{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-02-02", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - FEBRUARY 2, 2016- -5:30 P.M.\nMayor Spencer convened the meeting at 6:03 p.m.\nRoll Call -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie\nand Mayor Spencer - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nThe meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(16-039) Conference with Conference with Labor Negotiators (Pursuant to Government\nCode \u00a7 54957.6) City Negotiator: Elizabeth D. Warmerdam Employee Organizations:\nInternational Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1245 (IBEW), Electric Utility\nProfessional Association of Alameda (EUPA), Alameda City Employees Association\n(ACEA), Alameda Police Officers Association Non-Sworn Unit (PANS), Alameda\nManagement and Confidential Employees Association (MCEA), Executive Management\n(EXME), and Alameda Municipal Power Unrepresented Management Employees\n(AMPU) UNDER NEGOTIATION: Salaries and terms of employment.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Spencer\nannounced direction was given to staff.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 6:22 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\nFebruary 2, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-02-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-02-02", "page": 2, "text": "MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - FEBRUARY 2, 2016--7:00 P.M.\nMayor Spencer convened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese,\nOddie and Mayor Spencer - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\nNone.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(16-040) Mayor Spencer read the Season of Non Violence word of the day.\n(16-041) The Interim City Manager introduced the new Human Resources Director,\nNancy Bronstein and the Community Development Director introduced the new\nEconomic Development Manager, Lois Butler.\n(16-042) Mayor Spencer announced there is a housing provider vacancy on the Rent\nReview Advisory Committee; encouraged anyone interested to apply.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(16-043) John Klein, Alameda, discussed undercover officers being at the January 5,\n2016 meeting, which had an impact on the trust being built with the City; the officers\nwere there because there was safety complaints; in response to his record request, he\nreceived over 140 emails and there was only one complaint from a landlord and board\nmember, Doug Smith; read the email.\nMayor Spencer commented that she was really proud of the community at the January\n5, 2016 meeting for conducting themselves in a professional manner.\n(16-044) Robb Ratto, Downtown Alameda Business Association, thanked the Public\nWorks Department for responding to a tree falling on Park Street, removing another tree\nthat probably would have fallen, and for reopening the sidewalk on a portion of Park\nStreet, including removing rivets and putting the fence back up twice.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the Consent Calendar.\nVice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nFebruary 2, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-02-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-02-02", "page": 3, "text": "[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph\nnumber.]\n(*16-045) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings Held on January 5,\n2016. Approved.\n(*16-046) Ratified bills in the amount of $3,873,910.46.\n(*16-047) Resolution No. 15115, \"Amending the Electric Utility Professionals\nAssociation of Alameda (EUPA) Salary Schedule to Establish the Classification\nof\nMedia Coordinator.' Adopted; and\n(*16-047A) Resolution No. 15116, \"Approving Workforce Changes at Alameda\nMunicipal Power.\" Adopted.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(16-048) Public Hearing to Consider Approving the Housing and Community\nDevelopment Needs Statement for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)\nAnnual Plan for Fiscal Year 2016-17.\nThe Housing Programs Manager gave a Power Point presentation.\nOutlined the needs which the Social Service Human Relations Board (SSHRB) is\nfocusing on and provided a history of the changes in types of services; stated the focus\nis now safety net services: Doug Biggs, SSHRB.\nStated Building Futures runs the Midway Shelter, leads the Domestic Violence Task\nForce and homeless prevention, and runs 52 units on the former Base; CDBG funds are\nused to leverage other funds; the services could not be done without the CDBG funds,\nas well as City staff and community support: Liz Varela, Building Futures.\nOutlined services offered by 2-1-1; provided an example of a call received: Alison\nDeJung, Eden I&R.\nOutlined Echo Housing's services; noted presentations are given to educate tenants\nand landlords: Marjorie Rocha, Echo Housing.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated getting data from Echo Housing would be beneficial;\nstated that he would like Council to consider giving direction to do so.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for the recommendation.\nMayor Spencer requested information be forwarded to staff.\nOutlined legal services offered; stated Legal Assistance for Seniors (LAC) might be able\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nFebruary 2, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-02-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-02-02", "page": 4, "text": "to offer the City assistance with rental issues: James Treggiari, LAS.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft thanked the organizations that help the vulnerable\ncitizens; stated that she supports the proposal.\nCouncilmember Oddie thanked the SSHRB members and all the other organizations for\ntheir work; requested that staff work towards acquiring more funding to do more for the\nvulnerable citizens; urged Councilmembers to not just say they would like to do more,\nbut to actually do more.\nCouncilmember Daysog thanked the service providers for all that they provide for the\nresidents of Alameda.\nVice Mayor Matarrese requested follow up once implementation of the proposal has\nbeen decided; suggested the three housing providers assist the City in addressing the\nvulnerable population related to current rental issues; stated that he would like a plan to\nhave the ability to adjust to the current crisis as needed.\nMayor Spencer thanked the SSHRB and the providers for their critical work; stated that\nshe supports the issue coming back to Council in the future regarding the allocation of\nfunds to further support the community.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the Housing and Community\nDevelopment Needs Statement for the CDBG Annual Plan for Fiscal Year 2016-17.\nVice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote\n-\n5.\n(16-049) Public Hearing to Consider Call for Review and Adoption of Resolution\nUpholding the Planning Board Resolution PB-16-01 to Deny Use Permit File No.\nPLN15-0440 to Allow the Sale of Beer and Wine at a Convenience Store (76 Gas\nStation) Located at 1716 Webster Street. Not adopted. [The proposed amendment is\ncategorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to\nCEQA Guidelines Section 15270 - Projects Which Are Disapproved.]\nCouncilmember Daysog recused himself and left the dais.\nThe Planning Services Manager gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether the request for a variance is being made for the\nfirst time and whether the Planning staff recommended approval at the Planning Board\nhearing; to which the Planning Services Manager replied in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Oddie requested clarification on what the basis of the decision was.\nThe Planning Services Manager clarified the purpose included in the General Plan.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nFebruary 2, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-02-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-02-02", "page": 5, "text": "Councilmember Oddie inquired if there was data from the police department to support\nthe complaints from the citizens.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded in 2012, data was downloaded from the\nPolice database for incidents in the neighborhood vicinity.\nIn response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry, the Planning Services Manager stated\nthe report pulled alcohol related incidents in the neighborhood.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether the 2012 staff report indicated restrictions could\nbe placed on businesses if needed, if there were concerns raised from alcohol.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Spencer inquired if staff would describe the conditions the Alcoholic Beverage\nControl (ABC) would put on the license.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded that the City would impose the conditions.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether ABC has some conditions on licenses already.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded as part of the liquor license, there are some\nState regulations that the business owner would need to follow.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether the City has an opportunity to weigh in on some\nof the restrictions.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded the City could impose additional conditions.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether a letter to ABC could be written stating the City\ngranted a conditional use permit and would like specific conditions.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded ABC has its own set of restrictions related\nto businesses and alcohol; in addition to the State's standard regulations, the City can\nimpose additional restrictions.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether ABC can conduct investigations and impose\nfurther restrictions if it receives complaints from neighbors.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative; clarified the City's use\npermit process could also contain restrictions.\nThe Planning Services Manager continued the presentation.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated the City issued a permit to a big box retailer adjacent to a\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nFebruary 2, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-02-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-02-02", "page": 6, "text": "neighborhood; it seems inconsistent to have one set of rules for big box retailers and\nanother set of rules for small businesses.\nMayor Spencer added that Target is another big box in the neighborhood that has a\nbeer and liquor license.\nThe City Planner clarified Safeway Gas is on the Gateway Site and Safeway grocery\nstore is on Alameda Landing site; stated there were vested zoning rights under the\nMaster Plan; grocery stores have a vested right to sell alcohol; the entitlements and\nvesting rights did not apply to the Gateway Site, i.e., Safeway Gas; Safeway Gas was\nbuilt one year after the Council had unanimously denied the sale of alcohol on the\nGateway Site; the City felt the policy was established and did not pursue changes.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired if Target was also a part of the Master Plan, to which\nthe Community Development Director responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Spencer inquired why there was no change when the issue came back to the\nPlanning Board.\nThe City Planner responded there is a change in the environment and more\ncompetition.\nMayor Spencer inquired about the change in the availability of alcohol.\nThe City Planner responded the change is the availability of alcohol does not change\nthe underlining findings of the City Council in 2012 or the reasons it was turned down;\nstated whether the Council cited the primary factors for the denial were an over\nconcentration and a large number alcohol related Police incidents in that neighborhood;\nthe Planning Board referred to said conditions as having no change.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether out of the 54 active off-sale licenses, 16 were issued\nafter 2012, which is a 30% increase Citywide; question with so many licenses being\nissued, how can denying the use permit not be looked at as some sort of discrimination\nagainst this retailer.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded issuance depends on the type of business;\nspirits alley and Alameda Point have off-sale licenses; there are also businesses that\ncan obtain an on-sale license without a use permit.\nMayor Spencer clarified that she was referring to off-sale licenses only.\nThe Planning Services Manager stated on-sale licenses allows people to take a bottle of\nwine home.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether 41 new on-sale license issued in the same time period\nwhich is a 26% increase across the City; questioned how does denial, not look\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nFebruary 2, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-02-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-02-02", "page": 7, "text": "discriminatory or personal against this one particular vendor.\nThe City Planner responded the City does not issue ABC licenses\nThe Planning Services Manager clarified that on-sale licenses are generated differently;\na new business coming to town will apply for a business license and go through zoning\nreview; restaurants can serve alcohol under the ABC rules; generally off-sale licenses\nrequire conditional use permits; an increase on-sale licenses reflects other types of\npermitted use allowed in the zoning.\nThe City Planner stated the item before Council is a use permit; the findings are\ndocumented conditions in the neighborhood; the City cannot be arbitrary about the\nissue; there have to be clear reasons why the City is saying yes to some people and no\nto others.\nMayor Spencer stated at one of the Planning Board meetings it was stated that there\nare no beer and wine sales at gas stations; requested for clarification.\nThe Planning Services Manager stated there are currently three.\nMayor Spencer stated beer and wine sales have been allowed at Valero since 2001, at\nChevron since 1993 and AM/PM since 1988; representations that the City does not do\nso even though it has been allowed since 1988, is a change that could be a finding that\ncontradicts the prior findings.\nThe City Planner responded that the City has never made a finding in a written\ndocument that the City does not sell alcohol from a gas station; it is the Council's\nprerogative to decide whether the City has different priorities and then apply that to all\nbusinesses.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she was on the Planning Board in 2012 when\nthe Board denied the application; the application was denied because of community\ninput regarding public drunkenness, loitering, littering and crimes being committed.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired where the off-sale licenses have been issued\nin\nAlameda since the original application was denied in 2012.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded that there were numerous locations such as\nspirits alley, WalGreens on Park Street, Bonfare Market and Neptune Plaza on Webster\nStreet.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired if the location on Webster Street is in close proximity to\nthe gas station.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative; stated that Bonfare\nMarket and Neptune Plaza would be considered a grocery store; outlined the difference\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nFebruary 2, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-02-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-02-02", "page": 8, "text": "between a grocery and a convenience store.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether the permit was issued on May 12, 2015 and\nwhether the issue date was before or after the rules were changed for grocery stores.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded it was issued before 2015 in mid-2012.\nCouncilmember Oddie questioned whether the point that the area is saturated is valid if\nlicenses have been issued in the area.\nClarified that the original entitlement for Alameda Landing specifically prohibited grocery\nstores in the area, the MOU was subsequently changed and Safeway and Target were\nbuilt; urged Council to approve the use permit application by Circle K; stated there are\ncurrently three gas stations on Park Street that have been selling beer and wine for\nseveral years; the Circle K is not a freeway location, it is a neighborhood location and\nmost of Mr. Liu's customers are residents of Alameda; Mr. Liu and his brother invested\ntime and money to build Circle K; allowing Circle K to sell beer and wine will allow them\nto increase their sales: Sandip Jariwala, West Alameda Business Association (WABA).\nStated that he owns the building adjacent to the Circle K and he and his tenants are\nopposed to the proposal: David Franklin, Alameda.\nUrged Council to allow Circle K to sell beer and wine; stated that he has been working\nwith Mr. Liu from day one to support and train him on how to be a responsible retailer\nfor the community; clarified Circle K is not a typical convenience store; the focus is\nhealthy, gourmet foods and gluten free alternatives; the loiterers and trouble makers do\nnot typically shop for beer at Circle K; the beer and wine will give Circle K the\ncompetitive edge that it needs; staff goes through an extensive sales training program\nthat is more restrictive than ABC or Police requirements: Mike Faquiryan, Circle K\nStores.\nUrged Council to approve the beer and wine license use permit; addressed\nCouncilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft's concerns that if a license for Circle K is approved they\nwould have to approve one for the Chevron and the Shell gas stations also; stated\nChevron and Shell are auto shops with a snack shop, not convenience stores; he spent\nclose to $1 million to beautify Webster Street; if he knew Safeway gas was going to\nbuild there he would have never built his store; he cannot compete with Safeway gas\nwithout the license to sell beer and wine: Delong Liu, Applicant.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired if the applicant would be willing to adhere to restrictions\nsuch as cut off times for the sale of alcohol or hiring a security guard in the evenings.\nMr. Liu responded there is a garbage or recycle pick up at his store every day; he\nrequires his cashiers to go outside every hour and pick up trash; the restrooms are state\nof the art and very clean; the coolers can be locked.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nFebruary 2, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-02-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-02-02", "page": 9, "text": "Councilmember Oddie inquired what would be a reasonable restriction to Mr. Liu.\nMr. Liu responded that he would adhere to the Council's recommendations in regards to\nthe hours.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated he would like to hear from the other speakers on this topic\nand then call the applicant back up after the discussion.\nExpressed support for allowing the sale of alcohol: Jianhong Lin.\nExpressed support for allowing the sale of alcohol: Lap Chi Wong.\nExpressed support for allowing the sale of alcohol: Catherina Chen.\nStated that she works at the store; customers support the sale of alcohol: Jessica Zhao.\nStated approving the application would be fair; the Council can approve conditions:\nCynthia Bonta, Alameda.\nStated that issue is fairness and equity for all businesses; questioned why the station\nshould be prevented from selling beer and wine when others stations are allowed to do\nso; urged Council to approve allowing the sale of alcohol: Former Councilmember\nStewart Chen, Alameda.\nStated that he lives near the gas station; the rules were known before the business was\nestablished; the previous Council decision should not be allowed to be revisited; people\ngather at the liquor store across the street: Keith Weitzen, Alameda.\nStated the West End is turning an important corner; that she is concerned with the\noversaturation of liquor stores; gave a recent example of a drunk driver hitting three\ncars; stated that she is fighting for a safe neighborhood: Karen Bey, Alameda.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Circle K station was approved without the beer\nand wine license; she met with the WABA board members, spoke with the Police Chief\nand with neighbors to balance competing arguments; she feels the Planning Board\nmade a good decision, which she will support; Webster Street has been transitioning\nand she would like to see it continue to transition in a positive way.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he called the item for review because he does not\nthink the applicant had a fair hearing; concerned with the Mayor that the conditions have\nchanged; stated that he does not believe there will be a saturation of liquor licenses in\nthe City; he feels it is incongruent to allow it for some and not others; if the applicant is\nwilling to abide by some reasonable conditions, he would vote to overturn the decision\nand support the application; he informed the neighbors that if they have a complaint\nregarding loitering, the ABC takes complaints seriously, conduct hearings and can place\nrestrictions on the license; he would like to see the Council approve the license with the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nFebruary 2, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-02-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-02-02", "page": 10, "text": "restrictions that take into account the concerns of the neighbors.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated the three gas stations on Park Street already had a liquor\nlicense and operate without use permits; the Planning Board decided to allow the\noperation to continue and legalized it with use permits; the City has not granted a liquor\nlicense since 1995; it is not in line with the General Plan; the use permit would go with\nthe land so if Mr. Liu sells the property a new owner might not be as conscientious as\nMr. Liu; the conditions could be hard to enforce.\nVice Mayor Matarrese moved uphold approval of upholding the Planning Board\ndecision.\nMayor Spencer inquired if the Bonfare Market's license stays with the location.\nThe Community Development Director responded that Bonfare has been there for a\nlong time and the 40 new licenses were a transfer from the old owner to the new owner;\nwhen a business is sold a new license has to be issued by ABC.\nMayor Spencer inquired if the license stays with the land.\nThe Community Development Director responded that the use permit stays with the\nland and the license stays with the business.\nMayor Spencer stated the handout the Council received states the original issue date of\nthe license for Bonfare Market was on May 2015; she plans to support the use permit;\nshe disagrees that the findings are arbitrary and capricious; since the City continues to\nissue licenses, she feels it appears to be discrimination against this one business.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated there are an even number of Councilmembers;\ninquired what would happen in a two-two vote.\nThe City Attorney responded that the Planning Board decision stands.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated that he disagrees with the comments about the decision\nbeing arbitrary or capricious; the distinctions people have brought up with him were the\nability to pump gas, purchase a beer then immediately get back into the car.\nVice Mayor Matarrese moved approval upholding the Planning Board decision.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft second the motion; stated that the volunteer Boards and\nCommissions put a lot of time and effort into the decisions they make.\nMayor Spencer noted the vote at the Planning Board was not unanimous.\nOn the call for the question, the motion failed by the following voice vote: Ayes:\nCouncilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft and Matarrese - 2. Noes: Councilmember Oddie and\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nFebruary 2, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-02-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-02-02", "page": 11, "text": "Mayor Spencer - 2.\nMayor Spencer moved approval of issuing the use permit.\nThe motion failed for a lack of second.\n***\nMayor Spencer called a recess at 9:00 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:08 p.m.\n***\n(16-050) Introduction of Ordinance Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City\nManager to Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a 5-Year Lease\nwith Dreyfuss Capital Partners, a California Limited Liability Company, for Building 29\nLocated at 1701 Monarch Street at Alameda Point. Introduced.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director gave a brief presentation.\nStated that he has a small workspace and supports Peter Dreyfuss and the lease;\nDreyfuss Partners provides reasonable and affordable rent: Tim Laistico, Building 29.\nStated having to move is disruptive and expensive; a five year lease is critical; small\nbusinesses operate on narrow margins, so the reasonable rent is critical: Wolfgang\nBrinck, Building 29 Tenant and Alameda resident.\nIn response to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, Mr. Brinck stated that he builds\nkayaks.\nStated that he is a steel sculpture; most tenants make a living doing machining work;\nresponded to concerns raised in the Sierra Club letter: Peter Dreyfuss, Lessee.\nUrged Council to let tenants keep the amazing collaborative environment in Building 29:\nAndrea Johannessen, Alameda Wooden Trailers.\nStated that he has found a real home in Building 29 and the community; he wants to\nemploy people from the community and stay in Alameda: Thomas Bianco, Alameda\nWooden Trailers.\nStated there is rich, craftsman culture in Building 29; Building 29 craftsmen offer\nsomething meaningful to the Alameda community, both culturally and economically;\nurged Council to approve a five year lease: Joan Boucher, Alameda.\nStated that he runs a business out of Building 29 and employees other people; there is\na lot of wildlife outside the building; the raptor's that the Sierra Club is referencing also\nperch on all the buildings in the area; removing the building will not change that; the\nbuilding houses businesses that manufacture things for people in the community and\nbeyond; urged Council to approve the 5 year lease: Chris Hirneisen, Vectorpickle.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nFebruary 2, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-02-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-02-02", "page": 12, "text": "Stated that the building is his livelihood; relocating is easy for a big business but is hard\nfor a small business; he is concerned with Google coming into the area; big companies\ncome in and take over; invited the community and Councilmembers to come out and\nsee his space and work; stated low rent from Mr. Dreyfuss keeps him in the area; urged\nCouncil to extend their time in Building 29: Sean Hibma-Cronan, 1701 Monarch.\nRequested City Council shorten the lease of the tenants in Building 29 and for the City\nto assist in finding them a new home; stated tenants should receive first choice in any\navailable space at Alameda Point; the tenants should not be displaced or moved from\nAlameda Point; inquired whether Council has an idea to solidify the De-Pave Park\nplans; urged Council to do something to show support for De-Pave Park: Irene Dieter,\nSierra Club.\nStated there is an approved plan but there are also existing tenants; he supports the\ntenants staying at Alameda Point; the plan approved in 2014 for the waterfront does not\ninclude Building 29; the lease does not guarantee the tenants will remain there because\na clause in the lease states the tenant or landlord can retract the lease; the approved\nplan states that the building can be torn down once funding is available for the park;\nurged tenants to start looking for another building now: Richard Bangert, Alameda.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated that he would like the businesses to stay at Alameda Point\nand also would like the park; the plan that was approved by the City does not include\nBuilding 29; he would like the Council to consider the 5 year lease to accomplish both\nthe goals; the lease would generate $250,000 over the 5 years; the cost to demolish\nBuilding 29 is approximately $300,000; he feels 2 years is an unrealistic time frame and\nsupports the 5 year lease; the 5 year lease would give the City enough time to\naccomplish both goals; inquired whether staff can work on the goals of relocating the\ntenants and removing Building 29 to expand the wetlands and whether the lease\nrevenues from the building could be set aside for the demolition of the building.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director responded relocating existing tenants\nis always a priority; stated the best economic strategy is to retain businesses; the City is\ncurrently working with a developer who creates these types of spaces; there is a\nshortage of stock because of the redevelopment at Alameda Point; the tenants require\nspaces because of the type of work they do; in response to Vice Mayor Matarrese's\ninquiry, stated the City is continuing to prioritize finding a space for these tenants; the\nCity is trying to build more creative spaces at Alameda Point possibly within the next 5\nyears.\nIn response to the question regarding taking the proceeds from the 5 year lease to\ndemolish Building 29, she believes the funds are already spoken for; there are some\nsignificant priorities in the area of parks which staff has already been directed to ensure\nare happening; De-Pave park is added to that list; there is only so much the City can do\nwith the limited resources and time.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nFebruary 2, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-02-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-02-02", "page": 13, "text": "Vice Mayor Matarrese responded that he believes the horizon for executing De-Pave\nPark and the wetlands is a long one; the plan commits the City to the park; he would like\nto get the ball rolling to put the City on the path to get the park; execution of the plan\ndepends on the building going away.\nThe Interim City Manager stated that she will ask the Chief Operating Officer - Alameda\nPoint and the Community Development Director to look into reallocating the $250,000;\nstated that it would mean the money would not go into the Base Reuse department and\nsomething else would have to come off the table; Council would have to decide if this is\na priority; the matter can be brought back at budget time.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he does not think this is the time for said discussion;\nhe feels the lease should be considered on its own; he would like to defer the\ndiscussion regarding the money; he does not see anything that would want to make him\nvote against the lease; he supports approving the lease.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he feels the type of activity in the building is\nsomething Alameda wants to encourage; small, artisanal, craft manufacturing needs the\nappropriate space; Building 29 houses like-minded individuals that can work with each\nother; encouraged Vice Mayor Matarrese or Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft to craft\nreferrals on how to implement De-Pave Park; he supports the 5 year lease.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Council is worried about the loss of jobs in the\nface of development; she does not see the De-Pave Park plan and a 5 year lease for\nBuilding 29 as mutually exclusive; the work will be done in phases; she supports the\nstaff recommendations; lease revenues are spoken for; the matter is for a future Council\ndiscussion; she cannot support eliminating jobs and loss of revenue; she supports the\nordinance and the 5 year term; suggested staff organize a tour of the building and the\ntenants open their doors for the community to see what they are doing.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether staff could take steps to make the area more\naccessible to the public.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director responded staff is in the process of\nremoving the gates to allow cars to go through.\nMayor Spencer inquired if the community will be allowed to take pictures, which is a\ncomplaint heard frequently.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director responded currently, people can walk\nthrough the gate; stated the fencing was put in place to prevent vandalism and car\nshows; staff hears the public and Council and are working to make the area more\naccessible.\nMayor Spencer stated saying the building has to be demolished to give the public more\naccess to the area is not true; staff is working on giving more accessibility to the area;\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nFebruary 2, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-02-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-02-02", "page": 14, "text": "suggested that the tenants hold an open house and the City does not necessarily need\nto be involved; steps to move forward with the park is a separate issue; moving forward\nwith the lease does not mean that the City is not committed to De-Pave Park; it is very\nimportant to look for new space for the tenants; stated she supports the 5 year lease\nand having the tenants stay in the building until it is demolished.\nVice Mayor Matarrese inquired how staff should pass on the sentiment that the building\nis not going to be there forever; he would like a report back and progress towards the\ngoal of relocating the tenants within the 5 year window.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether would be the issue in the form of a Council referral;\nstated that she feels there are not three Councilmembers who want to prioritize\ndemolishing a building ahead of building De-Pave Park.\nThe Interim City Manager clarified Vice Mayor Matarrese wants to make sure the\ntenants know their lease is going to end.\nVice Mayor Mataresse reiterated that the building is not in the plan.\nThe City Attorney noted a provision in the lease allows either party to terminate the\nlease on 12 months' notice; stated the tenants clearly heard the Council and\nunderstand; the Assistant Community Development Director is working on relocating the\ntenants; staff will come back to report on the progress; a Council referral is not needed.\nVice Mayor Matarrese responded that he supports the 5 year lease; he would like to\nknow how staff would make the matter a priority.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether Vice Mayor Matarrese is questioning how to prioritize\ndemolishing the building, to which the Vice Mayor Matarrese responded in the\naffirmative.\nMayor Spencer stated that she does not believe there are three votes to prioritize\ndemolishing a building ahead of when the building would need to be demolished; she\ndoes not want to demolish a building just to demolish it and have it be ahead of the\nplans for De-Pave park; she stated if that is the question, a Council referral would need\nto be done.\nVice Mayor Matarrese responded that if there is a 5 year lease and there is no plan for\nwhat happens after the lease is up, the lease will be pushed out again and the park gets\npushed out with it; the building is next to the wetland, removal of the building is key in\ngetting outside funding to expand the wetland.\nThe Interim City Manager stated the discussion is veering too far off of the agenda.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated that there will be a Council referral.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n13\nFebruary 2, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-02-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-02-02", "page": 15, "text": "Councilmember Oddie moved introduction of the ordinance.\nVice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5.\n(16-051) Recommendation to Approve the AC Transit Service Expansion Plan's Buena\nVista Avenue/Line 19 Alternative.\nThe Transportation Coordinator gave a Power Point presentation.\n***\nMayor Spencer left the dais at 10:05 p.m. and returned at 10:06 p.m.\nVice Mayor Matarrese inquired whether the Measure BB monies are Alameda City\ndesignated monies.\nThe Transportation Coordinator responded AC Transit has enough money for a 14%\nincrease districtwide, which provides one additional bus line in Alameda running at 30\nminute frequencies.\nVice Mayor Matarrese inquired whether the money provided is Alameda's portion, to\nwhich the Transportation Coordinator responded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor Matarrese inquired whether the new service would start in the summer\ncycle, to which the Transportation Coordinator responded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor Matarrese inquired whether Council has to vote now to make the window\nand not defer to the fall cycle, to which the Transportation Coordinator responded in the\naffirmative.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether Vice Mayor Matarrese and Councilmember Daysog\nserve on the liaison committee and were able to weigh in on the plan, to which the\nTransportation Coordinator responded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated both he and Councilmember Daysog were at the meeting\nwhen AC Transit requested to make a decision on the three options; staff arranged it so\nthe Transportation Commission could review and make recommendations so that it\ncould come to Council to meet the AC Transit deadline of March and be included in the\nsummer cycle; route changes are in the summer and the fall; if the window is missed,\nthe City misses out on the 14% of Measure BB money for six months.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the recommended line is Vice Mayor Matarrese and\nCouncilmember Daysog's recommendation, to which Vice Mayor Matarrese responded\nin the affirmative.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n14\nFebruary 2, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-02-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-02-02", "page": 16, "text": "Councilmember Daysog thanked the various agencies involved; stated he agrees with\nstaff's recommendation; the area is underserved when it comes to bus transit and there\nneeds to be reliable transportation; questioned if the 19 line is redone will it relieve the\ndevelopers of projects in the area from providing a physical shuttle and have them\ncontribute to a renewed line 19; inquired whether there are any calculations on what it\nwould take to get to a 15 minute headway if line 19 is renewed.\nThe Transportation Coordinator responded the developers have demand management\nand transit requirement's; stated instead of providing their own shuttle, they could\ncontribute to improving the AC Transit route; using the money provided for the shuttle,\nthe City could get 20 minute frequency.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the 15 minute headway is something to consider if there\nis funding; inquired whether line 19 will go up Webster Street or up Constitution, to\nwhich the Transportation Coordinator responded the request to AC Transit is to have\nline 19 run through Marina Village to capture more development money and\nrequirements; stated a goal is to keep the connection between the College of Alameda\nand the College of Alameda annex.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated the City was cautioned not to tweak the plans, the hearing\nis to pick one.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft referenced the staff report regarding development funds\nincreasing frequency to 20 minutes; stated that she places huge stock in what the\nTransportation Commission and the Councilmembers on the liaison committee are\nrecommending; she supports the recommendation for restoring line 19.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether the estuary shuttle would go away.\nThe Transportation Coordinator responded the estuary shuttle goes between Lake\nMerrittt Bart, West Alameda, Marina Village and Wind River; Wind River contributes\n$20,000 a year; a majority of the funding coming from grants; the solution is not good\nlong term due to lack of funding from the Air District; line 19 would be very similar and\nwould capture those riders; the Wind River money would go into increasing the\nfrequency of line 19.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired if the Wind River money would contribute the $20,000.\nThe Transportation Coordinator responded Wind River is required to contribute $20,000\na year to the City; stated the City decides how to use the money.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether contributions from the developer and Wind\nRiver would not cost less for AC Transit.\nThe Transportation Coordinator responded the AC Transit has enough money to fund\none additional bus line; stated if there are developer monies would improve the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n15\nFebruary 2, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-02-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-02-02", "page": 17, "text": "frequency during peak periods.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated the ferry terminal is not being served; inquired what is AC\nTransit willing to commit to the terminal.\nRobert Del Rosario, AC Transit, stated AC Transit can only commit to one additional\nroute; that he is happy to look into other revenue sources with the City.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether AC Transit is taking into consideration staff's\nrequest to commit funding for the cross island connection.\nMr. Del Rosario responded the operating funds do not cover three options; Council is\nbeing asked to pick just one.\nIn response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry, Mr. Del Rosario stated AC Transit is\nalways in communication with the City on planning efforts and are committed to actively\nplanning routes; however, there are not enough operating dollars to have a bus on the\nroad.\nThe Transportation Coordinator stated the City is looking into how to generate money\nand will brainstorm with AC Transit on options.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated funding should be a priority of AC Transit if the City is\ngoing to restore line 19.\nCouncilmember Daysog expressed concern for ferry commuters with regards to the\nbuses being on time.\n(16-052) Mayor Spencer stated a motion is needed to consider the remaining items:\nAlameda Point environmental clean-up [paragraph no. 16-053]; the resolution regarding\nconveyance [paragraph no. 16-055]; direction to staff regarding rent [paragraph no. 16-\n056]; the referral regarding the Airport Operations Committee [paragraph no. 16-058];\nand the referral regarding the clean water, pollution prevention, and habitat restoration\nballot measure [paragraph no. 16-059].\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of considering the remaining items.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Oddie inquired how many items were mandatory.\nThe Interim City Manager responded a consultant is present for the environmental\nclean-up; conveyance needs to be done and rent stabilization needs to be done if\nCouncil wants to continue on February 16th\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n16\nFebruary 2, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-02-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-02-02", "page": 18, "text": "On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he is tracking how long it takes to get through the\nPosey tube; it is important for people taking mass transit to get the benefit of Webster\nStreet.\nMayor Spencer inquired if the busses will connect to the Bart or the ferry.\nMr. Del Rosario responded in the affirmative; stated it will connect to both.\nMayor Spencer stated someone inquired why the bus has to go all the way across the\nIsland and why there are not shorter routes.\nMr. Del Rosario responded in Alameda, the route plan is to go from East to West\ninstead of North to South to be more efficient.\nMayor Spencer stated there is a need to find a way to connect to the ferry because of\nthe shortage of parking spaces; thanked the Councilmembers for serving on the\ncommittee.\nCouncilmember Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\n(16-053) Presentation on Status Report of Environmental Conditions and Clean-up at\nAlameda Point.\nPeter Russell, Russell Resources, gave a Power Point presentation.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the process is important.\nVice Mayor Matarrese inquired if there is funding from the Navy or Department of\nDefense to pay for the sediment management that is required in the seaplane lagoon;\nstated there are three levels of insurance for the clean-up, but costs for the\nsedimentation plan are additional.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded that there will be a minimal\ncost associated with managing the sediment; stated the City is designing the terminal to\nensure there will be no need to dredge because of the high cost.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the Maritime Administration (MARAD) is reviewing their\noptions regarding dredging; which would have ramifications for the City because\nMARAD is a large customer of Alameda Municipal Power.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n17\nFebruary 2, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-02-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-02-02", "page": 19, "text": "The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated the MARAD ships are large and\nrequire a certain depth; the lagoon has very little to no shoaling; benefits in the lagoon\nthat are different; the City does not anticipate MARAD ships in the lagoon, only ferrys\nand recreational boating.\nMayor Spencer thanked Mr. Russell for his work; encouraged the community to attend\nthe Restoration Advisory Board meetings.\n***\n(16-054) Mayor Spencer stated a motion is needed to continue the meeting past 10:00\np.m.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of continuing the meeting.\nVice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5.\n***\n(16-055) Resolution No. 15117, \"Authorizing the City Manager to Accept, on Behalf of\nthe City, Certain Surplus Federal Property, and to Accept, Execute, and Record\nConveyance Documents in Substantial Conformance with Certain Phase 2 Property and\nConveyance Documents from the United States of America, Acting by and through the\nDepartment of the Navy, to Implement the Economic Development Conveyance\nAgreement for the Former Naval Air Station, Alameda (Phase 2 Alameda Point\nConveyance). Adopted.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point gave a Power Point presentation.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he met with the Chief Operating Officer - Alameda\nPoint and the Assistant City Attorney to question whether the Navy is responsible for\nremediation since the Navy caused contamination following conveyance; the answer\nwas yes; questioned what would happen if there is disagreement as to the cause of\ncontamination discovered later to which the answer was it would fall on the facts of the\ndiscovery; staff has procured insurance in the event the City is found liable.\nVice Mayor Matarrese inquired whether the developer would be required to acquire\ninsurance when the property is conveyed.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded in the affirmative; stated the\nCity also has its own insurance.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft thanked Mr. Russell and staff for their work.\nMayor Spencer thanked staff; stated that she looks forward to obtaining the property\nfrom the Navy.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n18\nFebruary 2, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-02-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-02-02", "page": 20, "text": "Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved adoption of the resolution authorizing the City\nManager to accept, on behalf of the City, Certain Surplus Federal Property, and to\nAccept, Execute, and Record Conveyance Documents in Substantial Conformance with\nCertain Phase 2 Property and Conveyance Documents from the United States of\nAmerica, Acting by and through the Department of the Navy, to Implement the\nEconomic Development Conveyance Agreement for the Former Naval Air Station,\nAlameda (Phase 2 Alameda Point Conveyance).\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5.\n(16-056) Provide Direction to Staff Regarding Certain Elements of a Proposed Rent\nStabilization and Tenant Protection Ordinance.\n***\nMayor Spencer called a recess at 11:12 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 11:20 p.m.\n***\nThe Community Development Director gave a Power Point presentation.\nUrged Council to put restrictions on evictions; stated more than 53% of Alamedan's are\nrenters: Eric Strimling, Alameda.\nStated mom and pop landlords are concerned with being able to sustain their business;\ncost of repairs might be greater than the 5% threshold: Keith Weitzen, Landlord.\nStated Alameda is a very tight community; landlords pay parcel tax to support the\nSchool District; restricting rent control in one format will penalize mom and pop\nlandlords: Phoebe Yu, Landlord.\nStated he is a mom and pop landlord; 5% increase are too small to make necessary\nrepairs; there are tenants that are not compliant with the rules; no just cause evictions\nhelps landlords: Kevin Ye, Landlord.\nStated the 5% increase does not cover costs for mom and pop landlords to make\nrepairs; it is difficult to refinance when under market value: Amanda Yee, Landlord.\nRequested certain exemptions for the proposed ordinance; stated rent control should be\nincome based: Frannie Mok, Landlord.\nStated he is a mom and pop landlord; stated he makes very small rent increases;\nrequested clarification on the RRAC process and who will be required to pay for the\nprocess; stated if he has to sell his properties, he would like to get market value: Don\nScellato, Landlord.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n19\nFebruary 2, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-02-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-02-02", "page": 21, "text": "Read points outlined in the letter submitted by Alameda Renters Coalition (ARC):\nCatherine Pauling, ARC.\n***\nMayor Spencer called a recess and reconvene 12:02 a.m. and reconvened at 12:06\na.m.\nStated rent comes in on one hand and goes right out for costs; when the economy is\nbad, no one helps landlords recoup the vacancy cost; he is against rent control:\nMalcolm Lee, Landlord.\nStated rent control started at 8% and now it is at 5%; landlords have a lot of expenses;\nurged Council to have consideration for landlords: Tony Charvet, Landlord.\nMayor Spencer stated the proposal is not a 5% cap, it is a trigger to require going to the\nRRAC.\nExpressed how imposing a cap when the market is good is not fair; suggested Council\nlook at how other cities handle rent control; stated Redwood City has incentives for\nlandlords who have volunteer rent control: Chunchi Ma.\nStated more time is needed; urged using the RRAC; suggested going case by case;\nstated rent control will put the mom and pop landlords out of business: Lester Cabral,\nAlameda.\nInquired who would pay the cost of arbitration, the landlord or tenant; stated costs for\nrepairs are high: Dan Wang, Alameda.\nQuestioned how rent control would affect tax revenue; stated having more laws and\nrestrictions makes it hard to run a business: Meina Young, Landlord.\nStated property owners should not be guaranteed a raise every year; she will not get a\n10% raise every year: Tristen Schmidt, ARC.\nStated mom and pop landlords should get exemptions; rent control should be income\nbased; historic properties should have an exemption: Rosalinda Corvi, Alameda.\nStated he is a mom and pop landlord and does not think it is fair to be put in the same\ncategory as the large 50 to 100 unit owners; he feels the RRAC works well and should\nnot be changed: Lawrence Quintero, Landlord.\nStated if he had to do earthquake retrofitting and had to evict the whole building the just\ncause eviction would now allow him to do so; rent control should be case by case: Dan\nZhang, Landlord.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n20\nFebruary 2, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-02-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-02-02", "page": 22, "text": "Stated rent control is unfair for small mom and pop landlords: Margaret Tong, Landlord.\nStated rent control is not fair to landlords, it favors the tenants: Mimi Rohr.\nUrged Council to look elsewhere for solutions; stated landlords have a lot of expenses:\nLejla, Landlord.\nStated he does not evict rent paying tenants; he is opposed to rent control: Daniel Lee,\nBay Area Homeowners Network (BAHN).\nCouncilmember Daysog left the dais at 12:36 a.m. and returned at 12:38 a.m.\n***\nStated that she opposes rent control; landlords have a lot of expenses; she does work\non her property to keep costs down: Susan Gao, BAHN.\nStated his tenant makes more money than he does; urged Council to consider all of the\nelements, not just the tenants: Stephen Shi, Landlord.\nStated tenants are fearful of speaking to the RRAC for fear of retaliation; urged Council\nto use a semi-private mediation process instead of RRAC: Jeff Cambra, Alameda.\nStated mom and pop landlords will be the most impacted from the ordinance; property\nvalues would go down from the ordinance; relocation assistance should be means\ntested: Karen Bey, Alameda.\nStated data collection needs to be for all types of units: John Klein, ARC.\nStated rent control creates tension with landlords and tenants: Rita Hui, Landlord.\nUrged Council to put a cap on rent increases; stated 65% of the Bay Area CPI is\nacceptable: Maria Dominguez, ARC.\nProvided and read a handout which provided stories of four renters: Denny, Jillian,\nMaria and Seana: Monty Heying.\nUrged Council to give exemptions only to owner occupied parcels: Brian McGuire,\nAlameda.\nThe Community Development Director stated there was a question regarding whether\nCouncil wanted to offer one year leases to in place tenants, which is staff's\nrecommendation.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired if the requirement is done in other cities, to which the\nCommunity Development Director responded several cities, including Palo Alto and\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n21\nFebruary 2, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-02-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-02-02", "page": 23, "text": "Mountain View.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether the provision has been effective in addressing\nhousing issues.\nThe Community Development Director stated a one year lease exempts all other\nrequirements regarding relocation in Glendale.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether staff is addressing relocation benefits\nyet.\nThe Community Development Director responded in the affirmative; stated the\nrecommendation to offer one year leases for tenants' protection and to bring stability;\nclarified the only question is whether the Council wants to include in place tenants.\nMayor Spencer inquired if a one year lease would then become month to month.\nThe Community Development Director responded residential leases typically roll to\nmonth to month.\nMayor Spencer inquired if there is an actual requirement.\nThe Community Development Director responded that if there is an existing lease, the\nnew lease would have to be materially the same.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether a tenant who chooses the month to month\ninstead of a year lease would still only get one increase a year, to which the Community\nDevelopment Director responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether the staff recommendation includes the tenant\nreceiving an option of a one-year lease of one year when a lease expires and whether\nthe offer is only one time.\nThe Community Development Director responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether tenants would be subject to a rent increase\nafter the year.\nThe Community Development Director responded in the affirmative; stated the offer\nwould be the first time there is notice of a rent increase after the ordinance goes into\neffect.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether it would only apply to rent increases in the first year\nafter the ordinance goes into effect.\nThe Community Development Director responded the ordinance is written to require,\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n22\nFebruary 2, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-02-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-02-02", "page": 24, "text": "the first time there is a notice of a first rent increase, whether it is a year from now or 24\nmonths from now.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether a tenant does not want to accept a one\nyear lease and would like to go month to month they would not be penalized, to which\nthe Community Development Director responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether they would still need to pay the rent increase, to which\nthe Community Development Director responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired if month to month tenants would still be protected for the\nnext year.\nThe Community Development Director responded that month to month tenants would\nget the same protections like the ones provided in a lease.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated tenants that do not have formal leases or have oral\nagreements would get standardized terms.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired if staff is suggesting the Glendale model, to which the\nCommunity Development Director responded in the negative.\nMayor Spencer stated that she agrees with staff's recommendation.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated he would like it to stay the same and not have the\nprovision apply to the existing tenants.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she agrees with staff's recommendation to\noffer the lease to existing tenants.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated he needed more time.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he agrees with staff recommendation.\nThe Community Development Director stated a majority agree; she stated staff would\ncapture the one time lease offer for prospective as well as in place tenants.\nMayor Spencer clarified the in place tenants would be when there is a rent increase.\nThe Community Development Director responded in place tenants with an existing\nlease would be offered a new lease 60 days before the current lease expires.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether it would be just once, to which the Community\nDevelopment Director responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated it is important to not have the tenant bear the cost\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n23\nFebruary 2, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-02-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-02-02", "page": 25, "text": "of arbitration; suggested the fee could be divided; stated the binding hearing process\nwill be an onerous process; inquired on the time and cost for the entire binding hearing\nprocess.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated binding arbitration and binding hearings do not provide\nenough benefit for the cost and the problem; Alameda has a RRAC process that is non-\nbinding.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated that the program fee would cover the cost of the\nhearing process; beyond that, the tenant or housing providers would cover cost to go\nthrough the judicial process.\nThe Interim City Manager stated the process is not on the agenda; the program fee is\nnot on the agenda and will be brought back to Council on February 16th\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated she was trying to give staff direction.\nThe Interim City Manager stated it is not a part of the ordinance.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the item is separate, to which the Interim City Manager\nresponded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated looking at another city's process might be helpful.\nThe Community Development Director stated staff is focusing on what the proposed\nordinance is and what the cost will be to administer it; there will be flow charts and a lot\nof information.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated the fee will benefit tenants and landlords; it is fair to share\nthe cost equally.\nMayor Spencer stated she will hold off on comments per the Interim City Manager's\nrequest; requested to stay focused on what is needed to craft the ordinance.\nThe Community Development Director requested direction on the cap for the next\ntenant's rent increase if there is a no cause eviction for an in place tenant.\nMayor Spencer stated that she would like the cap to be the same as if that tenant was\nstill in the unit.\nThe Community Development Director inquired if there should be a 5% cap.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether the old tenant could not get a rent increase until\nthe lease expires.\nThe Community Development Director responded the landlord would be able to raise\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n24\nFebruary 2, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-02-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-02-02", "page": 26, "text": "the rent an unlimited amount.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there is no cap on rent increases.\nThe Community Development Director stated the 5% is a trigger that would require\ninitiating the RRAC process.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the cap is for a new tenant's rent, to which the\nCommunity Development Director responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether the point of the policy was to disincentivize\nevictions to raise rent, to which the Community Development Director responded in the\naffirmative.\nCouncilemmber Oddie stated increasing by 25% no disincentive.\nThe Community Development Director stated which is why staff is requesting direction\non a cap.\nCouncilemmber Oddie stated Mayor Spencer's suggestion is if a tenant received a rent\nincrease in the last 12 months, then the new tenant could not get a rent increase for 12\nmonths; if the tenant was eligible for a 5% increase, then the increase should be 5%.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired what if the in place tenant is evicted; would the\nlandlord have to pay relocation benefits and cap new tenant's rent.\nMayor Spencer stated according to the Code section the next time the rent could be\nincreased would be when the previous tenant would have been eligible.\nThe Community Development Director requested clarification on the percentage cap.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft recommended 5%.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether such a clauses exists in other cities.\nThe Community Development Director responded most other cities with rent\nstabilization do not allow no cause evictions; stated the City is accommodating the\nrequests from landlords while including limitations to address the important issue of\neconomic evictions.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the landlord would be penalized twice; the landlords\nwould have to pay the relocation benefits plus not be able to impose a rent increase.\nThe Community Development Director responded that Capital Improvement Plans\n(CIP's) would be different grounds for eviction; staff is requesting direction on what the\npercentage cap should be.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n25\nFebruary 2, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-02-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-02-02", "page": 27, "text": "Mayor Spencer stated Council was told in rent controlled city, when evicting for no\ncause rent cannot increase for the next tenant, per the Civil Code section.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded that the Council has the discretion to set the 5%\ncap.\nMayor Spencer inquired what the Code section refers to.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded it refers to a different issue.\nMayor Spencer stated it is not about evicting someone and then raising the rent as\nmuch as a landlord wants for a no cause eviction.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated both sides of the issue have to be addressed; she\nsupports allowing no cause evictions and agrees to the 5% cap.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he agrees with the 5% cap.\nMayor Spencer stated that she agrees with the 5% cap.\nThe Community Development Director requested direction from Council on the cap for\nthe number of allowable no cause evictions.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired why the City would allow property owners to\nevict all tenants without a CIP.\nThe Community Development Director responded the City is trying to prevent doing so;\nstated direction on a cap is needed; if a landlord needs to do substantial rehabilitation,\nthey would need to go through the CIP process.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the cap is to prevent a housing provider\nfrom doing a mass no cause eviction, to which the Community Development Director\nresponded in the affirmative; stated staff is recommending 25% for buildings with 5 or\nmore units and buildings with 4 or fewer units, could do 1 no cause eviction a year.\nMayor Spencer stated that she agrees with staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired if this was a tool to prevent Harbor Island from\nhappening again, to which the Community Development Director responded in the\naffirmative.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated he would support the recommendation for buildings with\n10 or 20 more units; the City has not had a problem with the smaller buildings.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether Vice Mayor Matarrese is okay with mass evictions for\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n26\nFebruary 2, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-02-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-02-02", "page": 28, "text": "property owners with 4 or fewer units.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated it would depend on the circumstance; he would like to see\nevictions within the scope of the RRAC so that people have recourse.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated anyone who owns a fourplex runs the risk of doing a no\ncause eviction.\nThe Community Development Director stated the number of no cause evictions would\nbe capped annually; the idea is to not do a lot of no cause evictions as a way to get rid\nof tenants and not require a CIP.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether a four or sixplex landlord could remove a\nperson to move in a family member and still do another no cause eviction.\nThe Community Development Director responded a family member is a no fault eviction\nnot a no cause eviction; stated staff is requesting direction strictly on a no cause\nevictions not no fault.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether there are examples of other cities that have\nthis process.\nThe Community Development Director stated this is new territory.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated he is fine with the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated she objects to having any exceptions; all tenants\nshould be protected; she agrees with staff recommendation.\nMayor Spencer stated that she supports staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired if any other city has incorporated this.\nThe Community Development Director responded that in cities with rent stabilization no\ncause evictions are not allowed.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated it is an added protection.\nThe Community Development Director requested clarification from Council on whether\nthere should be an exemption for mom and pop landlords; stated if so, mom and pop\nlandlords need to be defined.\nMayor Spencer inquired if, legally, the City could require landlords to grant additional\ntime to tenants for the buyout, based on how long the tenant has lived in the unit, unless\nthe landlord and tenant agree.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n27\nFebruary 2, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-02-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-02-02", "page": 29, "text": "The Assistant City Attorney responded the current way the ordinance is written is the\ntenants can exchange staying a month for a month less in relocation assistance.\nThe Community Development Director stated direction from Council is needed if there\nwould be an exemption for mom and pop landlords.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that tenants need cash to relocate; to leave it up\nto tenants and landlords to work out on their own is not fair; she agrees with the staff\nrecommendation.\nMayor Spencer inquired if Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft is requesting to leave it the\ntenant's choice, which is what the ordinance currently states, to which Councilmember\nEzzy Ashcraft responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated if a landlord is willing to give up the income by taking the\nunit off the market, they can afford to pay relocation fees; mom and pops violate the\nrules too and the City has to protect all tenants.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that most mom and pops are good landlords and the\nCity should recognize that; he would like the small mom and pop landlords exempted\nfrom the relocation benefit or given consideration where time is given.\nVice Mayor Matarrese concerned with Councilmember Daysog; stated the distinction of\nmom and pop landlords needs to be defined; the issue should be subject to mediation to\nallow for a combination of finance and time and worked out on a case by case basis.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council has heard that people are afraid to go to\nthe RRAC; she would like to give the staff recommendation a year to see if it works.\nMayor Spencer stated she, Councilmember Oddie, and Councilmember Ezzy Ashcarft\nare in agreement with staff's recommendation.\nThe Community Development Director requested Council direction on the issue of no\ncap for rent increases; stated the cap was set for when a landlord has to initiate the\nRRAC process at 5%.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated there was no discussion on the issue; she agrees\nthe 5% threshold is reasonable.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether landlords who do not raise the rent for several\nyears would be able to do a higher rent increase like in Los Gatos.\nThe Community Development Director responded said information would be taken into\naccount by the RRAC when making a decision.\nMayor Spencer stated Los Gatos' rent control is not a trigger, it is a cap.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n28\nFebruary 2, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-02-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-02-02", "page": 30, "text": "The Community Development Director stated Los Gatos has rent control at 5%.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he is agreeable to staff's recommendation.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated that he agrees with staff's recommendation.\nThe Community Development Director requested Council direction on data collection.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated that he agrees with staff's recommendation; clarified\nanything that goes to RRAC would be tracked.\nMayor Spencer stated that she agrees with staff's recommendation.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated data collection is needed; she agrees with staff's\nrecommendation.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired how many cases currently come to the RRAC for 5%\nrent increases.\nThe Community Development Director stated there are not a lot, but it will change if the\nordinance is passed because it will be a mandatory.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated in the first year, the City should collect data on\neverything that goes to RRAC.\nMayor Spencer stated 4 members of the Council are in agreement with staff's\nrecommendation.\nMayor Spencer stated the first reading of the ordinance will be on February 16th\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated she would like to see clear written standards and\nguidelines for the RRAC and arbitrator regarding what documentation a landlord is\nrequired to provide and when a tenant is requesting lowered rent to ensure that the\nparties are dealt with in consistently; inquired whether a property manager could attend\nthe RRAC meeting in case an owner could not attend.\nThe Community Development Director stated staff understood from Council that it would\nneed to be someone with owner interest or someone who has legally binding interest.\nMayor Spencer inquired if the housing provider does not agree with the Committee's\ndecision, the housing provider must file a petition to consider the new rent increase;\nif\nno petition is filed, the rent increase is void.\nThe Community Development Director responded the Mayor is correct.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n29\nFebruary 2, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-02-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-02-02", "page": 31, "text": "CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\n(16-057) The Interim City Manager stated the City of Alameda has an advertisement in\nthe San Francisco Examiner, Big Game Guide; staff would like to organize a driving tour\nof the northern waterfront.\nMayor Spencer stated there were no objections.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\n(16-058)\nConsider\nDirecting\nthe\nCity\nManager\nto\nPrepare\nAnalysis\nand\nRecommendations Regarding Reviving the Airport Operations Committee.\n(Councilmembers Daysog and Oddie).\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the impact of the altered flight plan are a concern to\nresidents; Alameda needs its own entity to address airport issues.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated it would be a short term Committee; he would like to make\nsure Alameda has a say in this issue.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the City pays a Federal lobbyist in Washington,\nD.C.; inquired what could be done to lobby the Federal Government.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated he would like an analysis and recommendation to\nreinstate the Committee.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the City could work with the lobbyists and others to get\nsome ideas on how to proceed effectively.\nMayor Spencer stated that she supports the proposal; requested information on the\ndormant Airport Operations Committee and how it was formatted.\nThe Interim City Manager stated the City now monitors 6 Committee's on airport noise,\nwhich is very time intensive for staff; the City would need to rely heavily on the citizens\nthat have the expertise and connect them with the lobbyists to assist staff.\nMayor Spencer stated the Mayor of San Leandro is connecting with the FAA and is\ntrying to set up a phone conference.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated there is strength in numbers, so the City should\nconnect with other cities to move forward.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n30\nFebruary 2, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-02-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-02-02", "page": 32, "text": "Vice Mayor Matarrese moved approval of the proposal.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5.\n(16-059) Considering Endorsing the San Francisco Bay Clean Water, Pollution\nPrevention, and Habitat Restoration Program Measure, which will be on the June 7, ,\n2016 Ballot. (Councilmember Oddie). Continued to February 24, 2016.\nCouncilmember Oddie suggested the referral be continued to the Special Meeting on\nFebruary 24th\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 2:36 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\n31\nFebruary 2, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-02-02.pdf"}