{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-05-04", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -MAY 4, 2021 - -6:00 P.M.\n(21-280) The special closed session meeting was cancelled.\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 4, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-05-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-05-04", "page": 2, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY-- - -MAY 4, 2021-6:59 - P.M.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:01 p.m. Councilmember Daysog led\nthe Pledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Knox White, Vella, and\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 4. [Note: The meeting was\nconducted via Zoom]\nAbsent:\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer - 1.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(21-281) Mayor's Nominations for Appointments to the Golf Commission and Housing\nAuthority Board of Commissioners.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft nominated Kaiwin Su and John Kim for appointment to the Golf\nCommission.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 7:05\np.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\n1\nMay 4, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-05-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-05-04", "page": 3, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY-MAY 4, 2021--7:00 - P.M.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:05 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Knox\nWhite, Vella, and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note:\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer arrived at 7:09 p.m.\nThe meeting was conducted via Zoom]\nAbsent:\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\n(21-282) The City Clerk noted that the Greenway Golf ordinance [paragraph no. 21-311\nwas withdrawn and would not be heard.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(21-283) Proclamation Declaring May 2021 as Affordable Housing Month.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(21-284) Zac Bowling, Alameda, discussed Public Comment procedures for Council\nMeetings, the Brown Act and Oral Communications at a previous meeting; stated each\nmember should be afforded an opportunity to speak on non-agenda items prior to the\nconclusion of the meeting; if meetings continue to be abruptly ended, there will be an issue\nwith the Brown Act; the matter has been brought to other cities' adjournment proceedings;\noutlined Assembly Bill (AB) 339.\n(21-285) Erin Fraser, Unbundling Police Services Subcommittee, stated that he wishes the\nCouncil had not ignored recommendations made by the Subcommittee; discussed\nrecommendations made by the Subcommittees and Mario Gonzalez; urged Council to take\naction at the May 8th Special Meeting; stated any action taken will not bring Mr. Gonzalez\nback.\n(21-286) Gaby Dolphin, Alameda, submitted a proposed resolution; urged Council to\nimmediately act in relation to the insurrectionist attack on the Capitol January 6th. stated\nregional problems affect Alameda and cannot be solved by Alameda alone; urged the City\nrequest the State Attorney General to determine whether there is cause to believe the\nOathkeepers operate within the Alameda County Sherriff's department and whether the\ndepartment engages in unconstitutional or unlawful policy and practice in use of force.\n(21-287) Bob Walsh, Bird Shared eScooters, stated shared scooter programs help reduce\nprivate car trips, support local businesses and reduce carbon footprints; shared electric\nscooters are safe, enjoyable and could offer a socially-distanced way to take medium and\nshort ranged trips throughout Alameda during COVID-19; shared scooters have a dramatic,\npositive impact on local businesses; discussed a study about offsetting greenhouse gas\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nMay 4, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-05-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-05-04", "page": 4, "text": "emissions.\n(21-288) Debra Mendoza, Alameda, stated community voices need to be heard; the most\nimportant thing to do is to think about the decision and action to be taken at the Saturday\nMay 8th Special Council Meeting; discussed the death of Mario Gonzalez and Police service\ncalls; urged Council to take immediate action and stop sending Police to non-emergency,\nnon-crisis calls for homelessness, mental health and substance abuse.\n(21-289) Sophia DeWitt, East Bay Housing Organizations (EBHO), expressed support for\ndeclaring May as Affordable Housing Month; stated EBHO has 12 virtual educational topic\nevents which will be free to all members of the community and can be accessed at:\nwww.ebho.org on the events page; EBHO is looking forward to working with the City of\nAlameda on affordable housing issues and policies, particularly the upcoming Housing\nElement and Zoning Code.\n(21-290) Alexia Arocha, Alameda, stated that she has called in countless times to demand\naction and accountability for Alameda Police; discussed previous calls for action;\nquestioned where the action from Council will be since the final Committee\nrecommendations have been submitted; expressed concern about important\nrecommendations not being included in the final recommendations; stated people need to\nstop calling the Cops on Black and Brown folks; the Police need to stop responding to [non-\nemergency] calls; urged Council to meet the demands from Mario Gonzalez's family and the\ncommunity.\n(21-291) Ramon Rodriguez, Turlock, discussed the deaths of Mario Gonzalez and Trevor\nSeever; questioned how many times the Police will kill; stated reforming Police will not do\nanything; the system of policing has been killing Black, Brown and vulnerable people for\nyears; the form of oppression must end; urged Council to defund the Police and put more\nmoney into social and alternative services.\n(21-292) Vice Mayor Vella moved approval for extending the time by two additional minutes.\nCouncilmember Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call\nvote: Councilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: Ayes; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye;\nand Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.\n(21-293) Melodye Montgomery, Alameda, stated the recommendations from the\nSubcommittees are important and need to happen immediately; Council must take action\nsooner rather than later; Council must be immediately responsive to the community and do\nbetter.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nCouncilmember Knox White moved approval of the Consent Calendar.\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nMay 4, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-05-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-05-04", "page": 5, "text": "Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Ayes; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an\nasterisk preceding the paragraph number.]\n(*21-294) Minutes of the Continued March 16, 2021 City Council Meeting Held on March 30,\n2021 and the Regular City Council Meeting Held on April 6, 2021. Approved.\n(*21-295) Ratified bills in the amount of $4,505,990.95.\n(*21-296) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute the First Amendment\nto Ferry Service Operations Transfer Agreement between the City of Alameda and the San\nFrancisco Bay Area Water Emergency Transportation Authority. Accepted.\n(*21-297) Recommendation to Accept the Work of Ray's Electric for Signal Installation at\nHarbor Bay Parkway/North and South Loop Road and Harbor Bay Parkway/Penumbra\nPlace and South Loop Road, No. P.W.04-19-23. Accepted.\n(*21-298) Recommendation to Accept the Work of American Pavement Systems, Inc. for\nthe 2020 Pavement Management, Phase 39, Slurry and Cape Seal Project, No. P.W. 03-\n20-17. Accepted.\n(*21-299) Recommendation to Accept the Work of McGuire & Hester, for the 2020\nPavement Management, Phase 39, Hot Mix Asphalt Overlay and Base Repair Project, No.\nP.W. 05-20-26. Accepted.\n(*21-300) Recommendation to Accept the Five-Year Outlook for Housing Development\nFiscal Years 2020-25. Accepted.\n(*21-301) Recommendation to Approve 1925 Everett Street as the New Location for the\nDan Fontes Mural and the Egret as the New Design for the Mural. Accepted; and\n(*21-301A) Resolution No. 15766, \"Amending the Public Art Fund Budget to Appropriate up\nto $1,500 for the Dan Fontes Mural.\" Adopted.\n(*21-302) Resolution No. 15767, \"Increasing the Fiscal Year 2020-21 Expenditure Budgets\nin the Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS) Fund by $230,000, the HOME\nFund by $10,000, and the Human Services Fund by $90,000.' Adopted.\n(*21-303) Resolution No. 15768, \"of Intention to Set June 15, 2021 for a Public Hearing to\nConsider Collection of Delinquent Integrated Waste Management Accounts Via Property\nTax Bills.\" Adopted.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(21-304) Resolution No. 15769, \"Confirming the Park Street Business Improvement Area\nAnnual Assessment Report for Fiscal Year 2021-22; and Levying an Annual Assessment on\nthe Park Street Business Improvement Area of the City of Alameda for Fiscal Year 2021-\n22.\" Adopted.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nMay 4, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-05-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-05-04", "page": 6, "text": "The Development Manager and Kathy Weber, Downtown Alameda Business Association\n(DABA), gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Daysog moved approval of adoption of resolution.\nCouncilmember Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call\nvote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye;\nand Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.\n(21-305) Resolution No. 15770, \"Confirming the Webster Street Business Improvement\nArea Assessment Report for Fiscal Year 2021-22; and Levying an Annual Assessment on\nthe Webster Street Business Improvement Area of the City of Alameda for Fiscal Year\n2021-22.\" Adopted.\nCouncilmember Daysog recused himself and left the meeting.\nThe Development Manager and Sandy Russell and Linda Asbury, West Alameda Business\nAssociation (WABA), gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Knox White moved approval of adoption of the resolution.\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy\nAshcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. [Absent: Councilmember Daysog - 1.]\n(21-306) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending\nArticle XV (Rent Control, Limitations on Evictions and Relocation Payments to Certain\nDisplaced Tenants) to Adopt and Incorporate Provisions Concerning Capital Improvement\nPlans (CIP) for Rental Units in the City of Alameda. Not introduced.\nSpecial Counsel gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated correspondence received indicates the $25,000 threshold is\ntoo high; requested clarification from staff on the average improvement costs.\nSpecial Counsel stated staff took comments into consideration; staff discussed decreasing\nthe limit and concluded the $25,000 threshold is reasonable; the improvements listed in the\nordinance are significant and substantial; if a landlord engages in only one of the listed\nimprovements, the $25,000 threshold will likely be reached; landlords tend to make several\nimprovements in order to reach the $25,000 threshold; Council could reduce the amount if\ndesired; if staff runs into problems after adoption, the matter could return for additional\nconsideration.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired how many landlords have taken advantage of the\nCIP program since the start.\nSpecial Counsel responded not many; stated staff is bringing the proposed revision to the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nMay 4, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-05-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-05-04", "page": 7, "text": "policy due to low response; staff feels as though the program is not being utilized and\nimprovements to the housing stock are not occurring; in revising the ordinance, staff\nanticipates improvements will increase.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired the number of landlords who have participated in\nthe program.\nGregory Katz, Alameda Housing Authority, responded the previous fiscal year had one\nprogram submission.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the amount has remained the same to-\ndate.\nMr. Katz responded that he could provide the information since the beginning of the\nprogram.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the CIP process was not being used due to landlords\nfinding ways to improve their properties without using the program pass-through;\nquestioned indicators housing stock is not being improved aside from low numbers of\nprogram use.\nSpecial Counsel responded improvements have been made; stated the threshold number\nunder the current policy is high and causes a deterrent for landlords; if there is turnover,\nlandlords can raise the rent to market-rate, which causes a cash infusion and allows the\nlandlord to make capital improvements without having to go through the current process; he\nis not aware of an uptick in rehabilitation of units throughout the City; staff recommends the\nCIP process as an avenue to make improvements and recover costs over time.\nStated the Bay East Association of Realtors opposes the current CIP proposal, but would\nlike to continue to engage with stakeholders to come up with something that is workable;\nthe per unit threshold is too high; only foundation replacement would qualify under the\ncurrent proposal; discussed the ordinance definitions; recommended the CIP be any\nimprovement reflecting the definition; noted the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) definition for\na depreciating asset: Karen Miller, Local Government Relations Committee of the Alameda\nChapter Bay East.\nExpressed concern about the timing and creating policy that would not take effect for over a\nyear; stated times are uncertain for renters; renters looking for housing often have to\nprovide their own cleaning and painting; renters should be protected; urged Council to\nsupport State funding or grants to assist landlords behind on receiving rents: Catherine\nPauling, Alameda.\nStated that he is against the CIP; questioned why the plan is being addressed during\nCOVID: Austin Tam, Alameda.\nStated this is an opportunity for Council to show it cares about diversity; discussed statistics\nfrom the Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment (ACCE); stated many people\nhave lost their job during the pandemic; urged Council to vote against the ordinance: Sofia\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nMay 4, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-05-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-05-04", "page": 8, "text": "Coffin, Alameda.\nStated housing is a human necessity; mass displacement and homelessness is the\nalternative; tenants should not be forced to pay to improve homes they do not own; rent is\npaid for a habitable, functioning home; pass-throughs allow property owners new ways to\nraise rents; the changes are unfair and will only worsen the crisis of economic inequality;\nurged Council reject the CIP proposal: Laura Woodard, Alameda.\nStated passing the ordinance will affect his family and many Black, Indigenous, People of\nColor (BIPOC) communities and renters across the Island; adding pass-throughs onto rent\nincreases will increase homelessness and gentrification in Alameda as low-income renters\nare priced out of their homes; urged Council not to pass the ordinance: Vinny Camarillo,\nYouth Activists of Alameda.\nStated Filipino Advocates for Justice opposes the proposed changes to the ordinance;\namendments that undermine the City's present rent protections should not be considered\ngiven the ongoing pandemic and the immediate necessity for Alamedans to stay in their\nhomes; COVID-19 has disproportionately affected low-income communities of Color; it is\nevident that the proposal is easily exploitable and will result in unsustainable rent increases\nfor vulnerable tenants; renters can develop chronic stress and end up taking extra jobs\nwhich increases exposure to COVID-19; urged Council to vote no on the proposed\namendment: Nelson Layag, Filipino Advocates for Justice.\nStated that she is opposed to the plan due to its lack of protections for renters; landlords\ncurrently have to demonstrate a financial need prior to an upward adjustment on rent over\nthe allowed annual increase; there is no such protection with the CIP pass-through; the\nprogram appears to have a bias for property owners; there is an ever-increasing inequality\nof income in the City, which has been getting worse as time passes; many renters are\npaying over 30 to 50% of their income on rent; all renters should be protected; the plan is\nunfair to renters; urged Council to vote no: Toni Grimm, Alameda Renters Coalition.\nUrged Council not to pass the pass-through provision; discussed a rental assistance\nwebinar; stated the policy is complex and difficult to understand; there is not enough legal\nsupport for renters; many people are desperate to pay rent during COVID-19; small\nlandlords may need support in order to maintain properties; expressed support for a\nprogram which taxes corporations for a pass-through: Grover Wehman-Brown, East Bay\nHousing Organizations.\nStated that he opposes the proposed changes; rent increases below the Consumer Price\nIndex (CPI) have been sufficient to finance improvements; rental expenses are planned and\nbudgeted in advance and do not require sudden increases in rent charged; he has never\nhad to exceed the CPI to cover major Capital Improvements for his property; many\nlandlords who properly budget for improvements have improved their properties since rent\ncontrol went into effect; urged Council to stand in solidarity with more than half of Alameda\nresidents and reject staff's recommendation: William Smith, Alameda.\nStated renters' financial struggles are burdened by the effects of COVID-19; many have lost\ntheir jobs; the proposed passage of the CIP will further financially endanger the renters;\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nMay 4, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-05-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-05-04", "page": 9, "text": "questioned the reason renters pay 100% of the costs when they do not own the property;\nurged Council to consider long-term effects which will exacerbate the severity of income\nbetween residents and landlords; stated the CIP ordinance will likely drive renters out of\ntheir home: Brian Lin, Alameda.\nStated that he is opposed to the ordinance; the proposed changes can easily be exploited\nto displace renters and is concerning; the pass-throughs go against rent control law\napproved in 2019 and the intent of Ordinance 3250; pass-thoughs will increase\ndisplacement and homelessness during a time when many renters do not know whether\nthey can pay for rent the following month; there is no limit to the number of pass-throughs in\na one year period; this is not the correct time to discuss changing the City's rent protections:\nArvin Garcia, Alameda.\nStated the issues are complex; he does not agree with the increase in the current climate;\nexpressed concern over policies which allow for renters to directly fund equity\nimprovements for landlords; stated landlords will bank equity off renters and likely will not\ncontribute to the community via taxes; being a landlord is a capitalist venture; there is a fair\nrate of return petition process; the rate of return process should be improved, not pass-\nthrough; urged Council to take delicate care with the matter to ensure no increase in sudden\ndisplacement: Zac Bowling, Alameda.\nStated that she opposes the ordinance; shared her story of being evicted in Alameda;\nstated that her termination was based on invalid grounds and she was eligible to receive\nrelocation fees from the owner: Jessica Lizardo, Alameda.\nStated that she opposes the ordinance at this time; any amount of rent increase will\nseverely hurt low-and very low-income residents; the ordinance will hurt good landlords and\nhelp bad landlords; landlords have an obligation to maintain habitable housing; the\nordinance is not fair to those already keeping rental units habitable; urged Council not to\nenact the CIP: Svetlana Rishina, Alameda.\nExpressed support for comments made by Mr. Bowling; stated rent increase at this time will\nonly hurt the most vulnerable and add to gentrification; the expectation in paying rent is to\nhave safe shelter; urged Council vote no in order to protect all citizens: Melodye\nMontgomery, Alameda.\nStated the proposal will impact low-income people and drive more People of Color out of\nAlameda; many people have moved out of Alameda due to high living costs; urged Council\nto stop gentrification: Randell Rubio, Alameda.\nStated that he would like a more diverse, equitable and affordable Alameda; the public is\nagainst the matter; there is consent to reject the matter: Erin Fraser, Alameda.\nMr. Kats stated the number of CIP submissions since 2016 is nine; noted three were in\n2016, two in 2017, one in 2018, one in 2019 and two in 2020.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the residents are unanimous in their displeasure; it is a rare\nday when landlord and renter organizations see eye-to-eye for different reasons; now is not\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nMay 4, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-05-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-05-04", "page": 10, "text": "the time to move the matter forward; at some point, the City will have to modify the CIP;\nexpressed support for the City working with smaller mom and pop landlords when the time\ncomes to modify the CIP; stated the Council can consider the matter in 18 months.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated based on public comment, neither side seem\nsupportive; requested staff to clarify the reasons the matter is appropriate; questioned\nwhether staff understood the opposition prior to the comments.\nSpecial Counsel stated staff understood concern from both sides; Council previously\ndirected staff to return; staff had an obligation to bring the matter for consideration; the\ncurrent policy is too onerous for both landlords and tenants; if a CIP is approved under the\ncurrent policy, the result is not a pass-through, but a rent increase and is added to tenants'\nbase-rent and can have a cumulative effect; staff desired to move away from the current\nprocess and provide a more traditional pass-through; provisions limiting pass-through\namounts prevent landlords from placing increases annually or bi-annually; staff understood\nthe proposal would not be embraced by either the landlord or tenant groups; however, there\nwas an obligation to bring the matter back for consideration; staff vetted the matter with both\ngroups and attempted to address concerns from both sides; the policy decision is up to\nCouncil.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she thinks staff will need to return again with\nanother proposal; expressed support for multiple options being provided for consideration in\nthe future.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated some people are concerned that the proposed matter\nhas pass-throughs similar to San Francisco which allows a pass-through for many different\ntypes of fees and taxes; requested clarification about the pass-throughs.\nSpecial Counsel stated the landlord would be limited to 5% of the rent regardless of the\namount of CIP improvements; the amortization period may extend to longer than 15 years;\nhowever, the proposed ordinance requires the cap of 5%; the improvements must be\nsubstantial such as foundation work, Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC)\nsystems, pet damage, water conservation systems and updating units to provide\naccessibility; the program is limited and is not a pass-through for taxes or other fees and\ncharges and is limited to the CIP improvements identified in the ordinance.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated Council previously made amendments to the ordinance\nto set the time to initiate pass-throughs as one-year after the local emergency; the matter\ncan come back without any delay in actual implementation; the recommendation is the\nsecond part of a two-part decision made in September 2019 when Alameda had moved\nfrom rent stabilization to a rent control regime with a significant Annual General Adjustment\n(AGA); Council gave direction to come back to ensure there was a CIP process allowing\npeople to maintain some level of return for large projects; expressed concern about\nsomeone with less units having a harder time qualifying for the larger expenses; stated\nshould Council send the matter back for additional thought and consideration, he would like\nto understand the options to ensure a balance in access for both large and small landlords;\nthe Culver City program is tighter and stricter; however, a couple points could be good for\nconsideration; expressed support for the total cost of the project amount being the total;\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nMay 4, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-05-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-05-04", "page": 11, "text": "stated the amount should not include any loan fees or interest; as-written, it is not clear that\nthe interest is not part of the pass-through; the Culver City program includes language\nwhich precludes any maintenance projects due to wear and tear or due to landlord neglect;\nthere have been comments alluding to landlords purposefully neglecting buildings in order\nto pass-through repair cost; expressed support for not penalizing good landlords; stated\nstaff brought back what Council previously requested; the matter is complicated; there is\ntime; inquired who oversees appeals.\nSpecial Counsel responded appeals and handled by the Hearing Officer; stated the City has\na panel of 3 to 4 Hearing Officers that hear complaints from tenants or fair return petitions\nfrom landlords; Hearing Officers are well versed in rent control law; the ordinance provides\nthat the Program Administrator is not to give any consideration to any additional costs a\nlandlord incurs for property damage or deterioration due to an unreasonable delay in the\nundertaking or completion of any improvement or repair; the ordinance language is intended\nto deal with situations where a landlord puts off reasonable improvements; staff can look at\nthe Culver City language and create more specific language.\nVice Mayor Vella stated Council is discussing sending the matter back with potential\nchanges and alternatives; expressed support for discussing the timeline and when the\nmatter will return to Council, and for removing the fees and interest from the total\ncalculation; stated there have been questions relative to the definitions used in the\nproposed policy and other policies relative to relocation; expressed support for staff\nreviewing the questions raised and using the same definitions in the ordinances; stated\nthere have been questioned raised about the language relative to defining Capital\nImprovement; the comments related to the Culver City language are helpful in defining what\nconstitutes a Capital Improvement; there is interest in clarifying what a CIP is; there are\nconcerns about making the ordinance too subjective and the definitions narrow; the\nordinance is 33 pages long and is not simple or easy to follow; expressed concern about\ncreating a complicated and difficult to follow process; expressed support for staff addressing\nall issues; stated Council should discuss how to boil the matter down; expressed support for\na one-page document accompanying the final document, which refers to sections of the\nordinance; questioned what will constitute a reasonable delay or greater damage to\nproperty and what the 5% amount applies to; stated that she understands the 5% is of the\nrent not the CIP, which should be defined more clearly; stated unreasonable delay and who\ndecides an unreasonable delay must be defined clearly; she understands the Hearing\nOfficer will define unreasonable delay; questioned the documentation needed for\nunreasonable delay.\nCouncilmember Daysog expressed support for the matter returning with further clarification\nand substantiation as to the threshold to be used; stated whatever number is used will need\nto be further substantiated with a range of data with respect to examples of upgrade costs;\nsome upgrades are noted as not being able to reach the threshold; smaller mom and pop\nlandlords may have a difficult time reaching thresholds; however, larger landlords with 50 or\nmore units may not; expressed support for modeling how the different thresholds apply to\ndifferent size landlords.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated if the City is trying to encourage maintenance of\nrental properties, she would like to see analysis that demonstrates the proposed formula will\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nMay 4, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-05-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-05-04", "page": 12, "text": "yield the desired result; expressed appreciation for the information provided by Mr. Katz;\nquestioned whether the applicants completed the improvement work or whether the\napplications were merely submitted without work; stated that she would like to know the\nstatus of the repairs; she is concerned the formula not achieving the goal of maintaining the\nproperty; one of the not well-liked criteria is that repairs may be amortized beyond 15 years\nin order to keep the rent increase less than 5%; she would like to know some examples with\nreal numbers of what the amortization looks like; 50% of the City's population lives in\nrentals; expressed support for staff returning with permit data for non-rentals; if non-rental\nrepairs are low, then the issue is not rental property related; the CIP might be working and\nrental properties might have a similar repair rate; the goal is to maintain and to keep tenants\nin properties; Council is trying to move forward to find the right spot.\nIn response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, Mr. Katz stated of the nine submissions, one\nhas been conditionally approved, one has been closed by the owner, one is still pending,\nand six have been denied.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired the reason for denial.\nMr. Katz responded that he would need to go back and review the individual cases to\ndetermine the reason for denial; stated it is most likely due to the various eligibility\nthresholds for CIP applications.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the response is instructive; part of the challenge is that Council\nwill soon be engaged in budget hearings to discuss the City's use for American Rescue\nPlan Act (ARPA) funds; some of the funding will be directed to helping tenants and\nlandlords to ensure the City is avoiding displacement; the City is also mindful of landlords\nsuffering hardships due to COVID-19; Council will know more when there has been a\nchance to discuss and provide direction; Council is mindful of renter's concerns; expressed\nsupport for more detail being provided; questioned whether there is a way to incentivize\nlandlords to perform necessary repairs; stated the program is elaborate and has many\ndetails; expressed support for a one-page executive summary document at the beginning of\nthe CIP document; stated the information will go a long way to help people understand the\nprocess; expressed support for the document beinguser-friendly;stated the program is very\ncomplicated, which is one of the reasons the program is so infrequently used ; questioned\nwhether enough information and direction from Council has been given for a motion to be\nmade.\nCouncilmember Knox White moved approval of giving direction to staff to come back by the\nend of the calendar year in working to address the varied comments from Council to allow\nfor enough time before a program goes into effect.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated a question has come up that some buildings have long\nand short term rentals; language should be clear that money spent on units being used for\nshort-term rentals, similar to AirBNB, does not count towards the CIP; expressed support for\nany substantive maintenance cost benefitting one or a small section of a building and\nleeway being given by the Program Administrator to assign and assess the pass-through to\nensure tenants not receiving the benefit of the improvements are not paying for the\nimprovement.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nMay 4, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-05-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-05-04", "page": 13, "text": "Councilmember Daysog stated that he would like the matter to return to Council at the end\nof the Fiscal Year, June 2022 as opposed to the end of the calendar year; the main issue\nraised by tenants is the pandemic; it is likely the pandemic will still be active and people will\nstill be coming back; he hopes that by May 2022 things will be better.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated the direction has the activation starting one year past\nthe end of the declaration of the emergency; he thinks there is value in giving a head's up\nas opposed to pushing the matter off; bringing the matter back this year allows time for\nadjustments; moving the matter to the budget season becomes problematic; he is okay with\nmoving the matter to March 2022.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated March would be great.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification about the timing.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated instead of the end of 2021, the motion is being amended\nto have the matter return no later than March 2022.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated more time is beneficial in order to provide outreach and\ninformation gathering.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would like to request\nthe City Attorney to reach out to both sides again.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated the information is included in the motion; all interested\npeople willing to sit down and help should be engaged.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he has always voted against the CIP at any stage;\nnoted that he will support the motion, and look at the threshold issue when the matter\nreturns in March 2022.\nVice Mayor Vella requested clarification about the direction provided related to the smaller\nmom and pop landlords and the differentiation between larger and smaller units; questioned\nwhether the motion is a blanket CIP process review or whether there is specific direction\nbeing provided.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the motion is to make sure the City is not benefitting some\nlandlords and rewarding others who are not doing as they should have been; she does not\nknow about different standards for different sized landlords; the information will come back\nto Council.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that his first response is simply to reach out to smaller\nlandlord groups, get input and evaluate the input with professional judgement; assemble a\npolicy crafted around the input.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nMay 4, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-05-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-05-04", "page": 14, "text": "On the call for the question the motion carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.\n***\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft called a recess at 9:00 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:15 p.m.\n***\n(21-307) Resolution No. 15771, \"Adopting a Tier-Structured Annual Rent Program Fee for\nthe City's Rent Control Ordinance and Implementing Regulations, which Establishes the\nProposed Annual Rent Program Fee for Fiscal Year 2021-22 of $148 for Fully Regulated\nUnits and $100 for Partially Regulated Units; Allocates General Fund Money to Pay the\nRent Program Fee for Fiscal Year 2021-22 on Behalf of Landlords Participating in the\nSection 8 Program; and Extends the Due Date for Rent Program Fees for Fiscal Year 2021-\n22 from July 31, 2021 to September 30, 2021, with Penalties and Interest on Any Late Fees\nNot Accruing Until September 30, 2021.' Adopted.\nThe Community Development Program Manager gave Power Point presentation.\nIn response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry regarding what rent fees are used for, the\nCommunity Development Program Manager stated the rent fees pay a number of things;\nthe program is administered by the Housing Authority; the fees pay for staff time, materials,\nlabor, salaries, and City staff salaries primarily from the City Attorney's office; staff\nanticipates an increase in the requested number of hearings post-pandemic; next year's\nbudget has additional costs allocated to a Hearing Officer.\nUrged Council consider a moratorium on the rent registry fee for Fiscal Year 2021-2022;\nstated that she would like to see the expenses of the rent program be paid out of the ARPA\nfunds; the payment will benefit both landlords and tenants as they recover from the\npandemic and might incentivize the 18% of landlords that have not registered to do so: Toni\nGrimm, Alameda Renters Coalition.\nCouncilmember Knox White moved adoption of the staff recommendation [including\nadoption of related resolution].\nCouncilmember Knox White stated Council should keep the increase down; however, the\nprogram should not go into the red; if the City uses ARPA funds, it should be used to pay\nback rent and associated costs.\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Vice Mayor Vella stated that she would like to add the question about the\nrent registry to the upcoming ARPA budget discussion.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he has been reluctant to support rent control in\nAlameda; the ordinance prior to the original ordinance had been a compromise; the new\nrent control regime from 2019 is too onerous, especially on smaller mom and pop landlords;\noutlined rental homes being lost in the Fernside District; stated the rental housing stock has\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nMay 4, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-05-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-05-04", "page": 15, "text": "been most affected by the onerous rent control regime currently in place; he will not go into\nthe onerous portions of the rent control regime and pines for Ordinance 3148 in ways that\nhe previously did not; he does not see himself voting for the matter.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.\n(21-308) Recommendation to Amend the Council Referral Process and Form, and the\nMeeting Rules Pertaining to Council Referrals and Council Communications; and\n(21-308 A) Resolution No. 15772, \"Amending Various Sections of Resolution Nos. 15382,\n15697 and 15766 to Amend the Rules of Order Governing City Council Meetings.\" Adopted.\nThe City Clerk gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired when the referral process had been\nimplemented.\nThe City Clerk responded the process was enacted around the 2008 or 2010 time-period;\nstated that she will find out momentarily.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated the item seems like a Council Referral placed on\nthe Regular Agenda; questioned why the matter was not brought forth as a Council\nReferral.\nThe City Clerk responded December of 2007 is when the Referral process was\nimplemented; the current matter is similar to the February 16th item; a subcommittee of\nCouncil met and brought back a recommendation to the entire Council for consideration.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she thinks the February 16th meeting took cuts\nas well as this matter; the Mayor and a Councilmember decided there can be\nsubcommittees which can get on the Regular Agenda, which she does not support; the\nmatter should go through the Council Referral process; expressed concern about\nsubstantive issues raised to significantly reduce the amount of time spent on Council\nReferrals, public comment and Council Communications; stated oftentimes a\nCouncilmember will respond or comment multiple times; Councilmembers are making\nserious changes in the public communication portion and how Council conducts business;\nshe thinks it is sad that meetings are getting to the point of not being transparent and\ngreatly limit participation; it is unfortunate to have a possible majority of Council want to\nslash time that Councilmembers and the public get to have as an opportunity to speak; she\nwill not be supporting the matter.\nVice Mayor Vella stated Council has standing committees specifically to deal with the\nmatter; the committee started months ago in terms of ensuring meetings are running\nsmoothly so Council can get through agendas and address issues which are part of regular\nCity business and are time-sensitive; she appreciates the work the standing Council\nsubcommittee has put in; it seems as though some Council Referrals are based on Council\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n13\nMay 4, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-05-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-05-04", "page": 16, "text": "action, where a majority of the Council has already given direction and the matter comes\nback as a Council Referral; one of the majority voters would have to bring a matter back for\nCouncil reconsideration; expressed concern about discussing, deliberating and enacting a\nmatter to have it return as a Council Referral.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the committee is not a standing committee; Councilmember\nKnox White and herself are an ad hoc committee; meetings are called when an issue\narises; requested clarification about the comments made related to matters being brought\nback as Council Referrals; inquired the examples of such situations.\nVice Mayor Vella stated there have been several examples where Council has given\ndirection on only to have the matter return as a Council Referral; she is raising the question\ndue to the topics of Referrals being discussed.\nThe City Attorney stated there is no legal prohibition against Council Referrals being\nbrought forth for consideration after an action has been passed; the action is similar to a\nstaff report brought for reconsideration of matters; Council may change rules; the Council\nhas wide latitude to adopt rules to place limits if Council chooses to do so.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether the subcommittee could present about the goal relative\nto the decision to limit the referral topics.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft responded that her goal is to increase transparency and the\nopportunity for audience observation and participation; stated public speakers are timed; if\nthere are instances where Council can speak for unlimited periods of time back and forth,\nthe meeting runs longer; competing interests are being balanced; the recommendation is\nprovided with great consideration and respect for the public.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated there might be a misunderstanding about the proposed\nchanges; the subcommittee met with staff and discussed how other cities have addressed\nthe issue of Councilmembers getting matters onto the agenda via a Referral process; the\nCity's Council Referral process is unique; in many cities, topics are announced during\nCouncil Communications and Council decides whether or not to place the topic on a future\nmeeting agenda; the subcommittee decided to add an additional step to ask whether the\nCouncil would like to have a discussion and ask staff to bring forth information; there have\nbeen a number of instances of late meetings with staff waiting until 11:00 p.m. for a matter\nto not be heard; the approach will allow Council to move through the matter quickly; the\nattempt is to get back to the 2007 Referral process to identify a way for Councilmembers to\nget a topic on the agenda for consideration without sending staff down a rabbit hole of\nperforming work on something that might not be supported by a majority of Council; the\nreason for limiting the discussion is not to discussion the matter itself; discussed the referral\nrelated to gas leaf blowers; stated having information ahead of time might help Council\ndecide whether to have City staff wait at a meeting until 11:30 p.m. to provide an answer.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that her understanding is presentations are limited\nto ten minutes; she is unsure about the latest limits on Council comments due to many\nchanges; noted the leaf blower referral had been for an update; stated the referral had\npreviously been brought forth in 2018; requesting an update as part of the Referral process\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n14\nMay 4, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-05-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-05-04", "page": 17, "text": "is an appropriate use; it is unfortunate that a majority of Council is furiously trying to limit\npublic and Council comments and are changing the process in place since 2007; less\ncommunication is less transparency and is unfortunate.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Council Referral process been not been used so prolifically\nas in the last year; a Special Council Meeting was held to work through a backlog of Council\nReferrals; some of the Referrals could have been answered by an off-agenda report, which\ncan be put into a portal on the City's website; for Council meetings be user-friendly to the\nmembers of the public wishing to attend, the meetings cannot go on until the early morning\nhours and limited to those who are able to stay up; the matter is a change based on the use\nof the Council Referral process.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the key issue for him is that the current Referral process is a\nprocess in which he can address the concerns and voices of residents of Alameda\nexpressing interest in particular matters; some issues are brought forth based on interesting\nideas which will benefit residents; there is nothing broken with the current Council Referral\nprocess; there has possibly been more Referrals in the first quarter of 2021 than ever\nbefore; however, it should not matter; as best as possible, Council is representing the\nconcerns and values of residents; he respects the fact that each Councilmember sees\npossible different models or approaches of representing constituents and residents; the\ncurrent system works; the issue of efficiency is not the correct issue; Council is not having\nlengthy meetings due to Council Referrals, Council is having lengthy meetings due to a\njuggernaut of interesting issues that are piling up in unexpected ways; in times of a crisis\npandemic, the meetings are what they are; efficiency is not the issue; Referrals come at the\nvery end of the meeting; outlined Referrals he brought forth; stated he is not sold on the\nefficiency issue; the matter does not weigh heavily on his concern for representing\nconstituents as best as possible; nothing stops the City Manager or Councilmember from\nreaching out to each other on Referral matters which require interaction with City staff; there\nis plenty of time for interaction to happen or have a Councilmember reconsider their\nReferral or any questions raised; there is not a need to create a new filter, which seems to\nbe part of the package; he does not support Referrals first going through the filter of the City\nManager; Councilmembers need to articulate their concerns and the Referral process as\nbest as possible; Councilmembers must win over colleagues; Council should move forward\nwith what it has; outlined his previous years of service as being different than the current\nprocess and dealing with past City Managers; expressed support for keeping the current\nReferral system in place.\nVice Mayor Vella expressed concern about Special Meetings being held to address all of\nthe Referrals; stated matters which could have been addressed via requests for information\nhave not been pulled off of the agenda; Council must be respectful of City resources;\nCouncil manages City resources; the use of staff time is a significant resource; part of her\nconcern is a significant amount of staff time being spent either waiting at a meeting or\npreparing information in response to the Referral without Council direction; expressed\nsupport for the recommendation.\nVice Mayor Vella moved approval of the subcommittee's proposal [including adoption of the\nresolution].\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n15\nMay 4, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-05-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-05-04", "page": 18, "text": "Councilmember Knox White seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Knox White stated the matter returns Council to the 2007\nrules; the Referral process has gone through ever-changing edits; initially, Council was not\nable to bring matters forward to be voted on and changes were made to bring Referrals\nforward in order to adopt policy at the time; Referrals were always about managing\nresources and giving Councilmembers the opportunity to bring matters forward for\ndiscussion and decide whether or not the matter should be put on the Regular Agenda for a\nfull Council discussion.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft emphasized that Council is not getting rid of the Referral process;\nstated Council should meet the needs of constituents; Council is being given other options\nto do so, which may provide answers faster than waiting to address the item at a meeting.\nCouncilmember Daysog questioned why significant staff time would be used on a Council\nReferral; stated that he does not remember when staff has spent significant time on\nReferrals.\nThe City Manager stated reports have been forwarded to Councilmembers at times to\nprovide background.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted the Information Technology and Planning, Building and\nTransportation Directors were present for prior Council Referrals.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated an example is the first Council Referral of the year\nincluded an intense amount of staff time in preparation of background and memos for the\nshopping center Referral; numerous City Attorney and Planning, Building and\nTransportation Department memos and emails were put together in order to address\nspecific issues; noted the Planning, Building and Transportation Director had been present\nat each meeting the matter had been agendized; prior to putting resources into work,\nCouncilmembers can make a case for constituents in five minutes if a Referral topic is\nworthy to members of the community and Council.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he did not ask staff to perform any work or be present\nfor the previous Referral; noted that he had put together a presentation for the matter and\nexpected not to have staff involved; Councilmembers can make the case to other\nCouncilmembers; then, staff time is put towards the matter when it returns for consideration.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated the previous Referral did have direction to staff to work\non something with the Planning Board as if the matter had Council support; staff had to get\ninvolved due to there not being a point where Council was able to decide on whether to\nwork on the matter or not; staff needed to perform work in order to decide whether or not to\npursue the matter; many times staff has to provide work due to the Council Referral being\nan action item as opposed to deciding on whether or not to allow staff time.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft questioned whether Councilmember Daysog agrees not to allow staff\ntime on a matter.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n16\nMay 4, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-05-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-05-04", "page": 19, "text": "Councilmember Daysog stated staff should not be part of the pre-Council Referral process;\nnoted he will vote no on the matter.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer outlined her Referral for Citywide WiFi; stated that she did\nnot request for staff to be present staff being present for the update was not originally part\nof the Referral; it is unfortunate to have Councilmembers misrepresented; if the majority of\nCouncil does not wish to have staff provide information, the request should not be made;\nhaving the City Manager provide information in response to Referrals is a good thing;\nexpressed concern about modifying Council Communications; stated that she was under\nthe impression members could only speak once under Council Communications;\nquestioned whether the matter is included as part of the proposal.\nThe City Clerk responded the edit is under the Rules of Order and provided as a proposed\nredline change.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired the maximum time being given to\nCouncilmembers under Council Communications.\nThe City Clerk responded three minutes.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she strongly disagrees with the time limit;\nexpressed support for the motion to be separated; stated the matter should have been\ncalled out separately; the report should make clear that changes are being made to two\ndifferent parts of the agenda; Council Communications is an opportunity for\nCouncilmembers to discuss conferences, meetings and other events attended; she wants to\nshare those matters with the public; it is unfortunate that Council will not be sharing the\nmeetings and events attended; three minutes is a quick time to be sharing such matters;\nexpressed support for Councilmembers being able to speak multiple times during Council\nCommunications; stated it is okay to have an exchange under Council Communications;\nbeing unable to respond to another Councilmember under Council Communications is\nunfortunate; Council Communications is a nice time to have dialog whether it is for a past or\nfuture event; it is unfortunate that two Councilmembers do not want other members to share\nevents; she will not be supportive of the matter.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft outlined the rules related to unfounded accusations towards other\nCouncilmembers; questioned whether another amount of time would be enough to share\ncomments during Council Communications.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she does not have a time limit; the lack of time\nlimit is not and has not been a problem; she does not have a problem with people sharing\nevents attended; other Councilmembers see sharing events as a problem; noted the\nincrease in Council Referrals is due to the lack of action taken on matters in three years.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Council Communications speaking time could be increased\nto five minutes per Councilmember and allow multiple comments to be made within the limit;\nshe cannot support the lack of a time limit.\nVice Mayor Vella stated there is a motion on the floor; Council always has the ability to\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n17\nMay 4, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-05-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-05-04", "page": 20, "text": "suspend time limits by a vote; there is no harm in the proposed motion.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the proposal was meant to be a compromise in time limits.\nVice Mayor Vella stated that she is amenable to changing the motion.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated that he did not remember discussing Council\nCommunications being three minutes; proposed leaving the limit for Council\nCommunications at nine minutes; expressed support for Councilmembers sharing regular\nmeetings attended.\nCouncilmember Knox White offered a friendly amendment to the motion to remove the\nproposed limit for Council Communications.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification about the current time limits on Council\nCommunications.\nThe City Clerk stated a time limit had not ever been placed on Council Communications; a\ntime limit is being proposed for the section for the first time.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Councilmember Knox White would like to add a nine\nminute limit to the Council Communications agenda section.\nCouncilmember Knox White responded in the affirmative; stated he is happy to change the\nlimit from three minutes to nine minutes of Council speaking time and remove the stipulation\nof only speaking once.\nVice Mayor Vella accepted the friendly amendment to the motion.\nThe City Clerk stated Section 8 of the Rules of Order will now say: \"Councilmembers can\nspeak under Council Communications for up to nine minutes.\"\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that her understanding is that Councilmember\nKnox White stated Councilmembers may speak more than once under Council\nCommunications.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated as long as Councilmembers stay within the allocated time, they\nmay speak more than once; if a Councilmember needs more than the nine minutes, Council\nmay vote to suspend the rules.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for the change.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.\n(21-309) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute an Agreement\nBetween the City of Alameda and Alameda County Industries for Collection, Transportation\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n18\nMay 4, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-05-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-05-04", "page": 21, "text": "and Processing of Alameda's Municipal Solid Waste, Recycling, and Organic Materials for a\nTwelve-Year Period (Ending June 30, 2033), with the Option of Two Four-Year Extensions;\nand\n(21-309 A) Introduction of Ordinance Approving the Franchise Agreement Between the City\nof Alameda and Alameda County Industries AR, Inc. Introduced.\nRob Hilton, HF&F, gave a Power Point presentation.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired why the contract was not put out for bid.\nThe Assistant City Manager responded discussion with Council began in early 2020, which\nyielded a sole-source effort; Alameda County Industries (ACI) showed high customer\nsatisfaction within the community; Council direction indicated the relationship to the City\nwas good; other communities going out with a competitive bid procurement process were\nexperiencing responses with much higher rate increases; if the process had not worked out,\nthe City would have gone out to bid; the City made good progress with ACI and continued\nthe process.\nIn response to Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquiry about the maximum amount\nallowable under the contract per year, the Assistant City Manager stated staff capped the\npercentage at 5%; the agreement limits the potential for significant rate increases in any\ngiven year; the amounts proposed in the agreement are 3% for the current year and a\nmaximum of 5% for other years.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the contract has a formula that explains\nhow the percentage increase will be calculated, to which the Assistant City Manager\nresponded in the affirmative.\nMr. Hilton stated the formula is within Exhibit E to the agreement and shows roughly 25 to\n30 pages of compensation formulas; the first set shown in Exhibit E-1 looks at an index-\nbased methodology for fuel, labor costs and general inflation; the exhibit shows tonnages\ndelivered to facilities and actual revenues with reconciliation based on inflation and\nperformance factors; there are cost reviews every fourth year of the agreement, which\nperforms a detailed review of the companies' books to look at and reconcile expenses and\nrevenues ensuring customers are not overpaying for services and that the company is not\nover-profitable; there is a stipulated profit-margin not to be exceeded.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether there is public information.\nMr. Hilton responded a rate application is submitted; stated the City has due diligence over\nthe rate application; anything considered within the process becomes public information.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired the profit for the previous year.\nMr. Hilton responded the 2020 books were not audited; stated the audit is currently in\nprocess; in prior years, profitability has been around $1.2 to 1.3 million.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n19\nMay 4, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-05-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-05-04", "page": 22, "text": "Stated that she participated in discussions with City staff and consultants and provided input\nfrom the view of implementation of the City's Zero Waste Implementation Plan and Climate\nAction and Resiliency Plan (CARP); she is enthusiastic about the City's leadership in Zero\nWaste; ACI has been an impressive partner over the past 20 years in implementing the\nCity's program and becoming a leader in Zero Waste; urged Council to endorse the staff\nrecommendation: Ruth Abbe, Community Action for a Sustainable Alameda (CASA).\nStated that he has no objections to the matter; expressed concerns about conflict of\ninterest; discussed Vice Mayor Vella's compensation as a regional attorney for Teamsters;\nstated there is an appearance of impropriety: Erin Fraser, Alameda.\nVice Mayor Vella stated that she does not work for Joint Council 7; as an attorney, someone\ncan work for one law firm which has another law firm in the same city; there is no financial\nconnection; she does not work for Joint Council or the Teamsters Local for frontline\nworkers; she is happy to have the City Attorney weigh-in on the matter.\nThe City Attorney stated that his understanding from the comments made is that Vice Mayor\nVella's source of income is not going to be impacted by this contract based on\nrepresentations; there will be no conflict of interest based on State law.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired what would create a conflict of interest.\nThe City Attorney responded State law provides that the decision makers would have a\nconflict of interest in a number of circumstances whether it be real property or source of\nincome in business; the types of conflicts are varied.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired the specific conflicts related to the current matter.\nThe City Attorney responded the fact that employees might be unionized and Vice Mayor\nVella has a representation relationship of employees, which are unionized generally, does\nnot present a prohibited conflict of interest under State law; conflict matters are highly fact-\nspecific; in general, representing employees in a matter would not create a conflict of\ninterest in the case where the Council is granting a franchise agreement to the\norganizational structure; Vice Mayor Vella's comments indicate that she does not represent\nthe employees.\nVice Mayor Vella stated that she also does not work for a union which represents the\nemployees.\nThe City Attorney stated there is zero financial implication; the final decision always rests\nwith the decision maker; however, based on representations, there appears to be no conflict\nof interest.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft outlined her involvement with an increase in ACI rates; stated the\nprevious owner of the company had temporary workers with no benefits; she visited the site\nand met with management; the situation was wrong and the workers needed to be made\nemployees in order to allow for benefits; management discussed the matter with the union;\nthe change incurred a cost; the community supported not wanting workers to suffer due to\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n20\nMay 4, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-05-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-05-04", "page": 23, "text": "working conditions; she was impressed with how the situation played out; the\ncommunication was respectful; the change speaks volumes for the company; she is\nsatisfied with the due diligence performed.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she was Mayor at the time of the change in\nemployment for ACI workers; every Councilmember supported the change, which was\noverwhelmingly supported by the community; she has looked at the numbers; since 2006,\nthe rate for the smallest bin was $45 for the quarter; the annual rate of inflation since 2006\nhas been 1.89%, which would bring the cost up to $59; however, the current cost for the\nsmallest bin is $132.20 per quarter; the result is a compounded interest of 6% per annum\nover time; the graph only shows the past four years; the rate increase has been more; if\nthere is a 5% increase each year, the resulting fee would be $188 per quarter; the increase\nis a problem; people have a problem paying the fee; there are 15% lower rates for those\nthat qualify as low-income or are senior citizens; the 15% reduction could help people in\nneed; expressed support for Council looking at a higher percentage in reduction for low-\nincome and for ACI making the discount clearer on the website; discussed ACI's website;\nstated many seniors and low-income qualifying people might not know about the discount\nprocess; she would like ACI's website to clearly indicate the discount; she appreciates the\nwork performed; expressed concern about profits and ACI being a private company; stated\nit is impossible to know what the profits truly are; the percentage rate is high; many people\nare not earning a 6% increase over time; when long-term contracts are presented, clearly\nshowing the numbers is important; expressed support for a one-page document clearly\nshowing the formula; stated that she does not expect anyone to review a 30-page analysis\ndocument to figure out the contract increases; 5% is a significant increase; there is not\nenough consideration for the affordability of a 5% increase; the contract should have gone\nout for bid.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated the rate changes over the past 15 years have included\npositive changes, such as recycling and compost programs and Senate Bill (SB) 1383;\nSB1383 deals with food waste recovery and composting; the programs are the right thing to\ndo from an environmental perspective; the programs do have costs and are seen in rate\nchanges over time; the 5% is a maximum and not a set number; the rate adjustments will be\nfully vetted and discussed in the context of the calculations mentioned earlier.\nThe City Manager stated that he would like the discounts re-stated and clarified for the\npublic.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated Councilmember Herrera Spencer is correct; the 15%\ndiscount is available by contacting ACI; there is a rate stabilization portion of the agreement;\nCouncil is presented with delinquent accounts on an annual basis; there are not many\ndelinquent accounts; Council has the opportunity to make decisions about how the City\nmoves forward with said accounts.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the crux of the matter is the question of extending on a no-\ncompete sole source contract to ACI or if Council should open the matter up to a\ncompetitive bid process; there are a number of other outfits which might be able to deliver\nservices to Alameda; in order for him to evaluate the question and judge how to make the\nbest decision, he needs to know that there is solid data provided to support the decision one\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n21\nMay 4, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-05-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-05-04", "page": 24, "text": "way or another; the magnitude of the decision is incredible; ACI, as well as any other waste\norganization, has an economic activity in the City of Alameda of roughly $23 million per\nyear; in order to maintain the $23 million per year, Alameda residents must pay as rate-\npayers; the amount over 20 years is roughly $287 million to be given out on a non-compete\nsole source basis; expressed concern about extending the contract on a non-compete sole\nsource basis; the information is not new; his views are the same from October 2020;\nhowever, is worth restating; outlined the presentation from a residential rate comparison;\nstated one would think there could be a reduction in the rate for residential 30 to 35 gallon\nbins over time; the rate increases slightly from the current average; the increase in rate and\nthe magnitude of dollars says that Council needs to look at the contract from a competitive\nRequest for Proposals (RFP) basis; the reason the City contracts with ACI is based on a\nprevious competitive basis in 2002; he was on Council when ACI was selected; ACI has\nprovided good service; he appreciates the annual reports provided; there is an issue of the\nmagnitude of the money being dealt with; data points suggesting there should be a decline\nin rates; when he looks back on the October 2020 meeting regarding ACI, the scoring done\nthrough the survey showed ACI with a B+ grade; outlined ACI's total satisfaction of 89% in\nthe context of AMP whose total satisfaction is 96%; stated AMP's total satisfaction is the\ngold standard; Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) scored higher than ACI in satisfaction; total\nfavorability for ACI scored at 83% and AMP scored 91%; reasonable rates for ACI scored\n74% and AMP scored 82%; the survey shows scores that do not indicate A grade services;\npercentages showing an A grade might be considered for a non-compete sole source\ncontract; he does not see the grounds for a sole source contract; utility business is tough;\nACI has done a good job and provided incredible reports; questioned whether the City is\ngetting the best dollar it can; stated the only way to know is to put out an RFP; ACI should\nlower rates; he is not convinced a case has been made for going forward on a non-compete\nsole source contract; expressed support for going out to bid; stated that he believes ACI\nwould prove to be successful in an RFP process.\n(21-310) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated a motion is needed to consider the remaining agenda\nitems and the two Council Referrals, after 11:00 p.m.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of hearing the Council Referral\nrequesting a performance review [paragraph no. 21-315].\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which failed by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: No; Vella: No; and\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft: No. Ayes: 2. Noes: 3.\nMr. Hilton stated there have been recent competitive procurements in the Alameda County\nmarket to inform what might happen through the bid process; the processes resulted in 20\nto 30% rate increases; when negotiating directly with ACI about large rate increases, staff\nexpressed concern; the desire was to see how good of a deal could be provided for the\nCity; in order to benchmark the deal, staff had to look at cost factors in other competitive\ndeals; staff looked at hourly labor, fuel, maintenance and General and Administrative (G&A)\nexpense percentages to ensure there were no charges for overhead; staff looked at profit\nand what is being paid for recycling, disposal and composting costs and benchmarked\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n22\nMay 4, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-05-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-05-04", "page": 25, "text": "accordingly; staff ensured the deal for Alameda was at least as good as the deals that ACI\nand other companies were proposing out on the competitive market place; staff considered\na switching cost in order to change contractors; the switching cost can be unpredictable and\nsignificant; there have been concerns about having a good partner that has brought the City\nthrough a number of changes, programs and services to get to the current status; with\nSB1383 coming in six months, there is a feeling that ACI will be able to get ahead of\ncustomer engagement; the City avoiding compliance issues if the contract expires and a\nnew company is brought in is a big value; it is a policy issue for Council; however, staff has\nthought about the matter extensively as the deal had been vetted.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired which cities received a 20 to 30% increase.\nMr. Hilton responded the City of Oakland was well over the percentage increase; stated the\nCity of San Ramon, which uses the same bargaining unit as Alameda, received bids at 20\nand 30%; the special district of Castro Valley received bids at 15 and 20%.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the rates are reflected in the chart on\npage nine.\nMr. Hilton responded in the affirmative; stated Oakland and Piedmont recently re-did their\ncontracts and are now the most expensive in the Bay Area.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she does not understand why Piedmont would\nbe so high, which is likely an anomaly; the City of Oakland is a little higher than the\nproposed rates for Alameda; inquired the rate for the City of San Ramon.\nMr. Hilton responded the City of San Ramon increased by 30%.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated the increase depends over time; noted Alameda's\nrates have increased significantly over time; she would have liked to have seen more\ninformation and data in the presentation; outlined the increase of 6% per year since 2006;\nstated that she has received many complaints about trash not being picked up; noted\npeople will call in and pickup continues to not occur; she is unsure whether she received the\noriginal survey; she would have liked to have seen the survey results; expressed support for\ndealing with calls of trash not being picked up.\nVice Mayor Vella stated there has been a lot of requests for data; the matter previously\ncame before Council and Council specifically asked certain things to be looked into by staff\nand prioritized services; growing needs relative to the industry have also been considered;\nnoted former Councilmember Oddie presented updates from StopWaste relative to cost\nimpacts on solid waste, recycling and compost requirements; CASA has weighed-in and is\nworking with the City to ensure the City is compliant; data is present within the staff report\nand a lot of information has been attached to the report; Council may disagree with the\ndata; there are significant costs relative to environmental goals set forth by the State; no\nmatter who the City chooses to contract with, there will be increases relative to\nimplementation of goals and meeting requirements of the CARP; many Councilmembers\nhave been supportive of meeting CARP goals; Council must keep in mind the rates\nimposed and note that Alameda is different from other cities in terms of solid waste\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n23\nMay 4, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-05-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-05-04", "page": 26, "text": "percentage of residential to commercial; there are a number of different factors covered\nextensively in previous Council meetings and also within the staff report; Council has\nexpressed support for an ACI office in Alameda; expressed concern about cutting costs on\nthe back of low wage workers; stated workers deserve a living wage and compensation that\nincludes health care; she is not supportive if costs include a cost to switch vendors; Council\nhas had an extensive conversation and she does not intend to change the direction at this\npoint.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council is looking to provide many things with the service,\nincluding compliance with new State law; it is especially important for Alameda to do the\nkinds of things that reduce waste and are environmentally friendly; Alameda is an Island\nand needs to take global warming seriously; some of the matters are going to cost more\nmoney, such as the eventual conversion to electric vehicles for the fleet; the change\nrequires infrastructure and start-up costs; the value of the change must be weighed for what\nis received; staff was able to negotiate decent rates due to the possibility of an open\nprocess; the City is getting increased services, including bulk pick-up at multi-family\ndwellings; there will be less couches on curbs; the numbers for customer satisfaction are\ngood; no service provider is perfect; she receives complaints about bins not being picked up\nfrom time to time and an immediate response is typical when reaching out to ACI; she\nreceives the similar comments from AMP customers; she thinks ACI has been a good\nprovider and workers are treated well; expressed support.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated the process has been over one year with multiple check-\nins; he appreciates the comments; expressed support for the matter based on solid work by\nstaff and consultants; stated Council has asked a lot of the questions raised through the\nprocess; he is confident that staff has negotiated a solid deal; costs have been increasing\ndue to dealing with the increase in trash; Consumer Price Index (CPI) is not the measure to\nbe used in determining success.\nCouncilmember Knox White moved approval of the contract as proposed by City staff\n[including introduction of the ordinance].\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she encourages people to\nlook over page nine of the presentation to see 11 cities paying significantly less than\nAlameda.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.\n(21-311) Introduction of Ordinance Approving a Second Amendment to the Lease with\nGreenway Golf Associates, Inc., a California Corporation, for Chuck Corica Golf Complex to\nAdjust Lease Area to Include the Old Fire Training Tower. Not heard.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n24\nMay 4, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-05-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-05-04", "page": 27, "text": "(21-312) The City Manager announced updates related to exploring and defining mental\nhealth resources within homeless services, gas leaf blowers, a vaccine clinic May 6th and\nthe Central Avenue Veterans Wall project.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(21-313) Zac Bowling, Alameda, discussed AB 339; stated that he is a fan of the bill; urged\nCouncil adopt the current proposal for AB 339; stated the bill continues the ability for public\ncomment and civic engagement via internet and telephone remotely; the bill is voluntary for\ncities to adopt; having access during COVID-19 has dramatically allowed participation and\nengagement for members of the community; discussed AB 1322.\n(21-314) Tripti Jain discussed a rental property she owns in Fremont.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\n(21-315) Consider Scheduling a Performance Evaluation for the City Manager as Soon as\nPossible. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard.\n(21-316) Consider Addressing the Surplus Lands Act, including Lobbying Efforts and\nAssembly Bill 1486. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(21-317) Councilmember Knox White discussed Alameda County (AC) Transit transit talk\nand an AC Transit Interagency Liaison Committee (ILC) meetings; stated the transit picture\nis less grim for those impacted; AC Transit has a bare bones service solution being rolled\nout for the summer; announced a new bus route timed with the new ferry terminal at\nAlameda Point; stated there will be a direct connection for the West End that will start at the\nEast End; discussed AC Transit's budget and new services starting back up over the\ncoming year.\n(21-318) Councilmember Herrera Spencer discussed a meeting from the Airport Noise\nForum; discussed the website: flyquietoak.com; stated people should report being affected\nby airplane noise and traffic; the organization is working with the Federal Aviation\nAdministration (FAA) to get relief.\n(21-319) Councilmember Daysog discussed the AC Transit ILC meeting; stated the\nAlameda Unified School District will be sending a member to regularly attend the meetings.\n(21-320) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft discussed a meeting webinar preparing for receiving\nrecovery funding; stated the guidelines from the Treasury Department will come out on May\n11th; discussed a Mayor's Town Hall on policing which was student-led by the Youth\nActivists of Alameda; announced an upcoming Town Hall on bystander intervention training.\n(21-321) Vice Mayor Vella stated the upcoming bystander training focuses on not\nresponding to the person that is performing hateful acts and instead focuses on the target or\nvictim; announced a Lead Abatement Board Healthy Homes Department meeting, which will\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n25\nMay 4, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-05-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-05-04", "page": 28, "text": "lower the Board compensation and reinvest saved funds into the training budget; discussed\nletters being sent in about lead and other heavy metals in baby food and advocating for\nmore enforcement around the matter.\nADJOURNMENT\n(21-322) There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at\n11:29 p.m. in memory of Juelle Ann Boyer.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n26\nMay 4, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-05-04.pdf"}