{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-06-06", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- -JUNE 6, 2017- -4:00 P.M.\nMayor Spencer convened the meeting at 4:01 p.m.\nRoll Call -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie, Vella and\nMayor Spencer - 5.\n[Note: Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft arrived at 4:04 p.m.]\nAbsent:\nNone.\nPublic Comment\nStated the matter should be addressed in open session; discussed proposed\namendments to the lease, including drainage improvements: Beverly Blatt, Golf\nCommission.\nStated the Golf Commission unanimously supports improving the North Course;\ndiscussed drainage and irrigation issues: Ed Downing, Alameda.\nRead and submitted comments on behalf of Jane Sullwold: Robert Sullwold, Alameda.\nExpressed support for Greenway Golf and Golf Course improvements: Bill Schmitz,\nAlameda.\nProvided a history of the golf course; stated the public supports renewing the North\nCourse; urged the matter be addressed in open session: Joe Van Winkle, Alameda.\nExpressed support for Greenway; noted increasing costs will cause the operator to pass\ncosts on to players and the majority are senior citizens: Mark Swartz, Alameda.\nProvided a history of Golf Course projects, expenses and Greenway Golf: Bob Wood,\nAlameda.\nThe meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(17-331) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (Pursuant to Government\nCode \u00a7 54956.9); Case Name: Rodriguez, Michael V. City of Alameda, et al.; Court:\nUnited States District Court, Northern District of California; Case Numbers: C14-02075.\n(17-332) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Initiation of Litigation\nPursuant to Subdivision (c) of Section 54956.9 of the Government Code; Number of\nCases: three (As Plaintiff - City Initiating Legal Action).\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJune 6, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-06-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-06-06", "page": 2, "text": "(17-333) Conference with Real Property Negotiators - (54956.8); Property: Chuck\nCorica Golf Complex, 1 Clubhouse Memorial Road, Alameda, CA 94502; City\nNegotiator: Jill Keimach, City Manager and Amy Wooldridge, Recreation and Parks\nDirector; Organizations Represented: Greenway Golf Associates, Inc.; Issue under\nNegotiation: Real Property Negotiations Price and Terms of Payment.\n(17-334) Public Employee Performance Evaluation; Pursuant to Government Code \u00a7\n54957; Positions Evaluated: City Manager - Jill Keimach, City Attorney - Janet Kern\nand City Clerk - Lara Weisiger.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Spencer\nannounced that regarding Existing Litigation direction was given to staff; regarding\nAnticipated Litigation direction was given to staff on unlawful detainer action and\nprocess in the future; regarding Real Property direction was given to staff; and\nregarding Performance Evaluation the matter was discussed.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 6:00 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\nJune 6, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-06-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-06-06", "page": 3, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -JUNE 6, 2017- -6:00 P.M.\nMayor Spencer convened the meeting at 6:06 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie,\nVella and Mayor Spencer - 5.\n[Note: Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft arrived at 6:08 p.m.]\nAbsent:\nNone.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS\n(17-335) Alan Teague, Alameda, expressed concern over having multiple actions under\nthe rent item [paragraph no. 17-351 on the regular meeting.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(17-336) Study Session to Consider Establishing Mixed Use (MX) Zoning District\nGuidelines;\n(17-336A) Adoption of Resolution Adopting Policies Regarding Development of Master\nPlans and Amendments to Master Plans for New Development within the MX Mixed\nUse Zoning District. Not adopted.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director gave a Power Point presentation.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether Council could adopt the resolution tonight.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director responded in the affirmative; stated\nCouncil would be giving direction to staff to set the expectations for future Master Plans.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the resolution would be effective immediately, to which\nthe Assistant Community Development Director responded in the affirmative; stated if\nCouncil would prefer the policies be adopted into the Municipal Code as Zoning Text\nAmendment (ZTA), staff would need to take the matter to the Planning Board and return\nto Council at a later date.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether one option is better than the other.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director responded the matter is the discretion\nof the Council; stated the previous input from Council has influenced the four major\nprojects, which will come to Council at a future date.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether there is a third option of doing nothing.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nJune 6, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-06-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-06-06", "page": 4, "text": "The Assistant Community Development Director responded in the affirmative; stated the\nprojects have been shaped around the objectives from Council; Council can further\nadjust the objectives.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether the projects will continue if Council does not do\nanything tonight and whether the projects continue to go forward with community input,\nto which the Assistant Community Development Director responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether the Tidelands project will go forward.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director responded in the affirmative; stated\nhousing cannot be done on Tidelands property per State law; only maritime uses.\nMayor Spencer expressed concern in the event of leaving someone with a property\nadjacent to the Tidelands; inquired whether the ..property adjacent to \" language\nrefers to the Tidelands law or staff's direction.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director responded the language regarding\nadjacent property is from staff; stated the concern is to ensure Tidelands and adjacent\nuses are compatible.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the language, adjacent to, means encompassed in the\nsame parcel, or adjacent parcels.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director responded encompassed in the same\nparcel.\nMayor Spencer stated the language needs to be clear.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director responded in Tidelands properties are\nalways on a particular parcel due to the compatibility factor.\nMayor Spencer stated she thought that once a project has been submitted, giving new\ndirection is not appropriate.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director stated staff is providing Council an\nopportunity to evaluate the direction of the projects.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether the guidelines would apply to the projects listed.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director responded the Council direction has\nbeen used to shape the projects; if the policy is adopted tonight, the direction will not\nchange because staff is currently following Council's previous direction.\nMayor Spencer inquired why Council is being asked to adopt the policies if they are\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nJune 6, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-06-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-06-06", "page": 5, "text": "already being used.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director responded Council requested staff to\nlook into MX Zoning District.\nThe City Manager stated staff received Council input at a previous meeting and the\nmeeting was stopped prior to a final vote; staff was influenced by Council direction.\nIn response to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry regarding transportation shuttles,\nthe Assistant Community Development Director stated staff is working with the\nTransportation Management Association (TMA) and Alameda-Contra Costa Transit\nDistrict (AC Transit) to create Citywide partnerships, as well as working with developers\nto try to create an estuary water shuttle system.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether a resolution or a workshop is typically done to obtain\nCouncil direction.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director responded in some cases, Council\nprovides verbal direction; stated in other cases, an ordinance is done to set a standard\nfor future projects.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether a workshop scenario has been done in the past.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director responded a workshop was held\nregarding the Harbor Bay Sports Club.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether workshops have been done for particular projects, to\nwhich the Assistant Community Development Director responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether Council can give direction in a resolution or ordinance\nif an application is pending.\nThe City Attorney responded staff is requesting policy direction regarding MX zoning,\nwhich has a lot of flexibility; stated staff wants to determine if projects are on the right\ntrack from a policy perspective, not individual projects, and what parameters Council is\nlooking for with MX zoning; if Council wants to modify the zoning, that would require an\nordinance be drafted and the matter would go to the Planning Board then return to\nCouncil at a later date.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired how many votes zoning decisions require.\nThe City Attorney responded that zoning decisions require three votes; stated individual\nprojects with City land involved require four votes; zoning amendments require three\nvotes.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether Council direction applies to current projects.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nJune 6, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-06-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-06-06", "page": 6, "text": "The City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated until a City project has been\napproved, Council can make on policy changes.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated Council has passed other policy changes with existing\nprojects in the pipeline; policy changes are general rules for MX zoning, not project\nspecific.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director stated Council could adopt policy to\nensure staff follows the guidelines.\nExpressed support for keeping the MX zoning flexible: Angela Hockabout, Alameda\nHome Team.\nSubmitted information; showed Alameda Marina; expressed concern over losing the\nboatyard: Nancy Hird, Save Alameda's Working Waterfront (SAWW).\nDiscussed revenue possibilities that could come from maritime activities: Liz Taylor,\nDeep Ocean Exploration and Research (DOER) Marine.\nUrged Council to include the environment in any regulations: Patricia Potter, Alameda.\nExpressed support for only changing regulations to increase jobs: Michael McDonough,\nChamber of Commerce.\nDiscussed jobs versus housing; expressed concern over reducing the size of\nbusinesses reducing jobs: Rick Drain, Alameda.\nOutlined his sailing experience; expressed concern over many boats moving to Point\nRichmond: Karl Robrock, Alameda.\nDiscussed the importance of and need for dry boat storage facilities: Kevin Durant,\nAlameda.\nExpressed support for sailing and maritime businesses; urged rowing facilities being\ncreated; stated new development should promote ecology: Sylvia Gibson, Community\nAction for a Sustainable Alameda (CASA).\nSubmitted and showed a brief Power Point presentation: Bob Naber.\n***\nMayor Spencer called a recess at 6:57 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 7:13 p.m.\n***\nStated through Planning Board meetings, the developer has enhanced the sites by\nlistening to the requests from the community and staff; affordable housing and traffic\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nJune 6, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-06-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-06-06", "page": 7, "text": "issues are a top concern for the community; Encinal Terminals is a blank slate and the\ndeveloper plans to create a Master Plan that is public space oriented: Mike O'Hara, Tim\nLewis Communities.\nExpressed concerns about displacement and the housing crisis; stated job growth\nwithout additional housing is an issue in the Bay Area: Laura Thomas, Renewed Hope.\nExpressed concerns about the percentage of mixed use housing being built; stated an\nimpartial study should be conducted and funded by the developer; so much market rate\nhousing is being built there will be no room for affordable housing: Paul Foreman,\nAlameda.\nExpressed concerns with congestion caused by the increase in housing proposals;\nstated many of the maritime use tenants will be evicted: Peter Brand, Alameda.\nStated that he supports building housing; access to the waterfront is essential for\nmaritime use: Dave Wilhite, Berkeley.\nStated there is currently a job/housing imbalance; urged Council not to adopt the\nguidelines and uphold the existing MX zoning ordinance: Kari Thompson, Chamber of\nCommerce.\nExpressed concern with the loss of dry storage: Paul Mueller, Oakland.\nSuggested increasing affordable housing from 10% to 30%: Pat Lamborn, Alameda.\nStated there is a housing crisis in Alameda; encouraged Council to think about green\nenergy: Omar Ely.\nStated the City needs to conduct an independent review to justify increasing the\nhousing above 50%: Gretchen Lipow, Alameda.\nExpressed concerns with not enough retail space in the MX guidelines; encouraged\nCouncil to enhance transit to coincide with the housing being built: Karen Bey, Alameda.\nExpressed support for more market rate housing; encouraged Council to not encumber\nthe process: Brian McGuire, Alameda.\nUrged Council to keep the boats on the Alameda Marina; stated coastal resources\nshould not be taken and turned into housing; suggested using a percentage of boat\nproperty tax for marina infrastructure: Maggie Sabovich, Recreational Boaters of\nCalifornia.\nStated an assisted living facility needs to be built for seniors; urged Council to bring\nmore jobs and work-force housing: Janet Gibson, Alameda.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nJune 6, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-06-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-06-06", "page": 8, "text": "Councilmember Matarrese stated land use and building related referrals are the\npeople's business and need to allow input; he is ready to approve a resolution; the\nresolution allows for flexibility and the ability to be amended once the projects show\nresults; then, the policy can be codified into an ordinance if effective.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would prefer more environmental issues\nbe addressed in the planning process; Alameda needs to preserve jobs and create\nhousing; she will not add another layer of administrative requirements on the already\nburdened staff.\nVice Mayor Vella stated that she is disappointed only one hour was allotted for the\ndiscussion with the amount of speakers that are present at the meeting; she would\nprefer to see a study session on all the pending Council directives; the output that the\nCity wants is already occurring, so codifying policies does not need to happen; she is\nnot inclined to add another layer of bureaucracy to the process.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated there should not be one size fits all development; he\nbelieves the process for planning is robust and allows the community to provide input;\nthere is a need to protect and maintain maritime jobs; there is an affordable housing\ncrisis in Alameda; if the City puts up road blocks to housing, the State will take away\nlocal control, which he does not want to see happen; he will not support passing a\nresolution.\nMayor Spencer stated that she has concerns about action being taken not be for\nspecific projects; inquired whether the vote tonight is to put into place policy that staff\nhas already been using as a tool for the Planning Board and developers when reviewing\nprojects in Alameda.\nThe City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the vote would be to give\ndirection on what staff is already doing in a resolution; if Council decides not to adopt\nthe resolution, staff still has Council direction; the conversation is still valuable for the\ndeveloper to hear public and staff concerns.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the direction is a tool to assist developers when they\nwork on a project in Alameda, to which the City Manager responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Spencer stated that she agrees work force housing needs to be increased.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated MX zoning is the future and policy has to be codified\nand be written down to be effective.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution to codify what is being\ndone to shape projects in MX zones.\nMayor Spencer seconded the motion, which FAILED by the following voice vote: Ayes:\nCouncilmember Matarrese and Mayor Spencer - 2. Noes: Councilmembers Ezzy\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nJune 6, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-06-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-06-06", "page": 9, "text": "Ashcraft, Oddie and Vella - 3.\nThe City Manager noted that Vice Mayor Vella expressed concerns regarding second\nunits and not having affordable housing; stated the universal design ordinance has been\ndrafted and addresses second units, inclusionary housing and affordable housing; the\nordinance will come to Council in July and September.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 8:18 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\n7\nJune 6, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-06-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-06-06", "page": 10, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -JUNE 6, 2017- -7:00 P.M.\nMayor Spencer convened the meeting at 8:30 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(17-337) Mayor Spencer stated the agenda indicated the joint meeting would be heard\nafter the rent item [paragraph no 17-351], but she would like to hear the full regular\nmeeting before the joint meeting.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft suggested keeping the agenda as written to hear the\nbudget [paragraph no 17-368 on the joint meeting.\nMayor Spencer stated there are a lot of speakers for the cannabis referral [paragraph\nno 17-360]; proposed changing the order.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the budget is more important than the referral; there is\nalready Council direction on the referral; a similar referral was given a medium priority\non the priority setting session; he would prefer hearing the budget before the referral.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the budget needs to be heard, to which the City\nManager responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with Councilmember Matarrese.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of keeping the agenda as written\nhearing the Successor Agency to the Community Improvement Commission (SACIC)\nmeeting after the rent item.\nCouncilmember Matarrase seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Vice Mayor Vella stated that she concurs with Councilmember's\nMatarrase and Ezzy Ashcraft; noted that the transportation referral [paragraph no 17-\n361 has been withdrawn.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether Council should still hear the cannabis referral tonight\nor continue the matter to the next Council meeting.\nThe City Manager responded a cannabis referral is already scheduled for the second\nmeeting of July; response to the previous referral will be heard the first meeting in\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nJune 6, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-06-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-06-06", "page": 11, "text": "September if the matter is pushed due to a full agenda.\nMayor Spencer stated Council did not give clear direction on the matter; before the\nmatter returns to Council, she would like to know whether a majority of Council supports\nhaving cannabis dispensaries in town.\nCouncilmember Oddie moved to call question.\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion to call the question, which carried by the\nfollowing voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie and Vella\n- 4. Noes: Mayor Spencer - 1.\nOn the call for the question regarding the original motion on the order of hearing agenda\nitems, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Ezzy\nAshcraft, Matarrese, Oddie and Vella - 4. Noes: Mayor Spencer - 1.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(17-338) Proclamation Declaring June 2017 as Elder Abuse Awareness Month.\nMayor Spencer read the proclamation and presented it to Dena Aindow, District\nAttorney's Office, and Colette Lee, Adult Protective Services.\n(17-339) Proclamation Declaring June 2017 as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual Transgender\nand Questioning (LGBTQ) Pride Month.\nMayor Spencer read the proclamation.\nMembers of the LGBTQ Round Table Gene Kahane, Olivia Higgins, and Laura Rose\nmade brief comments and did not accept the proclamation.\nMayor Spencer presented the proclamation to members of the public who made brief\ncomments which were not captured by the microphone.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(17-340) lulia Moldovan expressed concerns over the different hate crimes going on\naround the world; stated Alameda values love, inclusiveness, compassion and non-\nviolence; requested a moment of silence for lives lost.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor Spencer announced that the Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) Agreement\n[paragraph no. 17-345 and the Rent Services Agreement [paragraph no. 17-351 were\nremoved from the Consent Calendar for discussion.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nJune 6, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-06-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-06-06", "page": 12, "text": "Councilmember Matarrese recused himself from voting on the sewer pump station\nresolutions [paragraph no. 17-344 and [paragraph no 17-344 A].\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(*17-341) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings Held on May 2,\n2017. Approved.\n(*17-342) Ratified bills in the amount of $2,428,640.02.\n(*17-343) Resolution No. 15266, \"Authorizing the Filing of Applications for Funding\nAssigned to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Committing Any Necessary\nLocal Matching Funds and Stating Assurance to Complete the Central and Clement\nAvenue Complete Street Projects and the Citywide Resurfacing Project.' Adopted.\n(*17-344) Resolution No. 15267, \"Accepting a Grant of Easement to the City of Alameda\nfrom the First 5 Alameda County for a Sewer Pump Station and Related Public Utility\nPurposes Located within Lot 1 of Parcel Map 5435 and Directing the Recording of the\nGrant of Easements.\" Adopted; and\n(*17-344A) Resolution No. 15268, \"Accepting a Grant of Easement to the City of\nAlameda from the Seastrand Owners Association for a Sewer Pump Station and\nRelated Public Utility Purposes Located within Lot A of Tract 4382 and Directing the\nRecording of the Grant of Easements.' Adopted.\n[Note: Councilmember Matarrese recused himself.]\n(17-345) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Gas Service\nOperations and Maintenance Agreement with PG&E at Alameda Point.\nThe Base Reuse Director gave a brief presentation; requested Council authorize the\nCity Manager to make changes to Exhibit E.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of authorizing up to $10,000 in additional\nfunding over the budget and approve the agreement with PG&E.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice\nvote 5\n(*17-346) Recommendation to Award a Contract in the Amount of $165,636 Including\nContingencies to MV Transportation, Inc. for the Operation of the Alameda Paratransit\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nJune 6, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-06-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-06-06", "page": 13, "text": "Shuttle (Alameda Loop Shuttle). Accepted.\n(*17-347) Resolution No. 15269 \"Authorizing the City Manager to Submit a Request to\nthe Metropolitan Transportation Commission for the Allocation of $222,279 in Fiscal\nYear 2017-2018 for the Cross Alameda Trail Project Between Main Street and\nConstitution Way per Transportation Development Act Article 3 for Pedestrian/Bicycle\nProject Funding and to Execute All Necessary Documents.' Adopted.\n(*17-348) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Water\nInfrastructure Agreement for Alameda Point with East Bay Municipal Utility District\n(EBMUD) to: (1) Address the Implementation of New Water Infrastructure in the Reuse\nArea; and (2) Extend the Existing Short-Term Maintenance and Operations Agreement\nfor the Existing Water System and (3) Accept Credits in System Capacity and\nWastewater Capacity Fees from EBMUD. Accepted.\n(*17-349) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Enter into an Agreement\nwith Roux Associates, Inc. in the Amount of up to $273,866 in Fiscal Year 2017-2018,\nRenewable Annually by the City Manager for up to Four Additional Years for a Total\nCompensation of $1,369,330 for Environmental/Hazardous Materials Consulting\nServices at Alameda Point and Various Transportation Projects. Accepted.\n(*17-350) Recommendation to Approve a Two-Year Staffing Services Agreement\nbetween the City of Alameda and the Housing Authority to Provide: 1) Housing Services\non behalf of the City, and 2) Additional Policing Services for the Housing Authority.\nAccepted.\n(17-351) Recommendation to Approve a 36-month Services Agreement between the\nCity of Alameda and the Housing Authority for $1,152,116 (Fiscal Year (FY) 2017-18,\nwith 3% Annual Adjustments for FY 2018-19 and FY 2019-20) to Administer the Rent\nReview, Rent Stabilization and Limitations on Evictions Ordinance as Amended for the\nCity of Alameda.\nExpressed concerns about the cost; urged Council to look at the agreement and cost to\nensure the public does not have to pay in the end: Alan Teague, Alameda.\nThe City Manager stated the agreement is on a reimbursement basis; the fee schedule\nis calculated using the previous year; savings would be reflected in the new fee\nschedule the following year.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the money will be paid out of the General Fund, to\nwhich the City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the matter is on the agenda\nto establish fee for each unit.\nMayor Spencer inquired how the program will be paid for if the motion fails.\nThe City Manager responded that the City has committed to implementing the rent\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nJune 6, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-06-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-06-06", "page": 14, "text": "stabilization ordinance regardless of the funding.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\n(17-352) Resolution No. 15270, \"Requesting and Authorizing the County of Alameda to\nLevy a Tax on All Real and Personal Property in the City of Alameda as a Voter\nApproved Levy for the General Obligation Bonds Issued Pursuant to a General Election\nHeld November 7, 2000 for the Alameda Library.\" Adopted.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(17-353) Introduction of Ordinance Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City\nManager to Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a Lease with\nSaildrone, Inc. a Delaware Corporation, for a Five-Year Lease with Two Five-Year\nExtension Options and a Right of First Negotiation for the Purchase of Building 12\nLocated at 1050 West Tower Avenue at Alameda Point. [In accordance with the\nCalifornia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this project is Categorically Exempt under\nthe CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(c) - Existing Facilities.] Introduced.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft gave a brief description of what Saildrone does.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved introduction of the ordinance.\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Mayor Spencer encouraged people to visit Saildrone to see their\nproducts.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(17-354) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute an Alameda\nAnimal Shelter Services Agreement and a Lease Agreement with the Friends of the\nAlameda Animal Shelter (FAAS) for an Amount Not to Exceed $804,300 in Fiscal Year\n(FY) 2018-19 with an Escalator for the Second Year, plus $45,000 for Capital\nImprovements in FY 2017-18.\nThe City Manager gave a Power Point presentation.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there is a Memorandum of\nUnderstanding (MOU) with Alameda Point Collaborative.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nJune 6, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-06-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-06-06", "page": 15, "text": "The City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated under Council directive, the\nAlameda Point Collaborative members will work with FAAS; a separate MOU, not\ninvolving the City, was done between the two organizations.\nThanked the Council and City staff for their support: John Lipp, FAAS.\nVice Mayor Vella thanked staff, Mr. Lipp and the FAAS board for working together on\nthe agreement.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated the community needs to find a way to fund a new building\nfor the shelter.\nMayor Spencer thanked the volunteers at the animal shelter; stated she would support\nimproving the facility; she will support the issue but would have supported greater\nfunding for the shelter.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of the services agreement.\nMayor Spencer seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of the lease.\nMayor Spencer seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(17-355) Recommendation to Receive the Rent Program Regulatory Fee Study;\n(17-355A) Resolution No. 15271, \"Adopting a Program Fee to Implement and\nAdminister the City's Rent Review, Rent Stabilization and Limitations on Evictions\nOrdinance, as Amended, and Implementing Policies.' Adopted; and\n(17-355B) Ordinance No. 3180, \"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 (Eliminating \"No Cause\" Ground for Eviction). Finally\npassed.\nThe Community Development Director gave a presentation, including correcting\nlanguage in Section 6-58.170.A of the ordinance to change \"need not be included\" to\nread \"shall not be included.'\nMayor Spencer inquired whether relocation fees have to be paid if a tenant voluntarily\nleaves the unit; stated the answer now seems to be different than the last meeting.\nThe Community Development Director responded if a tenant leaves at the end of a fixed\nterm lease, they are not entitled to relocation benefits; if a tenant leaves at the end of a\nsubsequent fixed term lease, they are entitled to relocation benefits.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nJune 6, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-06-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-06-06", "page": 16, "text": "Mayor Spencer inquired whether language is clear in Section 6-58.150.F; inquired\nwhether the relocation benefits apply if the tenancy is month to month.\nThe Community Development Director responded a month to month tenancy is not a\nfixed term lease.\nMayor Spencer stated the language reading \"end of a tenancy\" is confusing; inquired if\nthe tenant leaves on their own at the end of a tenancy are they entitled to relocation\nfees.\nThe Community Development Director responded in the negative; stated at the end of a\nfixed term lease, a tenant is entitled to relocation benefits; if the tenant is terminated [for\ncause] they are not entitled to relocation benefits.\nMayor Spencer stated the wording needs to be clarified; the ordinance reads \" fixed\nterm lease or otherwise;\" the word otherwise is not clear.\nThe Community Development Director responded the intent is at the end of a\nsubsequent lease, the tenant is entitled to relocation benefits; when a tenant converts to\nmonth to month, they are only entitled to relocation benefits for an owner move in or the\nEllis Act.\nMayor Spencer stated \" or otherwise\" is confusing.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired what is \" or otherwise\" referring to.\nThe City Attorney responded Mayor Spencer and Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft are\ncorrect and the language should clarify the relocation fees apply at the end of a\nsubsequent fixed term lease; the word \"otherwise\" should be removed.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether if the tenant leaves on their own, prior to the end of a\nfixed term lease, then other conditions apply.\nThe Community Development Director responded in the affirmative; stated a tenant is\nnot entitled to relocation benefits if they decide to leave prior to the end of a fixed term\nlease.\nMayor Spencer stated the wording needs to be clear.\nThe Community Development Director responded the City Attorney's proposed edits are\nto strike the word \"whether\" in front of \"by a subsequent lease\" and strike the word \"or\notherwise;\" the changes would result in striking three words.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the language would read \"at the end of a fixed term\ntenancy.'\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nJune 6, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-06-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-06-06", "page": 17, "text": "The City Attorney responded the last words should read, \" ..at the end of that\nsubsequent fixed term tenancy.\"\nThe Community Development Director continued the presentation regarding the\nprogram fee.\nMayor Spencer inquired how the landlord could collect the program fee if the tenant\ndoes not pay their portion.\nThe Community Development Director responded the landlord would need to take the\ntenant to small claims court; stated the landlord is obligated to pay the fee.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the program fee can be an obligation from the tenant\ndirectly to the City for the tenant half; stated the program is supposed to benefit the\nlandlord and the tenant; inquired whether both landlords and tenants can be\nindependently obligated to pay the City.\nThe Community Development Director responded other cities processes their program\nfee in the same manner; stated the request would increase costs due to increased staff\ntime.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether there is a way to have the program fee set up\nautomatically online by the administrating department.\nThe Community Development Director responded that the Finance Department will be\nin charge of billing and collection of the program fee; a new database would have to be\nset up for said request.\nThe City Manager stated there is a privacy and data collection issue with regards to the\ntenants.\nMayor Spencer inquired if the fee is $5.00 a month and the tenant does not pay the first\nmonth, what recourse does the landlord have.\nThe Community Development Director responded that the program fee of $122.00 a\nunit is the obligation of the landlord to the City; stated one half of the cost can be\npassed on to the tenant at the landlord's discretion.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired how the program fee will be billed; stated she sees a lot of\nproblems with the implementation of the program from the landlords perspective.\nThe Community Development Director responded the program fee will be billed as part\nof the business license fee; stated single family rentals that do not pay a business\nlicense fee will receive a standalone bill from the Finance Department.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nJune 6, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-06-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-06-06", "page": 18, "text": "Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if a tenant were to utilize RRAC services, would\nstaff first determine if the landlord is current in paying the program fee.\nThe Community Development Director responded that the Council could require said\ndirective in the ordinance.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether Council could consider requiring the tenant to be\ncurrent in paying the program fee.\nThe City Attorney responded the landlord is required to pay the fee to the City, not the\ntenant; stated if the landlord wants to pass on half the fee to the tenant, they can do so.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the landlord would have to give notice to the tenant\nthat they are responsible for half of the program fee.\nThe City Attorney responded that when the landlord gives notice to the tenant regarding\nthe rent amount, the amount could include up to 50% of the program fee; the fee is not\ncounted towards the 5% rent increase.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the amount would need to be paid prior to utilizing\nRRAC.\nThe City Attorney responded if the total amount of rent due is $1,200.00 and all the\ntenant pays is $1,000, then the tenant has not paid the entire rent; there is no way to\ntrack whether the fee has been paid or not since it is included in the rent.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether staff is envisioning the program fee as part of the total\nrent owed, not the total rent plus 50% of the fee.\nThe City Attorney responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the fee is not included as part of the\ncalculation of the base rent.\nThe City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated the fee is not counted in the up to\nthe 5% increase.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether a landlord adding a 50% of the fee to the 5% rent\nincrease would trigger the one time increase in 12 months.\nThe Community Development Director responded the fee would be separate from rent;\nthe City Attorney is saying the landlord could choose to include the fee as part of the\nrent.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether the landlord could implement two separate\nincreases; stated the increase would contradict the provision in the ordinance that\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nJune 6, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-06-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-06-06", "page": 19, "text": "allows for only one 5% increase in a 12 month period.\nThe City Attorney responded the landlord would decide to pass it on at the time of the\nrent increase; the cost recovery of the fee would not be a part of the 5% rent increase.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether 50% of the program fee counts as part of the 5% rent\nincrease allowable by the landlord.\nThe City Attorney responded if the landlord is going to pass on the fee to the tenant,\nthey would need to notify the tenant; stated the program fee would not count towards\nthe 5% rent increase calculation.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the tenant portion of the program fee would count as\nthe one time per year rent increase, to which the City Attorney responded in the\nnegative.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether the City views the program fee as part of a rent\nincrease relative to whether or not the landlord makes a decision to pass on the fee;\nrequested clarification whether the fee counts towards the one rent increase per 12\nmonth period and if a failure to pay would be a violation of the lease and subject to just\ncause.\nThe Community Development Director responded that landlords can add the program\nfee to the rent only once a year when the rent increase is done.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired about the failure to pay.\nThe City Attorney responded if a tenant fails to pay the full rent, it is considered failure\nto pay and can be cause for eviction.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired about a tenant not paying a fee, to which the City\nAttorney responded the landlord is responsible for paying the fee; stated the landlord\ncan then pass part of that cost on to the tenant as rent; a tenant cannot pay a portion of\nthe rent and say they are not paying the fee; they are not paying the rent.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether landlords that have done a rent increase in the last 12\nmonths would have to wait until the next 12 month period to add the fee to the tenants\nrent, to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether there could be an exception for applying the fee.\nThe City Attorney responded the resolution could be changed; stated half of the $122\nfee can be charged to the tenant; the landlord is allowed to increase the rent once in a\n12 month period.\nThe Community Development Director stated staff can report back with the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nJune 6, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-06-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-06-06", "page": 20, "text": "implementation details; recommend that the resolution be adopted now and staff return\nupon implementation of the program fee.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the program fee could be included the\nnext time a lease is renewed.\nThe Community Development Director responded the obligation to pay the fee is that of\nthe landlord.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft clarified that the question is the fee can be split between\nthe landlord and tenant, yet a rent increase is not allowed more than once in a 12 month\nperiod.\nThe Community Development Director responded the landlord would have to wait until\nthe next lease signing to pass on the fee; inquired whether the Council direction is to\nrequest the program fee be passed through the next lease term.\nMayor Spencer stated there is no Council direction, only clarifying questions.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he is unclear whether the same process is utilized in\nother cities; inquired whether a landlord could apply the fee retroactively or only going\nforward.\nThe Community Development Director responded that she is unclear about applying the\nfee retroactively; stated the landlord is obligated to pay the fee.\nThe City Attorney stated the direction could be to not allow the fee to be retroactive and\nonly allow the landlord to pass on the fee for the current year.\nThe Community Development Director stated the recommendation is to adopt the\nresolution setting the program fee; if the program fee is not adopted, annual cost of $1.6\nmillion would have to be picked up from the General Fund.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether Council would like to change the speaker time to 2\nminutes instead of 3.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft responded the topic is very important and speakers\nshould be allowed to have the full 3 minutes.\nExpressed concern with the fee study and Section 8 voucher units; requested\nclarification on the fixed term lease relocation fees: Alan Teague, Alameda.\nStated that she voted for Measure L1; relocation fees are a problem for small landlords;\npassing the ordinance will make small landlords withdraw from the rental market and\nplace a financial hardship on them: Sarah Murray, Alameda.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nJune 6, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-06-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-06-06", "page": 21, "text": "Stated the purpose of relocation fees are for a tenant who has been forced out of a unit\nby a landlord; the way the ordinance is written is not where a tenant is being forced out;\nthe ordinance violates the will of the voters; the landlords are returning the issue to the\nvoters: Greg McConnell, Alameda Housing Providers Association (AHPA).\nStated Measure L1 was passed by the voters by a large margin; adding the program fee\nto the business tax will make the difference a 500% increase; the relocation fees are too\nextreme; as a landlord, he feels he is being treated unfairly: Anthony Charvet.\nStated rent control restrictions make it difficult for landlords; the program fee is very\ndifficult to collect from the tenants: Daniel Lee.\nStated just cause evictions make it difficult for landlords to evict problem tenants:\nMalcom Lee.\nStated there are many repercussions from allowing just cause evictions: Barbara\nRasmussen.\nStated allowing just cause keeps people in the community; urged Council to pass the\nordinance: Cheri Johansen, Alameda Progressives.\nStated that he supports a referendum; the amendments will cause displacement and\nmake it difficult for small landlords: Cross Creason.\nStated Measure L is was passed by voters; voters feel they have been betrayed by\nCouncilmembers: Ron Bain, AHPA.\nUrged Council not to approve the ordinance; expressed concerns with the program fee;\nstated the fee is actually a fine to landlords: Lester Cabral, Alameda.\n***\n(17-356) Mayor Spencer stated a motion is needed to consider the remaining agenda\nitems: the joint meeting items and referrals.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of considering the joint meeting items.\nMayor Spencer moved approval of hearing all of the remaining items, which failed for a\nlack of second.\nVice Mayor Vella seconded Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's motion, which carried by\nthe following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie and\nVella - 4. Noes: Mayor Spencer - 1.\n***\nExpressed concerns with Council making amendments to the ordinance; stated the\nimpact of rent control in other cities has caused limited or unaffordable housing; the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nJune 6, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-06-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-06-06", "page": 22, "text": "amendments are a burden on small landlords: Eric Grunseth.\nFollowing brief comment regarding responding to speakers, the City Attorney noted Vice\nMayor Vella is not a landlord.\nStated the only amendment in the ordinance is changing no cause eviction to just cause\nevictions; due to Council making amendments to the ordinance, tenants can feel secure\nin their homes: Erik Strimling, Alameda Renters Coalition (ARC).\nStated there are too many changes to the rent ordinance; there is no need for radical\nrent control; the amendments to the ordinance will shrink the rental market in Alameda:\nMarilyn Schumacher, Alameda.\nStated the citizens of Alameda already voted for Measure L1; urged Council to leave the\nordinance as is: Valerie Ruma, Alameda.\nStated the citizens of Alameda voted overwhelmingly for Measure L1; just cause\nevictions will make it difficult for landlords to evict problem tenants; urged Council to not\nchange the ordinance until all the data is in: Former Councilmember Tony Daysog,\nAlameda.\nStated the elected officials are ignoring the vote of the people; her rental units are below\nmarket value; urged Council to not change the ordinance: Nancy Hird, Alameda.\nUrged Council to pass the just cause evictions; stated Alameda has racially coded\nrhetoric; many of the mailers during the election referred to M1 supporters as criminals:\nRasheed Shabazz, Alameda.\nMayor Spencer called a recess at 10:52 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 10:57 p.m.\n(17-357) Mayor Spencer stated a motion is needed to continue the meeting past 11:00\np.m.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of continuing the meeting.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded motion, which carried by the following voice\nvote: Ayes: Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie and Vella - 4. Noes:\nMayor Spencer - 1.\nUrged Council to make the program fee an even number; requested the changes be\nmade in a slow manner to allow landlords to keep their properties: Janet Gibson,\nAlameda.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n13\nJune 6, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-06-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-06-06", "page": 23, "text": "Stated that he is not in favor of the ordinance; expressed concern for the landlord\nhaving to pay relocation fees on a Governmental Order to Vacate: Carl Searway,\nAlameda.\nMayor Spencer questioned whether Council wants to make any changes to the\nlanguage other than those made earlier.\nMayor Spencer stated that she will not support changing the ordinance; Measure L1\npassed with overwhelming support; Council worked very hard to fashion an ordinance\nthat is a compromise; tenants and landlords did not receive everything they wanted;\nread the argument in favor of Measure L1; stated Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft and\nCouncilmember Oddie are refusing to honor their own words from the argument in favor\nof Measure L1.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is concerned for families with small\nchildren and seniors; she supports just cause eviction; tenants are afraid to report\nneeded repairs to landlords for fear of eviction; expressed concerns for mom and pop\nlandlords regarding relocation fees; stated that she would like to sit down with renters\nand landlords to hear from both sides; she cannot support mass evictions; inquired\nwhether the $20.00 business license fee is comparable to other cities.\nThe Community Development Director responded the fee is a tax, which is very low.\nThe Assistant City Manager noted changing the fee amount would require a vote of the\npeople.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated housing is a very important basic right; she is\nopen to suggestions from small mom and pop landlord regarding solutions on how to\naddress the relocation fees; she does not advocate for the Housing Authority formula for\ncalculating relocation fees.\nVice Mayor Vella noted she is not a landlord; stated people are protesting the relocation\nfees and relocation fees have not changed; she is confused by people trying to make\nOrdinance 3148 a Charter amendment; a Charter amendment would make the changes\nthat people are complaining about permanent; she has not heard a valid reason for a\nlandlord to evict a tenant for no cause; fear can be a weapon used to prevent tenants\nfrom coming forward with habitability issues; she would like staff to review how other\ncities are doing the program fee; she is ready to move forward with the ordinance as\namended.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the just cause eviction is a complex dynamic for\nlandlords and tenants; inquired whether Council could separate the vote on the\nordinance and the program fee; stated the program fee should be lower and an even\nnumber; he will not support the ordinance, but will support the fee; would like to review\noutcomes and be ready to make adjustments based on outcomes.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n14\nJune 6, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-06-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-06-06", "page": 24, "text": "Councilmember Oddie stated that he would like to bifurcate the vote also; even though\nhe did not vote to put Measure L1 on the ballot, he stepped up to write a professional,\neasy to understand argument for Measure L1; the ordinance has a sunset and will\neventually show if just cause and other provisions are working; he takes issue with a\nlandlord saying Alameda renters are wanna be Alamedan's; rules are there not to\npunish good landlords, but to protect tenants; tenants can still be evicted with just cause\nevictions; requested staff to develop regulations on the program fee; he supports\nadopting the amendments.\nMayor Spencer clarified to suggest that she is applying rules differently to people of\ncolor is not appropriate coming from a white man to a Mexican woman.\nCouncilmember Oddie responded Mayor Spencer allowed Robert Sullwold exceed the\ntime limit by 20 seconds.\nMayor Spencer stated she has been very fair in how she runs the Council meetings.\nCouncilmember Oddie responded that is a matter of opinion.\nMayor Spencer stated race should not be brought up.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Councilmember Matarrese has any\nsuggestions on an alternative to not give a false sense of security, to which\nCouncilmember Matarrese responded in the negative.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Councilmember Matarrese believes any\npart of San Francisco's situation stems from the percentage increase amount allowed\nfor rent control; stated San Francisco is not comparable to Alameda's ordinance.\nCouncilmember Matarrese responded Alameda is very similar to San Francisco as a\nvery desirable place to live, which drives up rents and gentrification; stated that he does\nnot have an answer but he cannot support something that has been shown not to\ndeliver what is being said it will deliver.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated San Francisco allows a very small percentage\nincrease on rent from one year to the next which is unlike what Alameda is doing.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated his comments are directed to just cause evictions.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she agrees with Councilmember Matarrese's\nsuggestion to separate the vote on the ordinance and the program fee.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of the program fee of $120.00, as\nrecommended in the staff report [adoption of the resolution] to be evaluated at the end\nof one year.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n15\nJune 6, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-06-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-06-06", "page": 25, "text": "Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by the following\nvoice vote: Ayes: Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie and Vella - 4.\nNoes: Mayor Spencer - 1.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved introduction of the ordinance adopting the rent\nstabilization and limitations on evictions, as amended, and implementing policies.\nCouncilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote:\nAyes: Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft, Oddie and Vella - 3. Noes: Councilmember\nMatarrese and Mayor Spencer - 2.\n***\nMayor Spencer called a recess at 11:48 p.m. to call the joint meeting and reconvened\nthe meeting at 12:32 a.m.\n***\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\n(17-358) The City Manager stated the referral for affordable and inclusionary housing\nwill come to Council after the Planning Board makes a recommendation; the State is\nreviewing Single Payer healthcare to meet objectives for local control and fiscal\nsustainability for rising medical costs and addressing the needs of those in need.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired when a recommendation on healthcare would come\nto Council.\nThe City Manager responded the Council already gave the staff authority to support the\nmatter.\nIn response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry about climate change, the City Manager\nstated the Mayor and the City have been asked to join the U.S. Mayor's Climate Accord;\nthe City will move forward with the Climate Action Plan regardless of what happens at\nthe federal level and the Paris accord; Mayor Spencer signed on with staff\nendorsement.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\n(17-359) Consider Directing Staff to Create a \"Straws on Request\" Ordinance. (Mayor\nSpencer) Not heard.\n(17-360) Consider Directing Staff to Propose Regulations to Authorize Convenient and\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n16\nJune 6, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-06-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-06-06", "page": 26, "text": "Safe Cannabis Businesses in Alameda. Not heard.\n(17-361) Consider Directing Staff and the Transportation Commission to Analyze Traffic\nCalming Solutions at the Intersection of Santa Clara Avenue and Sherman Street.\nWITHDRAWN. (Vice Mayor Vella)\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(17-362) Councilmember Matarrese stated that he represented Alameda in the\nAssociation of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) General Assembly; per the direction of\nCouncil, he cast a no vote against the current budget and work program; the work\nprogram did not meet the needs described in the staff report.\nMayor Spencer thanked Councilmember Matarrese for representing Council.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the ABAG Director indicated ABAG and MTC will be\nofficially merged as of July 1st; the work plans will be going through another refinement.\n(17-363) Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft announced that she attended the Alameda\nCounty Lead Abatement Meeting.\n(17-364) Consideration of Mayor's Nominations for Appointment to the Commission on\nDisability Issues, Golf Commission, Historical Advisory Board, Library Board, Planning\nBoard, Public Art Commission, Public Utilities Board (PUB), Rent Review Advisory\nCommittee (RRAC), Social Service Human Relations Board (SSHRB) and\nTransportation Commission.\nMayor Spencer nominated Ann McCormick for reappointment the PUB, Christopher\nGriffiths for reappointment to the RRAC, Sarah Murray for appointment to the RRAC,\nand Claudia Medina for appointment to the SSHRB.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 12:42 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\n17\nJune 6, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-06-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-06-06", "page": 27, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE\nCITY COUNCIL AND SUCCESSOR AGENCTY TO THE COMMUNITY\nIMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (SACIC)\nTUESDAY--JUNE 6, 2017- -7:01 P.M.\nMayor/Chair Spencer convened the meeting at 11:49 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers/Commissioners\nEzzy\nAshcraft,\nMatarrese, Oddie, Vella and Mayor/Chair Spencer -\n5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Oddie moved approval of the Consent Calendar.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk\npreceding the paragraph number.]\n(*17-365 CC/17- SACIC) Minutes of the Special Joint Meeting of the City Council and\nSuccessor Agency to the Community Improvement Commission (SACIC) Held on May\n2,2017. Approved.\n(*17-366 CC/17- SACIC) Recommendation to Accept the Fourth Quarter Financial\nReport for the Period Ending June 30, 2016. Accepted.\n(*17-367 CC/17- SACIC) Recommendation to Accept the First Quarter Financial Report\nfor the Period Ending September 30, 2016. Accepted.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(*17-368 CC) Resolution No. 15272, \"Approving and Adopting the City of City Alameda\nOperating and Capital Budget for Fiscal Years (FY) 2017-18 and 2018-19.\" Adopted;\n(17- SACIC) Resolution No. 17-07, \"Approving and Adopting the Successor Agency to\nthe Community Improvement Commission Budget for FY 2017-18 and 2018-19.\"\nAdopted;\n(17-368 A CC) Resolution No. 15273, \"Approving Workforce Changes in the Recreation\nand Parks Department, Public Works Department, Community Development\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and Successor Agency\n1\nto the Community Improvement Commission\nJune 6, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-06-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-06-06", "page": 28, "text": "Department and Information Technology Department.\" Adopted;\n(17-368B CC) Amend the Pension Rate Stabilization Program and Other Post-\nEmployment Benefits Funding Policy; and\n(17-368C CC) Direct the City Manager or Designee to Deposit $6,043,000 of Committed\nGeneral Fund - Fund Balance Plus Amounts Authorized by Council in Current and\nFuture Budgets into the Public Agencies Retirement Services (PARS) Post-Employment\nBenefits Trust to Use for Prefunding of Pension and Other Post-Employment Benefits\n(OPEB) Obligations.\nThe City Manager gave a Power Point presentation.\nVice Mayor/Commissioner Vella inquired whether some employee groups pay a portion\nof health care premiums, to which the City Manager responded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor/Commissioner Vella inquired whether any elected officials pay a portion of\ntheir health care premium, to which the City Manager responded in the negative.\nMayor/Chair Spencer inquired why the presentation shows $61,000 for the homeless\nassistance; the prior meeting indicated the amount is $120,000.\nThe City Manager responded half of the funding comes from a grant that the Police\nDepartment is contributing to homeless assistance.\nMayor/Chair Spencer inquired whether the total will be the $120,000, to which the City\nManager responded in the affirmative.\nMayor/Chair Spencer inquired whether any money is being set aside to purchase the\nUnion Pacific remnant parcels.\nThe Finance Director responded the purchase is not in the current budget.\nMayor/Chair Spencer inquired what the remnant parcels would be used for, to which the\nRecreation and Parks Director responded part of Jean Sweeney Open Space Park is\nowned by Union Pacific; stated full buildout and access would require the purchase of\nsaid parcels.\nMayor/Chair Spencer inquired whether other money is available to purchase the land.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director responded staff will be looking for grant money;\nstated there is no current money available to purchase said parcels.\nMayor/Chair Spencer inquired whether staff can explain how the parcels will be\npurchased.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and Successor Agency\n2\nto the Community Improvement Commission\nJune 6, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-06-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-06-06", "page": 29, "text": "The City Manager responded staff could go after grants and return mid-cycle or mid-\nyear when money is set aside; the license plate readers at the bridges are also not\nincluded in the current budget and will be brought back to Council.\nMayor/Chair Spencer inquired whether staff has a list of the items that will not be\nfunded.\nThe City Manager responded the list is not in the presentation.\nMayor/Chair Spencer inquired whether there is a plan to purchase the license plate\nreaders.\nThe Police Chief responded the matter would proceed as soon as some budget savings\nare realized, which will most likely be in September or October.\nThe City Manager noted savings would be from salary savings.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Oddie requested clarification regarding the OPEB trust\nfund; inquired whether the $6.043 million transfer is included in the budget.\nThe Finance Director responded $6.043 million is shown as a reserve; stated in the\n2017-18 budget the amount is shown as appropriation so that the funds could be wired\nover to a trust depending on the allocation being proposed.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Oddie inquired why the OPEB trust fund increased by so\nmuch and is projected to increase in the future.\nThe Finance Director responded the public safety contracts include a provision that in\nJanuary 2016 the City would contribute funds, plus employee contributions and\nestimated interest increase the amount.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Oddie inquired what the expected amount will be in the\ncombined OPEB/PARS trust accounts.\nThe Finance Director responded for OPEB, there will be an additional $3 million\ncontributed, plus normal contributions required by the contract.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Oddie inquired whether the $3 million is coming from the\n$6 million set aside the previous year.\nThe Finance Director responded $6 million was set aside in 2015.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Oddie inquired whether $11.3 million will be set aside for\nOPEB.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and Successor Agency\n3\nto the Community Improvement Commission\nJune 6, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-06-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-06-06", "page": 30, "text": "The Finance Director responded in the negative; stated $11.3 million is a combination of\nOBEP and pension funds.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Oddie inquired whether the projected ending balance for\nthe OPEB trust comes from on the All Funds Budget Summary Fund Balance on page\nB-5.\nThe Finance Director responded $7.2 million is the projected number; additional\ncontributions are expected.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Oddie inquired about the difference between $7.2 million\nto $11.373.\nThe Finance Director responded the difference is from an Internal Service Fund.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Oddie stated the City will have over $20.4 million in the\nfund where there was previously $300,000 two and a half years ago; the City is being\nfiscally conservative; praised City staff.\nMayor/Chair Spencer inquired what dollar amounts will be transferred into the OPEB\nand PARS trust accounts.\nThe Finance Director responded $11, ,143,000, not including the contractual obligation of\n$250,000.\nMayor/Chair Spencer inquired how much is being spent from the reserves.\nThe Finance Director responded $6,043,000 comes from reserves previously authorized\nby Council in 2015; $5.1 million is based on direction from the workshop that was held\nin May.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Matarrese stated that he likes the idea of a mid-term\nreview to see how the City is tracking progress; he also likes that the projections are\nconservative.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Ezzy Ashcraft stated with good discipline and grant\nfunding the purchase of the parcels from Union Pacific should be possible.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Matarrese requested a projection of the effect of the\nCity's and employees contributions over time to lower the OPEB liability; stated\nreviewing where the City stands with and without the contributions would be worthwhile;\nCouncil and the public would benefit from a graphic showing how actuals are tracking\nagainst projections.\nThe City Manager stated the initial analysis from the CalPers financial expert addressed\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and Successor Agency\n4\nto the Community Improvement Commission\nJune 6, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-06-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-06-06", "page": 31, "text": "the amortization schedule and how much the City would save in the CalPers\ncontribution each year; more is saved in the long term than the short term; all options\nwill be brought to Council.\nMayor/Chair Spencer stated that she would like money allocated for the Jean Sweeney\nOpen Park space parcels; she believes the public safety contracts are not fiscally\nsustainable; she would like more money to go towards parks and other items important\nto the community.\nVice Mayor/Commissioner Vella requested an update on the costs of the parcels and a\nprogress report whether grants are available; stated if Council is asking employees to\npay a portion of benefits or pensions, she would like to review the benefits that Council\nreceives.\nMayor/Chair Spencer stated Council's pay rate should be reviewed.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Matarrese moved adoption of the City Council/SACIC\nBudget resolutions.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by\nthe following voice vote: Ayes: Commissioners Ezzy Ashcraft, Vella, Matarrese and\nOddie - 4. Noes: Mayor/Chair Spencer - 1.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Ezzy Ashcraft moved adoption of workforce change\nresolution.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Oddie moved approval of amending the Pension Rate\nStabilization Program and Other Post-Employment Benefits Funding Policy.\nVice Mayor/Commissioner Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following\nvoice vote: Ayes: Commissioners Ezzy Ashcraft, Vella, Matarrese and Oddie - 4. Noes:\nChair Spencer - 1.\nVice Mayor/Commissioner Vella moved approval of directing the City Manager, or\ndesignee, to deposit $6,043,000 of Committed General Fund.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by the\nfollowing voice votes: Ayes: Commissioners Ezzy Ashcraft, Vella, Matarrese and Oddie\n- 4. Noes: Chair Spencer - 1.\nADJOURNMENT\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and Successor Agency\n5\nto the Community Improvement Commission\nJune 6, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-06-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2017-06-06", "page": 32, "text": "There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Spencer adjourned the meeting at 12:32\na.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk and Secretary SACIC\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and Successor Agency\n6\nto the Community Improvement Commission\nJune 6, 2017", "path": "CityCouncil/2017-06-06.pdf"}