would like to have a discussion with landlords and tenants; she would like collection\nof data prior to any exemptions being added.\nMayor Spencer inquired if a motion is made, can other provisions be reviewed at a later\ndate.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated his motion is to accept staff recommendation and add the\njust cause provisions, the May 3rd provision and the in depth analysis.\nThe City Attorney inquired whether Councilmember Oddie accepted the friendly\namendment to the motion.\nCouncilmember Oddie repeated his motion to accept the staff recommendation of the\namendments [introduce the ordinance], add the just cause provisions and the two\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n20\nMay 16, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-05-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-05-16", "page": 21, "text": "friendly amendments: to add the May 3, 2017 provision and the in depth analysis that\nVice Mayor Vella suggested.\nThe City Attorney inquired what the in depth analysis is pertaining to, to which Vice\nMayor Vella responded there are numerous instances listed in the staff report that still\nneed to be reviewed; she would also like a report back in one year; the data needs to be\ncollected and a consultant hired to provide a report on the activity in one year.\nThe City Manager stated data is not collected on just cause evictions.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated he is fine with data being collected only for owner move-\nins and withdrawing from the rental business.\nThe City Attorney inquired whether the request for data collection is part of the\nordinance or direction to staff.\nVice Mayor Vella responded the request for data collection was previously made in the\nApril meeting.\nThe Community Development Director inquired whether Council is requesting a more\nrobust study to assess and track changes in the rental market so that when the\nordinance is set to sunset in 2019, there is more data showing the impact of the\nordinance.\nCouncil concurred.\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether Council would agree with adding the exemption for in-\nlaw units.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft responded in the negative; inquired whether accessory\nunits are included.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded a permitted accessory unity is considered part of\na single-family residence and not subject to rent control provisions.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the accessory units are included for\neviction protections, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative;\nstated if the unit is a non-permitted second unit, the unit will be considered a duplex and\nbe subject to the rent control provisions.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he does not agree with the provision; Council was\npreviously told the accessory units were included as a typo and were taken out.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded as long as the units are permitted, accessory\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n21\nMay 16, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-05-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-05-16", "page": 22, "text": "units they are not subject to the rent control provisions.\nThe Community Development Director stated accessory dwellings are covered by the\nordinance; inquired whether Mayor Spencer is requesting accessory dwellings not be\nsubject to rent control but still be under the eviction protections.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would be hesitant to add the exemption;\nshe would like staff to review the implications of adding said provision.\nMayor Spencer requested if clarification could be added regarding fixed-term leases\nand the tenant leaving voluntarily; inquired whether language needs to be added about\ntenants leaving voluntarily not being entitled to relocation benefits.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded at the end of the first fixed-term lease, the tenant\nwould not be entitled to relocation fees.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft clarified the question is regarding if the tenant were to\nleave voluntarily.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded that the end of a lease the tenant leaves, no\nnotice is required at the end of a lease.\nThe Community Development Director responded that relocation benefits are for no\nfault evictions, owner move in or withdrawing from the rental market or if a tenant enters\ninto a subsequent fixed-term lease and that lease ended.\nThe City Attorney stated the question is if the tenant decides to leave, not the landlord\nmaking the tenant leave.\nThe Community Development Director responded in the event that the tenant decides to\nleave, they are not being terminated.\nMayor Spencer stated that she would like to add language to clarify if a tenant laves\nvoluntarily, relocation benefits are not needed.\nCouncil and staff concurred.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether a landlord has to pay relocation benefits in the event of\na natural disaster.\nThe Community Development Director responded in the affirmative; stated in the event\nof a governmental order to vacate, relocation benefits need to be paid to a tenant; staff\nis requesting to have the language remain until staff can return with new language.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:\nCouncilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Oddie and Vella - 3. Noes: Councilmember Matarrese\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n22\nMay 16, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-05-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-05-16", "page": 23, "text": "and Mayor Spencer - 2.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\n(17-328) Consider Directing Staff to Create a \"Straws on Request\" Ordinance. Not\nheard.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 12:38 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\n23\nMay 16, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-05-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-05-16", "page": 24, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY-MAY - 16, 2017- -5:00 P.M.\nMayor Spencer convened the meeting at 5:00 p.m.\nRoll Call -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie, Vella and\nMayor Spencer - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nPublic Comment\nThe meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(17-302) Conference with Real Property Negotiators (54956.8); Property: Chuck Corica\nGolf Complex, 1 Clubhouse Memorial Road, Alameda, CA 94502; City Negotiator: Jill\nKeimach, City Manager and Amy Wooldridge, Recreation and Parks Director;\nOrganizations Represented: Greenway Golf Associates, Inc. Issue Under Negotiation:\nReal Property Negotiations Price and Term of Payment\n(17-303) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation Significant Exposure to\nLitigation Pursuant to Subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9 of the Government code\nNumber of Cases: One (As Defendant - City Exposure to Legal Action).\n(17-304) Public Employee Performance Evaluation Pursuant to Government Code \u00a7\n54957 Positions Evaluated: City Manager - Jill Keimach, City Attorney - Janet Kern and\nCity Clerk - Lara Weisiger\nFollowing the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Spencer\nannounced that regarding Real Property, discussion was deferred to allow staff to\nobtain additional information and direction was given to staff; regarding Anticipated\nLitigation and Performance Evaluation, direction was given to staff.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 6:46 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 16, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-05-16.pdf"}