{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-03-01", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE CONTINUED FEBRUARY 16, , 2016\nREGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- -MARCH 1, 2016--7:00 P.M.\nMayor Spencer reconvened the continued meeting at 5:39 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese,\nOddie and Mayor Spencer - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nCONTINUED REGULAR AGENDA ITEM\n(16-072 Continued) Summary title: Related to the Rent Review, Rent Stabilization and\nLimitations on Evictions Ordinance Consider: 1) A Resolution Adopting Policy\nConcerning Capital Improvement Plans (CIP), and 3) An Appropriation of Funds.\n(16-072A Continued) Adoption of Resolution Adopting Policy Concerning Capital\nImprovement Plans (CIP). Not adopted; and\n(16-072B Continued) Appropriation of $300,000 from the General Fund to Fund a Rent\nProgram Fee Study and to Cover the Cost to Administer the Rent-Related Programs\nthrough June 30, 2016.\nMayor Spencer proposed re-opening the public comment from the February 16th\nmeeting for students to speak and be able to leave the meeting early.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how much time did the students request to\nspeak, to which Mayor Spencer responded six minutes.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated the first reading has already been passed; comments\nwould not be germane; Council is deciding about the appropriations and CIP tonight; the\npublic hearing portion of the item has been closed and a vote has been taken.\nMayor Spencer stated the issue is broadly connected to rent; Councilmembers can\nweigh-in.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated tonight's agenda informs the public that there will\nbe no additional public comment because the item was continued from February 16 and\nthe public comment was closed; Council should not carve out an exception; she is\nconcerned that there could be members of the public watching who would have come to\nspeak as well, had they known Council was going to make an exception and re-open\nthe public speaking.\nMayor Spencer stated the public is welcome to come at 7:00 p.m. to speak on the rent\nissue on the regular agenda; inquired whether a motion is required on the issue.\nContinued February 16, 2016 Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nMarch 1, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-03-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-03-01", "page": 2, "text": "The Assistant City Attorney responded only a consensus of the Council is required, but\nthat a motion may be the best way since it seems the Council is divided on the issue.\nVice Mayor Matarrese moved approval of re-opening the public comment and allowing\nthe youth to speak.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion which carried by the following voice vote:\nAyes: Councilmembers Daysog, Matarrese, and Mayor Spencer - 3. Noes:\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft - 1. Abstention: Councilmember Oddie - 1.\nExpressed support for the Alameda community during the rent and housing crisis: Jay\nFeria, San Leandro.\nThe Community Development Director gave a brief presentation.\nMayor Spencer suggested discussing the CIP first.\nIn response to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the Community Development\nDirector stated that she did not have the revised language until Friday, thus hardcopy\nwas not provided to the Council.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the Community Development Director stated\nthe language now reads: \"a capital improvement, for purposes of the capital\nimprovement plan policy.'\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the eight words are the only change, to which the\nCommunity Development Director responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired who would determine whether improvements are\nmandatory, to which the Community Development Director responded the Program\nAdministrator.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired if the Council would be providing guidance to the\nProgram Administrator, to which the Community Development Director responded in the\naffirmative.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether any provisions allow the tenant to move back\nin\nwhen the repair is done.\nThe Community Development Director responded the affirmative; stated the tenant can\nbe temporarily relocated if there is a vacant unit on site; if there are no vacant units,\ntenants will be permanently relocated and receive the relocation benefits; the tenant\ncould return to the improved unit if desired.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nFebruary 16, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-03-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-03-01", "page": 3, "text": "Councilmember Oddie that stated he is concerned that the provision of returning to the\nimproved unit is not spelled out in the plan; there are no time limits on improvements;\ninquired how will a reasonable improvement and time frame be determined.\nThe Community Development Director responded the Program Administrator would\nrender judgments on the CIP, including the decisions regarding appropriate rent\nincrease, whether or not a temporary or permanent relocation is required, and the\nlength of time reasonable to make the improvements.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he is concerned there are no standards; a temporary\nrelocation could turn into a huge loophole for mass evictions if the improvements take\nan excessive amount of time; he would like to see a provision allowing a tenant to move\nback in to the improved unit without an excessive amount of time.\nIn response to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the Community Development\nDirector stated that she finished the CIP portion of the presentation.\nMayor Spencer stated Council agreed to bifurcate the CIP and appropriation issues\nsince they are two separate votes.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated the termination of tenancy and relocation should be a\nmediated process; every case is different; a City Program Administrator be a daunting\ntask; temporary relocation depends on the case and the relationships between the\nlandlord and tenant; that he strongly believes in a mediated, instead of mandated,\napproach; there is some protection of limiting activity by presenting a real plan.\nThe Community Development Director stated a staff person approving a CIP is more\nappropriate because there are technical aspects to the review and approval of a CIP; a\nProgram Administrator has the expertise that the RRAC does not; each proposed CIP\nwould be evaluated on its merits alone so the process would be done on a case-by-\ncase basis.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she understands Vice Mayor Matarrese's\nproposal, but that she would be reluctant to have items decided by the RRAC;\nsuggested a mediator instead.\nThe Community Development Director stated a staff person who would have the\ntechnical expertise has been proposed, but if Council decides a mediator could\ncontribute to the analysis of the technical documents, staff could contract for the\nservice.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether only the portion within the prime interest rate\nis subject to be recovered by rent.\nContinued February 16, 2016 Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nMarch 1, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-03-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-03-01", "page": 4, "text": "The Community Development Director responded in the affirmative; stated the prime\nrate plus 1% is a formula based on the standard business interest rate for renovation\nloans.\nIn response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry, the Community Development Director\nstated the owner of 470 Central Avenue stated his interest rate for his balloon loan is\n10%; the proposed formula prevents rewarding business decisions that do not make\nsense to the tenants; a bank that offers commercial construction loans as a routine part\nof doing business would have a good interest rate; she does not want to encourage high\ninterest rates that would drive up rent.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether staff sensed that a landlord seeking\nrenovations in the millions of dollars will go after a higher interest rate.\nThe Community Development Director responded in the negative; stated that it could\nhappen, which was the case for 470 Central Avenue; the owner had a proposal to evict\nall tenants to do substantial rehabilitation which included a doubling of rents due to the\nfinancing he had arranged; the financing structure the owner obtained to undertake\nsubstantial rehabilitation was not appropriate; staff was looking for standard business\nprocedures.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the language should be re-written to capture various\npossibilities.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated there are one-off circumstances; there should be some\nmediation if the tenant would like to return; issues should not be resolved at a public\nhearing or by the RRAC; having a trial or pilot program is a good opportunity, especially\nif a tenant wants to return; there are a lot of combinations to deal with in the interim\nperiod.\nThe Community Development Director inquired whether Councilmember Oddie is\nproposing a mediator who could handle the CIP and mediate temporary relocation, to\nwhich Councilmember Oddie responded in the affirmative; stated having a mediator\nwould give Council the opportunity to mediate evictions on a trial basis.\nMayor Spencer stated the use of the word \"landlord\" instead of \"housing provider\"\nshould be consistent.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the Community Development Director stated\nstaff reviewed City of Berkeley and City of Los Angeles as a model for the CIP program.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether other cities have a staff person, to which the\nCommunity Development Director responded in the affirmative; stated most cities with\nrent control have a staff hearing officer; Alameda proposes a contract hearing officer.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nFebruary 16, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-03-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-03-01", "page": 5, "text": "Mayor Spencer stated the position would require expertise; inquired whether it would go\nthrough the Planning Department.\nThe Community Development Director responded it would go through the Program\nAdministrator; stated staff is hoping the Housing Authority would administer the\nprogram; the Housing Authority would hire staff with the expertise.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the Community Development Director stated\nthere would be coordination with the Planning Department as permits would be the\nbasis to understand the CIP valuation and project time length.\nMayor Spencer inquired what expertise is needed for a hearing officer versus a\nmediator, to which the Community Development Director responded the hearing officer\nand mediator could have the same skill set; stated the person would have to be familiar\nwith the construction and bidding process and have an understanding on how to\ncalculate the interest rate for the allowable rent increase.\nMayor Spencer stated determining the financing is a separate issue from determining\nthe length of time for a project; the Planning Department is familiar with how long it\ntakes to complete the jobs.\nThe Community Development Director stated the Planning Department does not\ntypically weigh-in or opine about the length of time of a project.\nMayor Spencer stated the interest rate should be based on the real number that is being\nfinanced.\nThe Community Development Director stated interest rates change all the time; the idea\nis to set a formula.\nMayor Spencer stated the landlord should find the best interest rate possible; the rate\ninformation plugged into the formula should be the actual number.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the Community Development Director stated a\ntenant who notifies the landlord that they would like to remain in their unit after\nimprovement have been made could be temporarily relocated to an available vacant\nunit onsite; the tenant could move back into the renovated unit and pay the higher rent;\nif there is no vacant unit, the tenant would be permanently relocated.\nMayor Spencer stated the tenant should be able to come back to the renovated unit\nwhether or not the landlord has another vacant unit for a temporary relocation; the unit\nwould eventually be available and the tenant should have first right of refusal.\nThe Community Development Director stated one criteria when evaluating a CIP would\nbe to hash out the temporary relocation.\nContinued February 16, 2016 Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nMarch 1, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-03-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-03-01", "page": 6, "text": "In response to the Interim City Manager's inquiry, Mayor Spencer stated that she is\nreferring to the tenant's option to return to the renovated unit; relocation assistance is\nalso included in the proposal.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated there is a precedence that the tenant should be\ncompensated for loss of use of their unit during a temporary relocation as in situations\nlike mold remediation where the tenant is not at fault.\nThe Community Development Director stated if no temporary relocation is available,\npermanent relocation is provided.\nMayor Spencer stated that she prefers to have the ability for the tenant to return\nregardless of the relocation situation; the caveat being the repairs should be done in a\ntimely manner.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated every situation is different; she favors the proposal\nin cases where the tenant may want to return; depending on the circumstance, a\nnegotiation could be done with a mediator; cautioned about limiting the length of repairs,\nespecially on older homes that need special supplies; stated property owner's hands\nshould not be tied inordinately; rather than a set formula for the interest rate, the policy\nshould not penalize building owners for improving old and decaying buildings, which\nmight require a loan with an unfavorable interest rate; a set formula is too cookie-cutter.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated he would like two things: 1) termination of tenancy and\nevictions should be subject to mediation; 2) property owner must prove any renovation;\nhe strongly supports mediation, which the ordinance does not contemplate; a CIP\nshould be subject to proof; no landlord wants their building empty during renovations;\nthe proposal seems impossible to administrate.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he would like to treat all parties equally; the tenant\nwould be penalized if the landlord has bad credit and can only get unfavorable financing\nrates; perhaps there is a middle ground; he does not like using the word \"penalty.\"\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, Vice Mayor Matarrese stated that he thinks the\ninterest rate should be the real rate; banks will not lend at a favorable rate if a building is\ndilapidated.\nMayor Spencer stated Council would have to agree on principles and have the matter\nbrought back; inquired whether there is consensus on imposing actual interest rate.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the interest rate formula by which all possible\nreimbursements would be done is hard and fast at prime rate plus 1; there are many\ndifferent property types; the ultimate rate is subject to a variety of conditions and market\nfactors such that instead of 7% plus 1, the real rate turns out to be 8.5%, which is not\ncaptured; the formula was created based on the situation related to the 470 Central\nAvenue property; he is looking for more flexibility regarding the interest rate.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nFebruary 16, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-03-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-03-01", "page": 7, "text": "The Community Development Director stated that she understands the Council would\nlike staff to return with a policy which reflects the actual interest rate.\nMayor Spencer stated that is the consensus.\nIn response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry, the Community Development Director\nstated without doubling the rents, the 470 Central Avenue project would be upside\ndown.\nMayor Spencer stated Council needs to assume everyone is acting in good faith.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the issue falls along the same lines as\ndocumenting the actual construction work; these are the cases that are more\nappropriately handled in semi-private setting with mediation or arbitration, rather than at\nthe RRAC.\nThe Community Development Director stated the proposal is to have issues handled by\na mediator or trained staff; the three key things should be accomplished by a CIP: 1) a\nmechanism for approving the work; 2) setting the allowable rent increase; and 3)\nresolving any relocation issues.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the Community Development Director stated\nthe proposal states CIP issues would be handled by staff, but does not specify who the\nstaff is; the Program Administrator should determine who the best qualified staff would\nbe to handle the situations, based on training and expertise, which could be a skill set to\nsearch for in a staff person.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated the CIP is a technical exercise; the relocation is a\nnegotiation; the two issues could be understandable if separated and described better.\nIn response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry, the Community Development Director\nstated that she understands the distinction being requested, but does not think there\nneeds to be two separate people; she understands the Council's desire is to have\nmediation.\nCouncilmember Oddie requested a recap of the Council direction, to which the\nCommunity Development Director responded staff would modify the proposal to include\nthe eight word definition of a capital improvement, language on the interest rate being\nthe actual rate of the loan secured, more guidance on whether or not the proposed work\ntriggers the need for relocation, a negotiation process for discussing options for\ntemporary relocation beyond just a vacant unit on site, and consider a cap on temporary\nrelocation and fees if improvements would take longer to complete.\nIn response to Councilmember Ezzy Ahscraft's inquiry, the Community Development\nDirector stated staff would return to Council with a revised plan on April 5th to avoid a\nContinued February 16, 2016 Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nMarch 1, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-03-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-03-01", "page": 8, "text": "gap in coverage of the moratorium and so there would not be any evictions before the\nCIP is in place.\nAppropriation and Fee Study:\nThe Community Development Director continued the presentation.\nIn response to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the Community Development\nDirector responded the three full time staff being considered includes two attorneys and\none paralegal.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like to see comparison done on\nwhat it would cost to outsource the work; benefits paid for a staff person need to be\nfactored into cost.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated the cost estimate is very conservative; the cost is\nbased on a dollar perspective, not a body perspective; the intent would be to hire\noutside counsel as needed in the initial stages of the program; a job allocation would be\nbrought before Council at a later time if staff determines there is a need for full-time\nstaff.\nIn response to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the Assistant City Attorney\nstated the Full Time Estimate (FTE) positions would include an advice counsel to help\neducate landlords and tenants on the program, supported by a paralegal; and one\nlitigator specializing in the area.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether Council has to approve the $300,000\nappropriation before second reading of the ordinance, to which the Community\nDevelopment Director responded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated the appropriation has to be administered between now\nand June; if something changes, the amount could be unencumbered; the budget is\nconservative.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he is hoping there are different options when the\nstudy is completed.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he does not support a fee study; Council should find\nthe money within the budget for the program; it is fundamentally unfair to impose fees\non small mom and pop landlords.\nMayor Spencer stated that she is concerned about who should bear the cost of the\nprogram; she would like to see arbitration beyond RRAC be shared between the parties\nat a minimum of 25% and would like the focus to be on meaningful participation at the\nRRAC level.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nFebruary 16, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-03-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-03-01", "page": 9, "text": "The Interim City Manager stated the fee study is going to indicate how much the\nprogram will cost, not who will pay for the program; staff would decide who will pay.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the Community Development Director stated\nthe assumption for the number of arbitration cases is 20, which is $90,000; paying for\nthe hearing officer process could be reviewed after the fee study analysis.\nMayor Spencer stated the issue is not a simple landlord/tenant one; the issue is a\ncommunity issue; some of the money should come from the General Fund.\nIn response to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the Community Development\nDirector stated staff will look at the whole range of options since there is not consensus\nof the Council on the program fees.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the fee structure is potentially split; recommended the\ntenant write a check to City Hall instead of rolling the fee into the rent; stated the tenant\nwould understand the program is City-run.\nCouncilmember Oddie moved approval of the appropriation of $300,000 from the\nGeneral Fund to fund a Rent Program Fee Study and to cover the cost to administer the\nrent-related programs through June 30, 2016.\nCouncilmember Daysog suggested an alternative to bifurcate the motion.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether Council would agree to two separate motions.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft responded that she would prefer to keep one motion.\nVice Mayor Matarrese seconded the Councilmember Oddie's motion.\nMayor Spencer stated a Councilmember can request to bifurcate a motion in order to\nvote yes on one and no on the other.\nVice Mayor Matarrese withdrew his second in favor of bifurcation.\nCouncil Member Daysog moved approval of the appropriation of $250,000 from the\nGeneral Fund to cover the cost to administer the rent-related programs through June\n30, 2016.\nVice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nVice Mayor Matarrese moved approval of appropriating $50,000 from the General Fund\nto fund a Rent Program Fee Study.\nCouncilmember Oddie seconded the motion which carried by the following voice vote:\nAyes: Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Oddie, Matarrese, and Mayor Spencer - 4.\nContinued February 16, 2016 Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nMarch 1, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-03-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-03-01", "page": 10, "text": "Noes: Councilmember Daysog - 1.\nADJOURNMENT\nMayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 6:55 p.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\n10\nFebruary 16, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-03-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-03-01", "page": 11, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- MARCH 1, 2016--7:00 P.M.\nMayor Spencer convened the meeting at 7:10 p.m. Youths from the Boys and Girls led\nthe Pledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese,\nOddie and Mayor Spencer - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\n(16-089) Mayor Spencer announced that the wetlands mitigation bank [paragraph no.\n16-112\nwould be continued to March 15, 2016.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(16-090) Mayor Spencer did a reading on the Season for Non-violence daily word:\npraise.\n(16-091) The Interim Assistant City Manager introduced the new Information\nTechnology Director, Carolyn Hogg.\n(16-092) Proclamation Declaring March 2016 as American Red Cross Month.\nMayor Spencer read the Proclamation and presented it to Jack McCredie and Public\nWorks staff member Laurie Kozisek.\nMr. McCredie and Ms. Kozisek made brief comments.\n(16-093) Proclamation Declaring March 7 through 12, 2016 March as Boys and Girls\nClub Week.\nMayor Spencer read the Proclamation and presented it to Marc Morales and members\nof the Boys and Girls Club.\nMr. Morales made brief comments.\n(16-094) Proclamation acknowledging and thanking Interim City Manager Elizabeth\nWarmerdam for her service.\nMayor Spencer read the Proclamation and presented it to Ms. Warmerdam.\nMs. Warmerdam made brief comments.", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-03-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-03-01", "page": 12, "text": "The Councilmembers made brief comments.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(16-095) Former Councilmember Barbara Thomas, Alameda, thanked the Council for\nthe long hours; suggested that the Mayor and Council salaries be increased and each\nhave part time staff members.\n(16-096) April Squires, Alameda, expressed concern over late Council meetings not\nbeing accessible to seniors and Americans with Disability Act.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor Spencer announced that the three items regarding the Jean Sweeney Park\n[paragraph nos. 16-102, 16-103, and 16-104 were removed from the Consent Calendar\nfor discussion.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the remainder of the Consent\nCalendar.\nVice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph\nnumber.] [Note: The motion was prior to Oral Communication.]\n(*16-097) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings Held on February\n2,2016. Approved.\n(*16-098) Ratified bills in the amount of $3,672,205.66.\n(*16-099) Recommendation to Accept the Quarterly Sales Tax Report for the Period\nEnding December 31, 2015 Collected During the Period July 1, 2015 to September 30,\n2015. Accepted.\n(*16-100) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Amend an Agreement with\nMoffatt and Nichol to Add the Amount of $100,035 for a Total Contract Amount of\n$170,035 for Marine Engineering and Design Consulting Services for the Proposed\nSeaplane Lagoon Ferry Terminal at Alameda Point and Amend the Base Reuse Fund\nRevenue and Expenditures Budget by Increasing Each by $100,035. Accepted.\n(*16-101) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Purchase Playground\nEquipment and Safety Surfacing from NSP3/Playworld Systems Inc. for Godfrey Park in\nan Amount Not To Exceed $270,000. Accepted.\n(16-102) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Consultant\nAgreement with SLR International Corporation to Provide Site Investigation and\nEnvironmental Report Services for the Jean Sweeney Open Space Park, Including\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMarch 1, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-03-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-03-01", "page": 13, "text": "Contingency, for a Total Amount Not to Exceed $363,610 and to Amend Project\nRevenue and Expenditures Budget by $170,610.\nThe Placeworks agreement and Alameda Food Bank Memorandum of Understanding\n[paragraph nos. 16-103 and 16-104 were addressed with the SLR agreement.\nThanked the Council and Interim Assistant City Manager for supporting the project:\nDorothy Freeman, Jean Sweeney Open Space Park Fund.\nExpressed support for signing the agreements and MOU with Alameda Food Bank;\nurged approval of agreements: Jim Sweeney, Alameda.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the three agreements.\nVice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice - 5.\n(16-103) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Consultant\nAgreement with Placeworks Landscape Architects to Provide Design Services for Jean\nSweeney Open Space Park, in an Amount Not to Exceed $665,828 and to Amend\nProject Revenue and Expenditures Budget by $465,828 from Development Impact Fees\n- Recreation and Parks.\nNote: The matter was addressed under the SLR Agreement [paragraph no. 16-102].\n(16-104) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim City Manager to Execute a\nMemorandum of Understanding with the Alameda Food Bank for Its Facility Expansion\nPlanning on a Portion of the Jean Sweeney Open Space Park.\nNote: The matter was addressed under the SLR Agreement [paragraph no. 16-102].\n(*16-105) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim City Manager to Execute a License\nAgreement with the Alameda Unified School District for a Fire Safety Access Route\nThrough Otis Elementary School to Krusi Park. Accepted.\n(*16-106) Resolution No. 15128, \"Authorizing the Interim City Manager to Accept an\nEasement from the Alameda Unified School District for a Portion of the Encinal Boat\nLaunch Facility.\" Adopted.\n(*16-107) Resolution No. 15129, \"Authorizing Execution of the State Standard\nAgreement for the Housing Related Parks Grant from the State Department of Housing\nand Community Development for Estuary Park Athletic Fields.\" Adopted.\n(*16-108) Resolution No. 15130, \"Consenting to Leasehold Mortgage for Property\nLocated at 2900-3000 Main Street and Leased to Bay Ship and Yacht Company and\nAuthorize the Interim City Manager to Execute the Consent to Leasehold Mortgage and\nRelated Documents.\" Adopted.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMarch 1, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-03-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-03-01", "page": 14, "text": "REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(16-109) Resolution No. 15131, \"Approving a 15-Year Concession Agreement, with a\n10-Year Renewal Option, with Dialemi, Inc. (known as Jim's on the Course), for the\nProvision of Food and Beverage Service at the Chuck Corica Golf Complex.\" Adopted.\nThe Interim Assistant City Manager gave a Power Point presentation.\nIn response to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, Tom Geanekos, owner of Jim's\non the Course, stated MLD Design prepared the renderings.\nIn response to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the Interim Assistant City\nManager stated the design is still in the concept stage and has not gone before the\nPlanning Board for design review; the agreement requires the detail design of the\nenclosed patio be approved by the Golf Commission as well as the Planning Board.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how serving dinner would be a requirement if it\nis not in the concession agreement.\nThe Interim Assistant City Manager responded dinner could be added to the agreement\nas a requirement; stated breakfast and lunch are the minimum requirement; the\nintention for dinner is to serve tournaments.\nMr. Geanekos stated the operating hours for Jim's on the Course over the last 10 years\nhave been consistent; from 6:00 a.m. to 8:30 p.m. in the kitchen, and to about 11:00\np.m. in the bar; dinner has always been served although not stated in the agreement;\nthe types of dinner served has been limited due to the kitchen facility; the larger kitchen\nspace allows for more dinners.\nIn response to Vice Mayor Matarrese inquiry, the Assistant City Attorney stated the\nconcession agreement differs from a lease agreement in several legally significant\nrespects: a concession agreement does not grant any interest in the property; a lease\ngrants a leasehold interest in the property which can then be used to secure mortgages;\nthe concession agreement grants the right to operate a food and beverage facility only\nand does not have the same obligations as a lease agreement, such as paying rent or\npossessory interest tax; there are limitations to use the property in any way to finance\nimprovements.\nVice Mayor Matarrese inquired whether there has been a value assigned to the\nmaintenance and repair cost.\nThe Interim Assistant City Manager responded the City has not put any repair in the\nbuilding since Jim's on the Course has been there; there is no specific dollar amount\nassigned for repairs; the building is 40 to 50 years old; the roof and HVAC will be in\nneed of repair in the next three to five years.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMarch 1, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-03-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-03-01", "page": 15, "text": "Vice Mayor Matarrese inquired whether the liability of repair has shifted from the City to\nthe concessionaire by the agreement, to which the Interim Assistant City Manager\nresponded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired which body has the authority to give staff direction to\nnegotiate price and terms, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded the Council\nhas the authority.\nIn response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry, the Interim Assistant City Manager\nstated Council gave direction in Closed Session.\nIn response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry, the Interim Assistant City Manager\nstated the standard revenue is $5.00 per round for food and beverages at a golf course;\n100,000 rounds at $500,000 is a good baseline for a golf course.\nIn response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry, the Interim Assistant City Manager\nstated the revenue is $1.235 million; she does not have the exact number of rounds for\nthe fiscal year.\nSubmitted a letter; urged approval of the agreement: Peter Fletcher, Alameda\nStated that he supports Mr. Geanakos and Jim's on the Course; urged Council to follow\nthe Golf Commission recommendation; requested more time for a work session to\naddress and clarify issues before Council approves the agreement: Ken Campbell,\nGreenway Golf.\nStated everyone is in favor of maintaining the relationship with Jim's on the Course;\nrequested more time to work out details: Beverly Blatt, Golf Commission.\nStated that she would like to have a first class banquet facility at the golf course; urged\nCouncil not to rush approval and to work out details: Pam Curtis, Alameda.\nStated the golf course should have a fantastic restaurant facility to match the\noutstanding golf course; that she supports the Golf Commission recommendation to\nextend the current lease for six months: Jane Sullwold, Alameda.\nUrged Council to follow Golf Commission recommendation and allow public input\nregarding the agreement: Joe Van Winkle, Alameda.\nStated that she supports the agreement: Kathleen Solmssen, Alameda.\nStated that he supports the agreement and urged Council to move forward: Peter\nSolmssen, Alameda.\nProvided a history of the Chuck Corica Golf Course and the success of Jim's on the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMarch 1, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-03-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-03-01", "page": 16, "text": "Course: Norma Arnerich, Alameda.\nProvided a brief history of the Golf Commission at the golf course; stated that he\nsupports Jim's on the Course: Former Councilmember Lil Arnerich, Alameda.\nStated the terms of the concession agreement are very detailed; Mr. Geanekos would\nbe happy to clarify any issues: Richard Waxman, Dialemi, Inc.\nUrged Council to support the agreement: George Efstathiou, Alameda.\nUrged Council to work out details quickly and move forward: Former Councilmember\nDoug deHaan, Alameda.\nThanked all the speakers; stated the measure of success is longevity, which is a\ntestament to his family business; he would like to remain part of the community and\nurged Council to approve his agreement: Tom Geanekos, Jim's on the Course.\nUrged Council to follow the Golf Commission recommendation: Cheryl Saxton, Golf\nCommission.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated Jim's on the Course concessionaire has been the longest\nthroughout Alameda's history; Jim's is the kind of partner Alameda should have in the\ncommunity; that he acknowledges the Golf Commission recommendation, but Mr.\nGeanekos and Greenway can still negotiate even after Council approves the\nagreement; he trusts there is a willingness to work things out; he would like to give Jim's\ncertainty and he supports the agreement.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the lease is 25 years which should not be taken\nlightly; the Golf Commission recommendation is reasonable and Council should allow\nthe six months to proceed with deliberation; that she supports the Golf Commission\nrecommendation.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he has listened to various sides of the issue; he is\nconfident in staff's ability to analyze the issue and provide a recommendation which he\nsupports; he would like to move forward.\nVice Mayor Matarrese requested the proforma information be attached to the contract;\nstated monitoring the proforma is important; he would also like to keep a timeframe; it\nmakes sense to move forward with the contract from the business standpoint so that\nimprovements of the restaurant could coincide reasonably with the improvements of the\ngolf course; he does not think the City needs to have a negotiation with Greenway Golf\nand Jim's on the Course, but expects them to work with the Golf Commission; he does\nnot want the contract to be on hold to wait for peripherals; the timing of moving forward\nnow is important; inquired whether it is possible to have a separate contract between\nthe City and Jim's on the Course to address other issues beyond the current contract.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMarch 1, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-03-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-03-01", "page": 17, "text": "The Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated if there are issues that\nneed to be further addressed beyond the concession agreement, the issues could come\nback to the Council as an amendment to the agreement, or be the subject of a new\nagreement.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the talking-point list would be the\nsubject of the agreement amendment, to which Vice Mayor Matarrese responded in the\nnegative; stated it is unknown what will come out of the Golf Commission discussion; it\nis theoretical.\nMayor Spencer stated Council values the work of the Commissioners; that she has\nheard unanimously that Jim's should stay on the golf course; the concerns by the\nCommission do not outweigh the importance of the City supporting Jim's to be\nsuccessful; she is confident the agreement would work out successfully for the City;\nJim's does not only serve people who golf; Jim's is successful because the community\nsupports it; she would like to move forward with the agreement.\nVice Mayor Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution with the proforma information\nformally summarized and attached to the agreement; and periodic reports that coincide\nwith the milestones be provided to Council from Jim's and Greenway through the Golf\nCommission.\nCouncilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote:\nAyes: Councilmembers Daysog, Matarrese, Oddie and Mayor Spencer - 4. Noes:\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft - 1.\n***\nMayor Spencer called a recess at 9:17 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:21 p.m.\n(16-110) Response to City Council Referral Regarding Reactivating the Airport\nOperations Committee to Address Impacts from the Federal Aviation Administration's\n(FAA) NextGen Program by Authorizing the Mayor to Send a Letter to Representative\nBarbara Lee; Reactivating the Ad-hoc Airport Operations Committee to Oversee\nNextGen Issues; and Adding NextGen to the City's 2016 Legislative Program.\nThe Interim Assistant City Manager gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Oddie seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Mayor Spencer stated taking the next steps on the issue is important\nand makes it easy for the legislative representatives to argue on Alameda's behalf.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMarch 1, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-03-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-03-01", "page": 18, "text": "(16-111) Receive Report on Results from a City of Alameda Survey Conducted in\nDecember 2015 and Provide Direction on a November 2016 Ballot Measure.\nCurtis Below, Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz and Associates, and the Interim City\nManager gave a Power Point presentation.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired who will be doing the door to door residential\ncontact, to which the Interim City Manager responded it is to be determined; stated staff\nwould be working on education material.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he would like more information as to the nature of\nthe problem; Alameda's expenses go beyond the revenues collected through normal tax\ncollections; working with a deficit means changing the economy; he understands that\nsome amount of what would be collected is already constrained.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated that he agrees with assessment of sales taxes; direction\nshould be given to pursue legislation; the Utility Users Tax (UUT) is antiquated and\nshould be brought up to current utility use.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she supports staff's recommendations.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he supports staff's recommendations; needing a 2/3\nvote is a struggle; he would like the lobbyists to understand Alameda's priorities.\nMayor Spencer stated that she supports staff's recommendations; inquired what\npercentage of Alamedans do not have a landline.\nDonald Maynard, Contract Attorney, responded about half of Alameda homes do not\nhave a landline; stated the problem with Alameda's ordinance is that there are no\ndefinitions which invites companies to interpret the ordinance in different ways; most of\nthe money is missing because of the way wireless companies interpret the ordinance;\nabout 90% of cities in California have voter-approved, modern UUT ordinances;\nAlameda is catching up to modern ordinances.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the Interim City Manager stated the UUT is a\nrevenue measure that continues to decline; the tax falls under the fiscal sustainability\ncategory.\nMayor Spencer stated that she thinks the community is supportive of the parks; the\nconcern is not about the parks but about an additional parcel tax.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether the UUT is part of the Balanced Revenue\nIndex (BRI) formula, to which the Interim City Manager responded in the affirmative.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMarch 1, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-03-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-03-01", "page": 19, "text": "Mayor Spencer clarified that Council is only being asked to approve the issues to be\nbrought back; Council is not voting on whether or not to put the issues on the ballot.\nThe Interim City Manager stated staff will bring the actual language back to Council, and\nthe Council will be asked to formally vote to place the items on the November Ballot.\nVice Mayor Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by the following\nvoice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie and Mayor\nSpencer - 4. Abstention: Councilmember Daysog - 1.\n(16-112) Response to City Council Referral Regarding a Possible Wetlands Mitigation\nBank at Alameda Point. Continued to March 15, 2016.\n(16-113) Summary title: Consider: 1) an Ordinance regarding Rent Review, Rent\nStabilization and Limitations on Evictions, Amending the Duties of the Rent Review\nAdvisory Committee (RRAC), and Suspending the Current Article XIV of Chapter VI\nregarding Rent Review; 2) Determining that Adoption of the Ordinance is not a Project\nUnder the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) or, if It is a Project, the\nOrdinance is Exempt from CEQA; and 3) an Urgency Ordinance Extending a\nTemporary (Additional 22 Days) Moratorium on Rent Increases for Certain Residential\nRental Properties and on Evictions from all Residential Rental Properties Except for\nJust Cause.\nOrdinance No. 3148, \"Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by (A) Adding Article XV\nto Chapter VI Concerning Review of Rent Increases Applicable to All Rental Units and\nRent Stabilization Applicable to Certain Rental Units and Concerning Limitations on\nEvictions and the Payment of Relocation Assistance Applicable to All Rental Units, (B)\nAmending Section 2-23.4 Concerning the Duties of the Rent Review Advisory\nCommittee, and (C) Suspending Article XIV of Chapter VI in Its Entirety; and\nDetermining that Adoption of the Ordinance is not a Project under the California\nEnvironmental Quality Act (CEQA) or, if It is a Project, the Ordinance is Exempt under\nCEQA.\" Finally passed; and\n(16-113A) Public Hearing to Consider Urgency Ordinance No. 3149, \"Extending within\nthe City of Alameda a Temporary (an Additional 22 Days) Moratorium on Rent\nIncreases for Certain Residential Rental Properties and on Evictions from all Residential\nRental Properties Except for Just Cause.' Adopted.\nThe Community Development Director gave a brief presentation.\nStated that she does not believe the ordinance complies with CEQA: Former\nCouncilmember Barbara Thomas, Alameda.\n***\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMarch 1, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-03-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-03-01", "page": 20, "text": "(16-114) Mayor Spencer stated a motion is needed to consider the remaining item: the\nreferral on mixed use zoning. [paragraph no. 16-117\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of considering the item.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice\nvote: Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese and Mayor Spencer -\n4. Noes: Councilmember Oddie - 1.\nSubmitted information; stated that he is concerned about the RRAC structure as\nproposed; a little bit of clarity could avoid conflict: John Sullivan, Alameda.\nStated the plan has technical concerns that need to be addressed; Alameda is facing a\nhousing crisis; urged Council to help alleviate housing stress for Alameda families:\nPhillip James, Alameda.\nExpressed concern over the operating cost of the ordinance; stated the fee study should\nestimate a lower amount and decrease the bureaucracy: Rosalinda Fortuna, Alameda.\nStated the purpose of government is to provide justice; Council should listen to voters\nand take steps to ensure everyone stays honest: Malia Vella, Alameda.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he appreciated Mr. Sullivan's handout; some of Mr.\nSullivan's suggestions would work to stymie the increased rents; adopting some ideas\nwould show that Council is trying to do the best for the small mom and pop landlords;\nhaving agencies like ECHO Housing evaluate renter's habitability claims is a good\nsuggestion; he also likes the idea of the relocation assistance benefit being paid to the\nnext landlord; he would like to exempt owners of up to two residential units in relocation\nassistance for family move-in.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is intrigued by Mr. Sullivan's suggestions,\nbut would like to pass the ordinance in the form of the first reading; she would like to\ngive the ordinance a chance; the current Council could make a change before the year\nis up; all tenants should be protected; different classes of tenants should not be created;\nfairness should also extend to all landlords.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated there are some mom and pop landlords that are not\nbehaving properly; he supports the ordinance as written; things could be improved; if\ndata shows the ordinance needs to be tweaked, Council could have a discussion; there\nwill not be hostility between landlords and tenants, it is up to each party; landlords who\nbehave properly will not be subject to any of the provisions of the ordinance;\nencouraged all parties to have positive human relations; stated if everyone treats others\nfairly, additional regulations would not be needed.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMarch 1, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-03-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-03-01", "page": 21, "text": "Vice Mayor Matarrese stated that he feels strongly about the mediation process; the\nordinance is going down the wrong path; there are some good points; Council could\nmonitor and change anything, but in the core, mediation has been successful.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated it is difficult to place value on the statistics; the\namount of people who were too intimidated to use a process that had no teeth cannot\nbe measured; Council has now given some teeth to the mediation process; she would\nlike the ordinance to go forward.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry regarding CEQA compliance, the Assistant City\nAttorney stated the passing of the ordinance is exempt from CEQA and the City\nAttorney stands behind the determination.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated the Housing Element does address the issue clearly;\nthe ordinance does not have any direct impact on any physical or environmental\nsituations; the ordinance deals with rent and has no environmental concerns, is not a\nproject, and is exempt under CEQA.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the Assistant City Attorney stated Government\nCode Section 1090 is not applicable to the action Council is taking tonight.\n***\n(16-115) Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of continuing the meeting past\n11:00 p.m.\nVice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5.\nMayor Spencer stated that she plans to support the ordinance as is; thanked Council for\nexercising best judgement to meet the needs of the community; stated the ordinance is\na balanced, measured approach, which Council still has the ability to revise.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved final passage of the ordinance amending the\nAlameda Municipal Code by (A) adding Article XV to Chapter VI concerning review of\nrent increases applicable to all rental units and rent stabilization applicable to certain\nrental units and concerning limitations on evictions and the payment of relocation\nassistance applicable to all rental units, (B) amending Section 2-23.4 concerning the\nduties of the Rent Review Advisory Committee, and (C) suspending Article XIV of\nChapter VI in its entirety; and determining that adoption of the Ordinance is not a project\nunder CEQA or, if It is a Project, the Ordinance is exempt under CEQA.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMarch 1, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-03-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-03-01", "page": 22, "text": "Councilmember Daysog amended the motion to exempt owners of up to two residential\nunits, and only two units, in Alameda, from the requirement to pay relocation assistance\nin the specific instance of family move-in.\nThe proposed amendment to the ordinance failed due to a lack of second.\nCouncilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote:\nAyes: Councilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Oddie and Mayor Spencer - 4. Noes:\nCouncilmember Matarrese - 1.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved adoption of the urgency ordinance extending\nwithin the City of Alameda a temporary (an additional 22 days) moratorium on rent\nincreases for certain residential rental properties and on evictions from all residential\nrental properties except for just cause.\nVice Mayor Matarrese seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Oddie inquired how could Council ensure the\nmoratorium covers the period in the event the ordinance is suspended due to a\nreferendum.\nThe Community Development Director responded another urgency ordinance extending\nthe time frame could be brought back.\nIn response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry, the Community Development Director\nstated a special meeting to consider an urgency ordinance could be scheduled if\nnecessary.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated if an effort of a referendum is under way, an urgency\nordinance would be brought back right away to avoid a gap.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(16-116) Catherine Pauling, Alameda Renters Coalition, stated that she is concerned\nthe City is under-collecting the fees from rental property businesses.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMarch 1, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-03-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-03-01", "page": 23, "text": "(16-117) Consider Directing the City Manager to Revise the Mix-Use Zoning\nDesignation and Related Policies to Aid Retention of Beneficial Commercial Uses\nCitywide. (Vice Mayor Matarrese)\nVice Mayor Matarrese made brief comments on his referral.\nRead a letter from Mr. DeLap, former harbor master, opposing the Bay West\ndevelopment of high density housing; stated the State gives high priority to preserving\nrecreational and boating use of the shoreline: Peter Brand, Alameda.\nExpressed support of Alameda Marinas and marine services: Joseph Woodard,\nAlameda.\nProvided a petition of Barnhill Marina neighbors; urged support of maintaining marina\nservices: Bill Cox, Alameda.\nUrged support of Alameda's coast; stated the waterways are an asset: George Lythcott,\nAlameda.\nStated that he is concerned about the long term outlook of the boating community;\nurged support of maintaining Alameda's maritime community: Grant Hayes, Alameda.\nShowed a map; expressed support of maritime services; proposed expansion of the\narea to retail and recreation: Nancy Hird, Alameda.\nExpressed support of the marinas and services: Paul Mueller, Alameda.\nStated Alameda's northern waterfront could have other opportunities and bring in larger\nboats if dredged; urged Council to maintain the waterfront for deep water boating uses:\nAndy McKinley, Alameda.\nStated that he opposes the residential development at Clement Street: Dan Goldfield,\nAlameda Aikikai.\nExpressed concern about loss of resources at Alameda Marina; stated that she is\nopposed to development: Maggie Sabovich, Pacific Inter-Club Yacht Association.\nStated that she opposes the referral if it seeks to change the multi-family overlay zone:\nLynette Lee, Renewed Hope.\nStated his children benefit from the Aikido dojo; he does not want more development in\nthe Clement Street area: Matt Langwerowski, Alameda.\nStated the light industry maritime businesses bolsters the Alameda economy as it is\nactive worldwide; urged preservation of the marina and businesses: Liz Taylor,\nAlameda.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMarch 1, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-03-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-03-01", "page": 24, "text": "Expressed support of jobs, not condos; urged council to consider Vice Mayor\nMatarrese's referral: Amy Rose, Alameda.\nExpressed support of the Alameda Marina; stated that he has experienced excellent\nservice from Svendsen's Marine; he recognizes the value of Alameda's unique\nwaterfront asset and opposes condominium development: Peter Butler, Alameda.\nStated it is important the waterfront continues its tradition of providing a reference point\nfor the maritime industry: Dwight Durant, Club Nautique.\nUrged Council to maintain Alameda's maritime infrastructure: Irma Marin-Nolan,\nAlameda.\nStated the Marina is an underutilized asset; urged Council to support the referral: Andy\nMcKee, Alameda.\nStated that he is concerned about the loss of the shoreline access and historic use; light\nindustrial jobs cannot be replaced by retail jobs: David Herrigel, Alameda.\nExpressed support of maintaining the Alameda Marina and boating community;\nprovided a brief history of the marina: Tom Charron, Alameda.\nShowed a map; urged Council to preserve Alameda Marina which is valuable piece of\nproperty: Gretchen Lipow, Alameda.\nStated that she teaches women and blind women sailboating; expressed support of\npreserving the marina: Dawn Chesney, Alameda.\nThe Interim City Manager stated the Council and staff will be taking a tour of the\nwaterfront on March 11th from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.; the referral gives the opportunity\nfor Council to direct staff; a report would come back in April to discuss the tour and ask\nfor direction from Council regarding Alameda Marina and the MX Zoning.\nVice Mayor Matarrese stated his intent is to frame the discussion; the zoning details and\nguidance have flexibility built in; he would like to define the zoning goals, particularly in\nthe northern waterfront and existing commercial activity that can be grown; he would\nlike to include other MX zoning that may happen which is not in place now.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated nothing is simple but Council always strives to\nachieve balance; preserving the maritime business is first and foremost; existing\nmaritime businesses could help bring other businesses to Alameda; there is a cost to\nrenovating infrastructure; some funding comes from developers, which means the\npossibility of smart mixed-use; she would like to ensure preservation of the maritime\nindustry, but would also like to review the need for infrastructure improvements and\nhousing; a carefully planned improvement could create a vibrant, functioning, well-\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMarch 1, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-03-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-03-01", "page": 25, "text": "maintained space; requested that staff incorporate concerns when the report returns to\nCouncil.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he is fine with the Interim City Manager's\nrecommendations on how to proceed with the referral; he is concerned about a\nformulaic approach to mixed-zoning; another approach could be similar to what was\ndone at Packet Landing/Harbor Bay Club; he agrees that the maritime jobs should be\npreserved; any plan or developer should keep the jobs a priority; he hopes people will\nbe flexible and open to creative solutions to fully utilizing the intent of MX zoning.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the industry cluster at the marina is intimately tied to the\narea; he looks forward to the discussion; he would like to maintain the jobs and industry\nthat reflect the character and history of Alameda; Council should be actively engaged in\npreserving the maritime traditions, jobs, and connections with residents and businesses.\nThe Interim City Manager stated staff is considering a process similar to the one\nregarding the Harbor Bay Club as a preliminary step.\nMayor Spencer stated the referral speaks to the consideration of mixed use throughout\nthe entire City, not just the Northern Waterfront site; inquired whether staff's response\nwould be in regard to Citywide, or two-fold.\nThe Interim City Manager stated the tour will be on the entire Northern Waterfront; there\nis a sense of urgency at Alameda Marina; conversations about other MX zoned areas\ncould be included, including Alameda Landing; North Housing does not have MX\nzoning.\nIn response to Mayor Spencer's inquiry, the Interim City Manager stated there are no\nprojects pending at the Alameda Marina.\nMayor Spencer stated that she would be agreeable to reviewing the mixed-use zoning\nCitywide, which could be done at any time; she has concerns about starting a\npreliminary process without a project pending; she would like more information on the\ncurrent options regarding what needs to be included in mixed-use, such as percentage\nof housing.\nThe Interim City Manager stated a discussion about the issues cannot be done now, but\ncould be brought back.\nMayor Spencer stated that she would like to include the current zoning options staff is\nconsidering when the issue comes back.\nVice Mayor Matarrese concurred with Mayor Spencer; stated reviewing and\nunderstanding current rules is essential to future considerations; his intent for the\nexercise is to find out whether what the City has is sufficient; he would like to get the\nexercise going and hopes for support from the Council.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMarch 1, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-03-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-03-01", "page": 26, "text": "Mayor Spencer inquired whether staff could review whether some or all of the buildings\nare eligible for registration with the National Register of Historic Places, to which the\nInterim City Manager responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Packet Landing process was useful for the\ndeveloper to have a sense of where the Council stood; there is no point of going down a\nroad knowing there would not be approval; she would defer to the Attorneys regarding\nany legalities.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the review of mixed-used zoning in general is an\nimportant discussion for Alameda citizens to have; a discussion about the waterfront\nsite is on the minds currently; the type of mixed-use for the area has been housing\noriented.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he has concerns about the marina but would like to\nmove forward with a workshop which would include an explanation of the current\nzoning.\nVice Mayor Matarrese moved approval of directing staff to return with a report in April to\ninclude the concerns brought up by the Council.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion which carried by unanimous voice vote\n-\n5.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(16-118) Councilmember Oddie requested the Clerk to correct the minutes to reflect the\nvotes on AB 210 as 46 instead of 43.\n(16-119) Councilmember Daysog announced that he attended the East Bay League of\nCalifornia Cities Division Meeting on February 25th.\n(16-120) Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft announced that she attended an Alameda\nCounty Industries (ACI) celebration of the one year anniversary of the recycling workers\ncontract.\n(16-121) Councilmember Oddie announced that he was honored to judge the young\nkids history presentation at Bay Farm School.\n(16-122) Mayor Spencer announced she also attended the National History Day event\nat Bay Farm School.\n(16-123) Consideration of Mayor's Nominations to the Commission on Disability Issues\n(CDI), the Housing Authority Board of Commissioners (HABOC) and the Rent Review\nAdvisory Committee (RRAC).\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMarch 1, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-03-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2016-03-01", "page": 27, "text": "Mayor Spencer nominated Michaela Tsztoo for appointment to the CDI; Arthur Kurrasch\nfor reappointment to the HABOC and Tina Landess Petrich and Robert Schrader for\nappointment to the RRAC.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 12:44 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\nMarch 1, 2016", "path": "CityCouncil/2016-03-01.pdf"}
{"body": "GolfCommission", "date": "2016-03-01", "page": 1, "text": "ALAMEDA GOLF COMMISSION\nMINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING\nTuesday, March 1, 2016\n1\nCALL TO ORDER\nVice-Chair Bev Blatt called the regular meeting to order at approximately 1:00 p.m. in\nLadies Lounge, 1 Clubhouse Memorial Road, Alameda, CA 94502\n1-A\nROLL CALL\nPresent:\nVice-Chair Bev Blatt, Commissioner Cheryl Saxton,\nCommissioner Ron Carlson and Ed Downing\nAbsent:\nCommissioners Shawn Shelby\nStaff:\nGreenway Principals Ken Campbell, George Kelley and Marc\nLogan\nAlso Present:\nNone\n2\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nNorma Arnerich recommended that the City should move forward with the contract as\npresented.\nJane Sullwold urged the Golf Commission to recommend to City Council not to\napprove the current agreement and possibly give Jim's a temporary contract, and work\nthrough the proposal.\nStephen Burnett, men's and women's golf coach at Alameda High School, expressed\nhis support for Jim's\nJoe VanWinkle urged the Golf Commission to recommend to the City Council to wait\n60 days to approve the agreement, and work through the items not clarified in the\nagreement.\n3\nCOMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS\nAmy Wooldridge, Park and Recreation Director, informed the Golf Commission of the\nmandatory Ethics Training required annually that had been sent to the commissioners\npreviously, and is due by the end of March.\n4\nWRITTEN/ORAL REPORTS\n1\nGolf Commission Minutes - -Tuesday, March 1, 2016", "path": "GolfCommission/2016-03-01.pdf"}
{"body": "GolfCommission", "date": "2016-03-01", "page": 2, "text": "5.\nAGENDA ITEMS\n5-A\nReview and Recommend a 15-Year Concession Agreement, with a\n10-Year Renewal Option, with Dialemi, Inc. (known as Jim's on the\nCourse), for the Provision of Food and Beverage Service at the\nChuck Corica Golf Complex.\nAmy Wooldridge stated that she had a slide show presentation prepared, but the\nprojector was not working, so copies of the presentation were distributed, which was\nattached to the agenda, along with the Staff Report from the City with an overview and\nit's recommendation.\nChair Blatt had inquired about the number of toilets required for the new capacity and\nMs. Wooldridge stated that she had confirmed with the building inspector the\nrequirements: One toilet for every 75 people available, and due to the fact that the\nclubhouse has four stalls in both the men's and women's restroom, that this fulfills the\nrequirement. She was then asked by Commissioner Ed Downing, about the\nclubhouse restrooms being locked at dark, and she stated that they were working on\nan agreement between Greenway and Jim's, which has not been signed, that this\nprovision is addressed in the agreement.\nCommissioner Downing inquired whether the upgrades to the restrooms in the\nrestaurant have been completed, and Tom Geanekos stated that, if the Concession\nAgreement is approved, he would be willing to further upgrade them. He was then\nasked if that would include additional toilets, Amy Wooldridge responded stating that\nas soon as your start moving walls, new fire codes would have to complied with, which\nwould include installing sprinklers, which is a cost of approximately $400,000. The\nquestion was asked as to who was responsible for the restroom upgrades, and Ms.\nWooldridge stated that it was the City's responsibility for upgrades per the current\nConcessionaire Agreement, but that the Golf Fund is at a negative, due to the\n$1,000,000 that was borrowed from the Recreation Fund to fulfill the contribution to\nGreenway, and they are in the process of still paying that off.\nTwo questions were asked by Jane Sullwold. The first question was \"Why is it that this\nCapital Improvement holdover is substantially less than what Greenway is required to\nmake for capital improvements, and the second question is that the renovation to the\nkitchen does not require the movement of any walls. Mr. Geanekos responded to the\nsecond question stating that it is correct, that they will be not be moving any walls,\nthey will be using a back room, which currently holds a walk-in unit, for the additional\nbanquet kitchen prep area. Ms. Wooldridge responded to the first question regarding\nthe capital improvement fund, and she stated that the City's thought process was\nthat it was a significantly smaller area of the property.\nChair Blatt stated that at the January Golf Commission, that Greenway stated that they\nwere planning to submit a proposal to the City for improvements to the Clubhouse and\n2\nGolf Commission Minutes - -Tuesday, March 1, 2016", "path": "GolfCommission/2016-03-01.pdf"}
{"body": "GolfCommission", "date": "2016-03-01", "page": 3, "text": "the North Course, and she wants it clear that there will be total agreement between\nGreenway and Jim's that improvements will not look funny. Ms. Wooldridge stated\nthat the City does not want it to look funny, and that Greenway gets to take the lead as\nto what the improvements look like, and she recommends that they are presented to\nthe golf commission, and Jim's would follow the tile choice and color schemes chosen.\nCommissioner Downing asked what would happen if Jim's chose not to agree to the\ncolor choices made by Greenway, and Ms. Wooldridge stated that per the agreement,\nhe has to match design colors and style.\nDiscussion ensued regarding several specific design items, and Ms. Wooldridge asked\nthat they table this as the purpose of this meeting is to move forward with the\nrecommendation for the Concessionaire agreement, and specifics can come back to\nthe Golf Commission at a later date. The Concessionaire agreement is going before\nthe City Council tonight for approval, and if approved, it moves forward, and if not\napproved, a couple of scenarios are they can make particular amendments to it and\nwould still move forward or they could simply say no. If they say no, Greenway has\nfirst right of refusal in the existing agreement with the City, and she would then begin\nnegotiations with Greenway, and if that failed at City Council level, then a formal\nRequest for Proposal would be initiated, as well as if Greenway chose to waive their\nright of refusal.\nCommission Downing asked if all the major renovations would require approval of the\nGolf Commission, and Ms. Wooldridge stated that currently the agreement states that\nit requires Golf Commission approval for the enclosed patio, but if the Golf\nCommission wants approval of all interior renovations, that would have to be a\nrecommendation to the City Council, and they could approve the agreement with that\namendment.\nChair Blatt asked Mr. Geanekos if there was somebody to fulfill the obligations of the\nagreement in the case of his retirement, and Mr. Geanekos responded that their goal\nis to remain a family business, but if this were to change, he could sign over to a City\napproved concessionaire.\nKen Campbell of Greenway Golf stated that the relationship between Greenway and\nJim's has been positive, but they are looking for clarity within the agreement, for\ninstance, having a breakdown of the cost estimates that Greenway had to provide,\nwould be advisable. Mr. Campbell stated that, originally, Greenway endorsed the idea\nof the patio wrapping around the front, but after they saw the conceptual drawing, they\nwould like to discuss further how it is going to look. Mr. Campbell stated that there\nwas nothing about golf course services, including the North Course snack bar and the\nbeverage cart, and also inquired about snack services at the practice facility. Mr.\nCampbell asked about maintenance of the common area, as the agreement states that\nJim's is not responsible for any exterior landscaping. Greenway would also like clarity\non the interior design of the restaurant. Mr. Campbell also would like the opportunity\nfor Greenway's attorneys look at the possibility of a cross indemnity clause regarding\nany injuries that might occur on the property.\n3\nGolf Commission Minutes - -Tuesday, March 1, 2016", "path": "GolfCommission/2016-03-01.pdf"}
{"body": "GolfCommission", "date": "2016-03-01", "page": 4, "text": "Ms. Wooldridge responded to the common area maintenance, stating there is a third\nparty agreement between Greenway and Jim's on the Course, and was originally part\nof the City's agreement, but was pulled by the City's attorneys stating that the City\ncould not be responsible for an agreement between two other entities.\nTom Geanekos stated that there has been a positive relationship with Greenway, but\nalso expressed his concerns for working not having a lease and working on a month to\nmonth basis. He feels that in the last 10 years, that he has shown good faith, and\nasked the Golf Commission not to put him in the position of operating without a lease.\nDiscussion ensued regarding the conceptual drawings presented at the July Golf\nCommission meeting, as they are not the same as the proposed drawings in the\ncurrent agreement, and it was discussed that in July, those were similar concepts, not\nthe final concept.\nChair Blatt felt that a five year renewal would work to give Jim's security, and also, by\nthen the golf course renovations would be complete, and then they would know what\nwould be needed. Greenway responded that they would just like 60 days to work\nthese issues out.\nCommissioner Downing feels that the agreement is vague and is not in favor of\nmoving forward.\nCommissioner Carlson feels that Jim's should have some assurances, and possibly\nadd some addendums to the agreement.\nCommissioner Saxton understands both sides, but suggests taking 60 days, to solve\nthe issues in question.\nCommissioner Downing moved that the Golf Commission recommend to the City\nCouncil that they negotiate a six month lease extension of the current agreement with\nJim's, and facilitate between the interested to decide the best course of action in that\nsix month time period. The motion failed.\nDiscussion ensued as to how much time would be needed to work out the issues in\nquestions. Jim's would like the contract approved tonight and Greenway would like 60\ndays to work on these items.\nCommissioner Downing moved that the Golf Commission recommend to the City\nCouncil that they negotiate a six month lease extension of the current concessionaire\nlease with Jim's, and the two interested parties come back to the Golf Commission on\nApril 12 with their agreed upon plan. The motion passed unanimously.\n6.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (Public Comment)\n7.\nOLD BUSINESS\n4\nGolf Commission Minutes - -Tuesday, March 1, 2016", "path": "GolfCommission/2016-03-01.pdf"}
{"body": "GolfCommission", "date": "2016-03-01", "page": 5, "text": "None\n8.\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\nNone\n9.\nITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING'S AGENDA - March 8, 2016\n10.\nANNOUNCEMENTSIADJOURNMENT\nThe meeting was adjourned at approximately 3:36 p.m.\nThe agenda for the meeting was posted seven days in advance in compliance with the\nAlameda Sunshine Ordinance, which also complies with the 72-hour requirement of the\nBrown Act.\n5\nGolf Commission Minutes - -Tuesday, March 1, 2016", "path": "GolfCommission/2016-03-01.pdf"}