Title
Minutes of the Continued April 4, 2017 Regular City Council Meeting Held on April 7, 2017 and the Special and Regular City Council Meetings Held on April 18, 2017. (City Clerk)
Body
UNAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE CONTINUED APRIL 4, 2017
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
FRIDAY- -APRIL 7, 2017- -5:30 P.M.
Mayor Spencer convened the meeting at 5:30 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie, Vella and Mayor Spencer - 5.
Absent: None.
CONTINUED REGULAR AGENDA ITEM
(17- Continued) Recommendation to Accept the Annual Report for the Rent Program, Direct Staff to Prepare Certain Amendments to the Rent Review, Rent Stabilization, and Limitations on Evictions Ordinance, Consider Revisions to Ordinance No. 3132 Governing the Rent Review Advisory Committee, and Authorize Staff to Prepare an Updated Fee Study to Pay for Implementing the Ordinance.
Fixed Term Leases
Vice Mayor Vella requested to reopen fixed-term leases; stated that she has additional questions.
In response to Mayor Spencer inquiry, the Council agreed to reopen the issue.
Vice Mayor Vella stated temporary tenancies can be offered to a tenant one time and can also be offered to a new tenant; inquired whether changing tenants under temporary tenancies would be subject to the 5% cap.
The Community Development Director responded termination for no cause is the only scenario which has a 5% cap for the subsequent tenant; stated staff is not proposing the cap be expanded to other scenarios.
Vice Mayor Vella stated there has been a complaint that fixed term leases are somewhat of a loophole; provided an example of having a 5% increase after multiple tenants with three month fixed term leases, which would total above a 5% increase in one year.
Mayor Spencer stated Council received an email suggesting having a limit of one 5% increase per year, which she would support.
The Community Development Director stated staff could add a provision if supported by Council.
Vice Mayor Vella stated that she would like to give said direction.
The Assistant City Attorney noted the provision would only be legally defensible for multifamily units built before 1995; however, the provision would be a problem for single-family homes and multifamily units built after 1995 because of Costa Hawkins.
Mayor Spencer and Councilmember Oddie agreed to add the provision.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether this type of increase has been happening.
The Community Development Director responded there have been inquiries asking about short fixed term leases with the same tenant, which would be a loophole to get around relocation benefits; stated a framework for temporary tenancy is being created, which would include a cap on the rent increase for the next tenant.
In response to Councilmember Matarrese’s inquiry, the Community Development Director stated staff would come back to Council with provisions on fixed term leases and temporary tenancies.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether there have been inquiries or complaints, to which the Housing Authority Housing and Community Development Director (HAHCD Director) responded there have been inquiries from landlords regarding multiple fixed term leases.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the City is trying to make the ordinance more understandable; given the inquiries, the suggestion seems reasonable.
Mayor Spencer stated there is support from five Councilmembers.
Notices to Vacate Due to a Governmental Order
The Community Development Director stated the feedback on Tuesday was Council wants staff to come back with more standards regarding willful actions by a tenant; the Council was not interested in a carve out for anything other than willful acts by a tenant; staff will return with criteria.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the need to vacate a property because of a natural disaster should be addressed; the City should find a way to support tenants displaced due to a natural disaster; the real estate community has discussed a trust fund for assistance with relocation fees; the faith community has also expressed good will; there should be a way to help tenants facing said situation.
Mayor Spencer questioned whether the trust fund was sufficiently noticed to be discussed tonight.
The City Attorney stated the matter is covered under the agenda as changes to the rent stabilization ordinance; Council can come up with suggestions; the matter would come back to Council.
Mayor Spencer suggested the trust fund be discussed after the items on the list.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he would like to make comments on the trust fund as part of the fee discussion.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Council direction is that the landlord would not pay relocation fees; her suggestion is to not forget about the tenant.
Vice Mayor Vella stated there is not a provision in the current ordinance; the Council direction is not to add anything since there has not been an issue; all funding issues should be discussed together.
Councilmember Oddie stated that he does not think anything needs to be added; there is recourse if a tenant trashes an apartment; if a court decides a tenant is responsible for damages, relocation fees could be waived; adding provisions does not seem necessary; the process is not clear.
The Community Development Director stated the Council direction from Tuesday was not to add language in the ordinance, but Council was willing to look at additional information regarding the willful act of a tenant; if Council does not want additional information, tenants would receive relocation benefits and have a right to return to the unit regardless of the circumstances that lead to the governmental order to vacate.
Mayor Spencer stated that she would like information provided when the matter returns; Council can decide how to proceed at said time.
The Community Development Director outlined clarifying language regarding no termination notice.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired when relocation benefits would be paid, to which the Community Development Director responded in three business days.
Mayor Spencer stated when landlords give notice, they should be prepared to pay half of the relocation benefits; that she is concerned three business days would not give the landlord sufficient time.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated there should also be concern for the tenant who would need to find new housing.
Mayor Spencer suggested the payment within three business days be one-quarter of the total relocation benefit.
The Community Development Director stated the proposal requires the landlord pay the full amount because the tenant would have to vacate immediately and would not have an option to remain in the unit for 30 or 60 days.
Mayor Spencer expressed concern over the landlord not being able to pay the total amount within three business days.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether the various groups that provided feedback raised or addressed the matter.
The Assistant City Attorney responded a tenant inquired when relocation benefits would be received after there was governmental order to vacate; stated the ordinance did not apply very well, so staff is proposing a specific amount of time; the provision could be changed to specify half or one-third would be paid by a specific date and the remaining amount would be paid two weeks later.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired what happened with the case, to which the Assistant City Attorney stated staff was able to convince the landlord to pay the relocation benefit within a very short time.
In response to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft’s inquiry regarding discussing the issue with the landlords and property managers, the Community Development Director stated the broad issue was on the list that was discussed with both the landlords and tenants, but without the specificity of the three business days.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like input from the renter and landlord groups, with Council addressing the matter when it returns.
Mayor Spencer and Vice Mayor Vella concurred with said suggestion.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the unit is back to being rented in the real case, to which the Community Development Director responded the unit is not back on the market yet.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the Council has resolved what the rental rate would be if the tenant moves back in, to which the Community Development Director responded the tenant could return to the unit similar to other types of vacations; stated if the damages end up as a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), the CIP formula could cause the rent to be different.
Councilmember Oddie suggested language be added to clarify the rent would remain the same notwithstanding a CIP application or the landlord could file a petition to the RRAC for an increase above 5%; stated the provision should specify it is subject to other provisions of the ordinance.
Mayor Spencer stated that she recalls Council was assuming the units would go through the CIP process, which would have significant costs.
The Assistant City Attorney stated the discussions with the stakeholder groups can address landlords covering costs, such as hotel, pet and laundry rates, instead of paying relocation benefits.
Mayor Spencer stated a majority of Council supports said proposal.
In response to Mayor Spencer’s inquiry, Councilmember Oddie stated the tenant should get the same rent subject to the CIP or RRAC process.
The Community Development Director stated the Council direction is to have the tenant have the right to return to the unit.
Councilmember Oddie stated a tenant might want to have temporary costs covered rather than accepting relocation benefits; the matter needs to be flushed out.
The Community Development Director stated the CIP provisions address the issue.
Mayor Spencer stated a majority of Council agrees.
The Community Development Director outlined the last clarification about the tenant receiving whichever relocation fee is higher.
The Council expressed support for the provision.
No Cause
Councilmember Oddie stated that he would like to make personal comments and a motion on no cause evictions; apologized for and briefly discussed reading an email in violation of the Sunshine Ordinance on Tuesday night; discussed the 24 eviction cases; requested staff to provide additional information on the cases; discussed his background as a landlord-tenant attorney, including providing examples of specific cases protecting tenants; briefly discussed the election; stated it is time to review just cause evictions; requested an examination of other comparable, Bay Area cities’ provisions on just cause evictions; stated his motion would be to reconsider the direction on Item B [Tenancy Terminations for No Cause] and in addition to the technical change made, direct staff to come back with what just cause eviction could look like in Alameda, preferably at the May 2nd meeting; the process does not need to be long; the Council should have close supervision; the City should address: 1) the interplay with relocation fees, 2) closing loopholes that exist in other cities, 3) disincentives to the Ellis Act on single family rentals and turning multifamily rentals into condominiums, 4) Council’s discussion of fixed term leases, 5) anti-harassment provisions, similar to Union City, and 6) the relation of maintenance requests to evictions; the list is not all-inclusive; Councilmembers and the public should offer additional ideas.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether Councilmember Oddie is requesting additional analysis of all of the evictions or only those after the election, to which Councilmember Oddie responded all cases should be reviewed.
Mayor Spencer stated that she agrees all of the cases should be included.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like the information to include the ages of the tenants.
The City Manager expressed concern over the timing of bringing back the analysis.
The Community Development Director noted staff was anticipating bringing the ordinance revisions to Council at the May 16th meeting.
Mayor Spencer stated a majority of Council agrees with the date; a motion for reconsideration is not needed since direction is just being given to staff.
Vice Mayor Vella stated that she supports looking into the issue; the Union City ordinance, which was passed on Tuesday, should be reviewed; the City should analyze loopholes, such as the Ellis Act.
Mayor Spencer suggested the two issues be separated and Council address no cause first.
Vice Mayor Vella stated that she would like an analysis of just cause.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he welcomes the analysis; however, he does not think the Council will get meaningful information before May 16th; the issue is difficult; the administrative updates should be done in a timely manner and should not be held up.
Vice Mayor Vella encouraged staff to return with the analysis on May 16th; stated the Council could determine if there are additional questions at said time.
The Community Development Director stated there are two types of analysis being requested: 1) analysis of the existing 24 cases, and 2) a broader analysis of just cause evictions; staff will endeavor to analyze both.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she supports doing the review; staff can inform Council if the analysis cannot be completed by May 16th.
Mayor Spencer stated that she disagrees with the Council majority; doing a good job on the analysis will take more time; the number of no cause evictions has been the same before and after the election; she is concerned Council would be taking action to nullify the election results; referenced a 1904 court case; discussed election materials addressing just cause evictions.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he is not inclined to add just cause eviction provisions at this time; however, there could come a time when a case’s circumstance shows a person has been treated unfairly and does not have protection under the law.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft expressed concern about the Mayor’s statement that the Council would be taking action to nullify the election; read Section 4 of Measure L1, which allows Council to amend the ordinance without a vote of the people if there are changing conditions or concerns; stated that she has great faith in the records being collected by the Housing Authority.
Mayor Spencer stated there have been comments that the Council has done nothing to limit no cause evictions, which is not true; outlined the provisions on no cause evictions; stated that she does not believe conditions have changed; people voted two-thirds against Measure M1.
Vice Mayor Vella stated data should include any cases to date; new cases should be included.
Relocation Fees
The Community Development Director made brief comments regarding the proposed provisions.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there is a standardized rent form.
The Community Development Director outlined information outreach efforts; stated riders with information are attached to leases.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether a standardized rental agreement could be done.
Councilmember Matarrese suggested finishing the discussion of the ordinance before addressing said issue.
In response to Vice Mayor Vella’s inquiry about what language Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft would like included, Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated all of the provisions on relocation fees.
Vice Mayor Vella suggested staff provide language that could be included in a contract.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with the suggestion.
Councilmember Oddie stated that he discussed a model lease from the beginning; the idea is worth pursuing and could minimize disputes.
Vice Mayor Vella stated the matter could be discussed after the remaining items; however, the current request is for staff to draft language regarding the relocation provisions that could be included in a model lease; further stated questions have been raised about not using Fair Market Rate (FMR); concerns have been raised that relocation fees disproportionately disadvantage renters paying under market; 470 Central Avenue tenants would not have received enough to cover first and last months’ rent in the current market.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether Vice Mayor Vella is discussing changing the formula.
Vice Mayor Vella responded that she has heard suggestions to use a standard amount.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether Vice Mayor Vella agrees with changing the relocation fee as proposed, to which Vice Mayor Vella responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft clarified the proposed provision addresses moving fees; suggested staff change the wording; stated that she is also concerned about renters paying under market; discussed FMR; stated people should be made whole; there should be discussion about changing the formula to the equivalent of first and last months’ rent.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the majority of Council is fine with increasing the moving expenses using the Consumer Price Index (CPI).
The Council responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Oddie discussed 470 Central Avenue; stated there should be a predictable number; a floor could be set using a percentage of FMR and a similar cap could be included if the market drops.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the majority of Council would like to review the relocation fee formula.
Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Oddie and Vice Mayor Vella responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he believes addressing the matter at the May 16th meeting is unrealistic; a study should be done correctly; known problems should be fixed and not held up; he is interested in getting information.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how long staff thinks the work will take.
The Community Development Director stated there could be a two-step process; the ordinance could be amended more quickly for the straightforward, administrative items; staff could work on the more complex issues and the ordinance could be amended a second time.
Mayor Spencer stated the majority of Council supports the recommendation; that she would not support the relocation fees being set at the entire FMR; using a percentage could be reviewed; basing the formula on the amount the tenant is paying is the cleanest and fairest method.
The Community Development Director stated there is a difference between FMR and the payment standard in Alameda; the Housing Authority currently has the payment standard as 110% of FMR.
Mayor Spencer stated the City has limited increasing rent; a number of landlords charge under market; expressed concern over the amount the landlord could owe basing relocation fees on FMR.
Councilmember Oddie stated that he did not suggest setting the amount at the full FMR; however, he believes there should be a floor; staff can return to Council with a suggestion.
The Community Development Director outlined the next provision requiring the notice to be in writing.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the majority of Council agrees.
The Council responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft noted the issue is the basis of her desire to have a standardized lease.
The Community Development Director outlined the next provision regarding the second payment being three business days after the tenant leaves the unit.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether everyone is agreeable, to which the Council responded in the affirmative.
The Community Development Director outlined the provision that requires the landlord to notify the tenant in writing about being able to remain in the unit.
Mayor Spencer outlined the specific timeline which should be included; inquired whether Council agrees with the provision.
The Council responded in the affirmative.
The Community Development Director outlined the provision which requires the tenant to continue to pay rent if they remain in the unit.
The Council agreed with including the provision.
Councilmember Oddie stated the provision seems obvious.
Other/Housekeeping
The Community Development Director outlined revisions to definitions.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether Council agrees, to which the Council responded in the affirmative.
The Community Development Director outlined the provision clarifying units which are excluded.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the Council agrees, to which the Council responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether boardinghouses would be excluded, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded boardinghouses are already excluded and are treated like hotels.
The Community Development Director outlined the provision clarifying a tenant could agree to receive an electronic document.
Mayor Spencer stated the Council unanimously concurs with said provision.
The Community Development Director outlined the provision allowing the Program Administrator to request additional information during mediation of rent increases.
Vice Mayor Vella stated the City needs to be cautious and explicit about additional documents not being subject to a record request, such as medical and financial records.
The HAHCD Director stated financial documents are optional for both sides; additional documents could be a copy of the lease or the first page of the deed to show ownership.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether a list of types of documents could be provided; whether the ordinance could state which documents are optional and which documents could not be requested; stated people should understand their rights.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with the suggestion; stated additional documents is too broad.
The Community Development Director noted the provision is specifically about documents the landlord would provide; stated staff could come back with more specificity; outlined the next provision that offers of a one year lease must be in writing.
In response to Mayor Spencer’s inquiry, the Council expressed support.
The Community Development Director outlined the provision requiring offers of a one year lease be on the table for five calendar days.
Mayor Spencer stated that she was given ten days to respond when her landlord offered a one year lease when her rent was increased; the offer should be on the table until the first payment of the increased rent, which is usually 30 days; the tenant should have more time to make a decision.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like to hear from the stakeholders on both sides.
In response to Vice Mayor Vella’s inquiry, Mayor Spencer stated the one year lease is waived if the tenant does not respond.
Councilmember Oddie noted that he was given more than five days; stated that he does not know the right number, but more than five days should be given.
The Community Development Director stated staff would proposed the question to the stakeholders; outlined the provision regarding bundling services.
The Council expressed support for doing so.
The Community Development Director outlined the provision that unbundling applies to month-to-month leases.
Mayor Spencer stated the Council unanimously supports the provision.
The Community Development Director outlined the provision making the CIP policy notice consistent.
Mayor Spencer stated the Council unanimously supports the provision.
The Community Development Director outlined the provision requiring the notice of the RRAC hearing to be done in the same time and manner as the rent increase notice.
In response to Mayor Spencer’s inquiry if the Council is in agreement, the Council responded in the affirmative.
The Community Development Director outlined the provision changing “text” to “content,” changing the number of days to petition an RRAC decision to a Hearing Officer from seven days to fifteen days, and adding information about translation.
The Council expressed support for the revisions.
The Community Development Director outlined the provision requiring notice to be given to the Program Administrator if the landlord and tenant reach an agreement before the RRAC hearing.
Councilmember Oddie stated the staff report indicates the landlord has the burden of proof regarding the increase; market rate should not be a factor in the RRAC deliberations; the tenant should not have to prove they cannot afford the increase.
Mayor Spencer stated both sides share information at RRAC hearings; she would not want to limit the conversation.
Councilmember Oddie stated that he brought up burden of proof at the wrong time; the matter is addressed in a later provision; however, market rate is not addressed; market rate cannot be addressed by a Hearing Officer and should not be addressed at RRAC hearings.
Mayor Spencer stated the RRAC should be able to look at different things in order to reach a settlement.
Vice Mayor Vella stated decisions which are appealable should have the same standards; one side has the burden of proof.
Mayor Spencer stated that she is okay with the burden of proof, but would not want to stop a landlord from discussing market rate.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated when the RRAC is discussed, she is going to make an argument to end the RRAC process; sophisticated concepts of burden of proof should not be under the RRAC.
Vice Mayor Vella expressed concern over using FMR since units might not be comparable.
Councilmember Matarrese stated Council should not tell either side what they can discuss; the RRAC has a set of rules and standards to guide decisions; the ordinance is clear that the burden of proof is on the property owner.
Councilmember Oddie stated the judging standard should be the same for the Hearing Officer and the RRAC.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he agrees.
The Community Development Director stated the majority of Council wishes to align the criteria used by the Hearing Officer and the RRAC; returned to the provision requiring notification to the Program Administrator.
In response to Mayor Spencer’s inquiry, the Community Development Director stated not providing notice is considered a failure to appear.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the agreement reached would be null and void, to which the Community Development Director responded in the affirmative; suggested specifying that the landlord be required to provide notice.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the provision seems harsh; the intent is to get the parties to resolution; inquired what problem is being solved.
The Community Development Director responded the Program Administrator needs to be notified so that the item is not calendared on the RRAC agenda.
Councilmember Matarrese stated if both parties do not show up at a meeting, the item could be added to the next meeting; then, if they do not show again, the matter would be dropped; people should not be punished for coming to an agreement.
The HAHCD Director stated the intent is to require something in writing, not to have a consequence.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the issue could be that education is needed; noted the Housing Authority has done an awesome job educating everyone about the ordinance.
The Community Development Director suggested requiring notice in writing without including a consequence for not doing so.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he would prefer no shows to be re-calendared one more time and closed if no one shows.
The Assistant City Attorney stated the ordinance currently nullifies the agreement if the Program Administrator is not notified; the language can be revised.
Mayor Spencer stated the majority of Council wants to support the settlement.
Vice Mayor Vella stated that she would want confirmation from both parties that a settlement was reached.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether an email would count as in writing, to which the Community Development Director responded in the affirmative.
In response to Vice Mayor Vella’s inquiry regarding the data collected, the Community Development Director stated the form, which is signed by both parties, is attached to the staff report.
Councilmember Oddie stated the form is needed; however, there should only be a carrot, not a stick.
Vice Mayor Vella stated the form should include the actual rent increase rather than a range.
The Community Development Director stated since the form is public, landlords requested a range to keep flexibility when working with other tenants.
Vice Mayor Vella stated the ranges are too broad and do not help collect data; outlined information not included on the form.
The Community Development Director noted the rent increases would most likely be above 5%.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated as much data as possible should be collected, including the number of tenants and lease start date.
The HAHCD Director stated all of the data being discussed is collected when the case starts.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft suggested the form include 5% increments.
Councilmember Oddie stated that he would like to see the actual percentage.
Vice Mayor Vella stated increases over 5% have to go to the RRAC, which is public; having the information is better for both sides because not disclosing the percent causes speculation.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the percentage should be disclosed.
Mayor Spencer stated a majority of Council would like the specific percentage disclosed; further stated the Council direction is to require notice in writing without including the penalty; suggested the language be similar to: “Please notify the Administrator so that the item is not carried over and data is collected.”
The HAHCD Director stated data will not be collected if the form is not required.
Vice Mayor Vella stated written notification can be required; settlements should not be discouraged.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired how many times staff has not been notified, to which the HAHCD Director stated staff has been notified; however, the form needs to be required to collect the data.
Vice Mayor Vella suggested the parties be required to provide notification that they are in settlement talks prior to the RRAC hearing and upon reaching a settlement, they are required to submit the form.
The Community Development Director noted the only change to the form would be to require the specific percentage since the other information is collected prior to the RRAC hearing; outlined the provision encouraging the parties to reach a voluntary agreement and changing the form to read “acknowledgement” rather than “agreement.”
In response to Mayor Spencer’s inquiry, the Assistant City Attorney stated the form already says “acknowledgement” and the ordinance is being changed to reflect what is on the form.
The Council agreed with the provision.
The Community Development Director outlined the provision regarding the City Attorney determining ownership interest.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft noted an attorney or property manager could have authority.
In response to Mayor Spencer’s inquiry, the Assistant City Attorney stated the previous Council direction was to have someone with ownership interest present; if an entity owns the property, documentation is needed to determine who has rights to bind the entity, such as a President or Vice President.
Mayor Spencer stated before the ordinance was adopted, the landlord could send someone without any authority to the RRAC hearing, which was not productive; the hearings are more productive now.
Councilmember Oddie stated that he does not want to weaken the requirement.
The Assistant City Attorney stated the provision is not being weakened; it will state that the City Attorney’s office will review documentation to make a determination about who can represent an entity at the RRAC hearing.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the requirement to have someone with an ownership interest could mean someone from out of state has to be present; the City wants someone with the legal authority to bind present; the hearing will not be prolonged; suggested the language read: “legal authority to bind.”
Mayor Spencer stated that she does not agree with said suggestion; landlords out of state who do not want to come to town can keep rent increases under 5%.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he likes the language someone legally authorized; gave an example of a property owner with a medical issue.
Mayor Spencer stated that she agrees with the example; however, when the ordinance was adopted, she suggested requiring owners to attend because office managers were showing up to RRAC hearings.
Vice Mayor Vella stated a form could be created for owners with exigent circumstances and someone who has predesignated power of attorney; gave an example of an owner in the military not being able to attend.
In response to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft’s inquiry, the HAHCD Director stated the ordinance already states someone with legal authority, which covers the military example.
The Community Development Director stated the only change is that the City Attorney would make the determination instead of the Program Administrator.
Vice Mayor Vella gave an example of a property manager not having authority to fix a window; stated the scenario has come up before; that she is concerned about someone without authority delaying outcomes.
The Community Development Director stated the ordinance does not allow a property management company to appear before the RRAC.
Mayor Spencer stated that she also wants to address someone with binding authority appearing for the tenant; that she would prefer to have the tenant present unless there are extenuating circumstances.
The HAHCD Director stated a tenant designating an advocate to be present is approved under a reasonable accommodation request; the ordinance is not being changed.
Councilmember Oddie stated Council wants to avoid having a battle of attorneys.
Vice Mayor Vella stated that she wants to ensure private information on reasonable accommodation requests would not be subject to a record request.
The HAHCD Director stated the reasonable accommodation is kept confidential and is not included in the public record; if requested, medical information would be redacted.
Vice Mayor Vella stated that she saw emails that combined a number of items; the City should be very explicit about what is subject to the Public Records Act.
The Community Development Director outlined the next provision specifying that cases appealed to the City Council with under a 5% increase do not require a person with ownership interest to be present.
The Council agreed with the provision.
The Community Development Director outlined the provision allowing any increase, even if under 5%, to be appealed to a Hearing Officer; noted the provision was proposed by the RRAC; stated the ordinance does not allow increases under 5% to be appealed to incentivize landlords to keep increases under 5%.
Mayor Spencer stated that she agrees Council intended to create the incentive and would like to keep the ordinance as is.
Councilmember Matarrese and Ezzy Ashcraft concurred.
The Community Development Director noted none of the RRAC decisions have been appealed; outlined the provision making the Program Administrator responsible for notifying tenants about the dispute process being initiated, instead of the landlord.
The Council agreed with the provision.
The Community Development Director stated the Council already expressed support for the next provision placing the burden of proof on the landlord.
The Council concurred.
The Community Development Director outlined the provision allowing the Hearing Officer to proceed if only one party is present.
Mayor Spencer stated the provision only applies if there is not a good reason why the party cannot be present, to which the Community Development Director responded in the affirmative; stated the hearing would be rescheduled if there is a good reason.
The Council agreed with the provision.
The Community Development Director outlined the provision changing definitions to align with State law.
The Council agreed with the provision.
The Community Development Director outlined the provision requiring overcharges to be repaid within ten days if the Program Administrator determines the landlord is overcharging a new tenant.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether there have been occurrences of landlords doing so, to which the HAHCD Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Oddie inquired how the City learns about the issue occurring, to which the HAHCD Director responded staff checks in with new tenants.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether staff is proactive in each case, to which the HAHCD Director responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Vella stated the trust fund would be discussed later tonight; there should be ways to dis-incentivize anyone not complying with the ordinance; landlords overcharging or not complying with the ordinance should pay a penalty into the trust fund.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would want to ensure everyone has been sufficiently educated; suggested a warning be issued first.
The Community Development Director stated staff typically does education first since the ordinance is new.
Vice Mayor Vella stated that she wants options for someone who continues to be out of compliance.
The HAHCD Director outlined the current process; stated if there is non-compliance, the Program Administrator refers the case to the City Attorney’s office; if non-compliance continues, the case moves to a citation.
The Community Development Director noted only two citations have been issued.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the citations include fees, to which the Community Development Director responded in the affirmative; stated the $250 citation fee covers staff costs.
The Community Development Director inquired whether Council is okay with the provision, to which the Council responded in the affirmative.
The Community Development Director outlined the next two provisions about the definitions of family members.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether both sides have discussed the issue.
The Community Development Director stated the definitions were drafted based on State or federal law.
Mayor Spencer stated her concern is about the number of people being added being in a one bedroom unit.
The Assistant City Attorney stated the number of people per square foot cannot exceed the Uniform Housing Code.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether the definitions would reference that the City is trying to comply with federal and State law.
The Assistant City Attorney responded language could be added to do so.
The Council agreed with the provision with the suggested change.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the provision is not adding additional landlord relatives, such as uncles and cousins, to which the Community Development Director responded in the affirmative.
The Community Development Director outlined the provision that specifies the Program Administrator does not need to be notified about for cause evictions.
The Council agreed with the provision.
The Community Development Director outlined the provision making it explicit that Council has authority to adopt policies and regulations.
The Council agreed with the provision.
***
Mayor Spencer called a recess at 8:14 p.m. and reconvened at 8:18 p.m.
***
Program Fee
The Community Development Director made brief comments regarding the program fee.
Councilmember Matarrese stated staff should be authorized to complete another study; since cases are being resolved before going to the RRAC, staff should receive professional mediation training; that he would like Council and staff to consider setting up a community fund, which could be funded by a portion of the property transfer tax; there should be an acknowledgement that the fee will have to include costs of an electronic system to track information.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she agrees with Councilmember Matarrese; the program fee money used to staff and train the RRAC could be allotted to a mediator and a Hearing Officer if the RRAC process ends.
Vice Mayor Vella stated inquired what systems or databases are currently used by the Housing Authority and City.
The Community Development Director responded the Housing Authority is currently using Excel for the rent program and uses Yardi, a specialized software for Housing Authorities; stated the City uses HdL for its business license database and Accela for permit tracking.
The City Manager stated none of the current software is appropriate for the rent program.
The Community Development Director noted the HAHCD Director has a degree in Information Technology and has been doing extensive research on databases.
Vice Mayor Vella stated that she asked the question because members of the public expressed concern over the costs and software; she supports establishing a fee; there should be a way to have the program self-sustaining; Council has discussed different types of programs; inquired whether fee studies would be presented for each of the scenarios being discussed.
The Community Development Director responded the study would be narrowed down to the existing ordinance; until the program is known, staff would not complete a study for other scenarios, such as just cause and FMR relocation benefits.
Councilmember Oddie stated the City paid for the first year of the program as kinks were worked out; there might be changes; the fee should adequately cover the program costs; noted Union City requires a landlord to have a valid business license and properly registered rental unit; inquired about business license collection and whether the City is checking for valid business licenses for RRAC cases.
The Community Development Director responded landlords with multi-family buildings are required to pay a business license of $20 per unit; stated single family units are exempt from paying a business license; currently, staff does not check to ensure landlords have paid their business license for RRAC cases; a list of rental units staff created was provided to the Finance Department to check against business licenses; Finance followed up with anyone identified who had not paid a business license.
Mayor Spencer stated that she would support doing the cross check when a landlord goes through the RRAC process; anyone without a business licenses should be required to get one; inquired whether the Council concurred, to which the Council responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Spencer stated Council has talked about having the fee paid by only the landlords and tenants; depending on the fee amount, she would like a portion paid by all property owners in order to keep the fee low; the rent ordinance brings stabilization for the entire community.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft noted Mayor Spencer is proposing a tax.
The City Manager stated a user fee, which does not require voter authorization, is being proposed by staff.
In response to Mayor Spencer’s inquiry regarding the program benefitting the entire community, the City Manager stated a benefit assessment district also requires voter approval for anyone in the district.
Mayor Spencer stated that she would be open to using General Fund money if her suggestion cannot be done.
The City Manager stated the policy could be discussed when staff brings back the fee.
Mayor Spencer stated Council also wanted to address the trust and the RRAC; inquired whether there is anything to be discussed.
Vice Mayor Vella responded the Council should also discuss a model lease and the sunset provision.
Trust
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated private realtors have discussed setting up at trust; she would like to keep the discussion open.
In response to Councilmember Oddie, Councilmember Matarrese stated that he suggested using the property transfer tax as a revenue stream to provide seed money for the trust fund, safety net services or funding a mediator; he would like to lock down a funding stream first.
In response to Mayor Spencer’s inquiry, the City Manager stated the suggestion could be discussed as part of the budget; mediator costs would be included as a line item when the program fee returns and Council could decide whether to include the amount in the program fee or the budget.
Councilmember Matarrese expressed support for the City Manager’s suggestion.
Councilmember Oddie stated that he likes Councilmember Matarrese’s idea and would like to pursue it.
Mayor Spencer stated the Council supports the suggestion.
RRAC
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the RRAC relies on volunteers with little training in mediation; turnover requires new members to be trained; the RRAC is tasked with making a decision regarding housing; only difficult cases end up at the RRAC since the Housing Authority staff or mediators settle the majority of the cases; suggested that the RRAC process be replaced with staff or a third-party mediator attempting to resolve the issue; stated if the attempts at resolution fail, cases that fit the criteria could go to a Hearing Officer for a binding decision, which gives the parties even more incentive to settle; the RRAC meetings cause discussions about personal matters, such as finances, to be public; tenants have even answered medical questions in the public setting; a public setting is not conducive to a productive, candid discussion; tenants are intimidated to participate in the process; the RRAC process prolongs reaching a resolution as matters have to be placed on the agenda; eliminating the RRAC would streamline the process; money spent on staffing and training the RRAC could be directed elsewhere; the situation was simpler when the RRAC was first formed; a more sophisticated, effective response is needed.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the suggestion is something to think about; he would like an outside party to evaluate the system, especially because of the success of so many cases being resolved by mediation; mediation cannot be done at the RRAC.
Vice Mayor Vella stated that she supports Councilmember Matarrese’s suggestion; mediation only works when both parties are committed to reaching a settlement; mediation needs to be voluntary; she would like to review the option of having the mediator outside of the system and not a Housing Authority employee; having outside mediators and Hearing Officers would add legitimacy and would untangle the Housing Authority and City Attorney staff.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether Vice Mayor Vella would like the mediators instead of the RRAC, to which Vice Mayor Vella responded that she would like to see the costs and understand what the proposal would look like for increases under 5%; some of the most contentious cases before the RRAC have been increases under 5%; different options should be reviewed depending on costs and the recommendation of the outside party conducting the evaluation.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether Vice Mayor Vella supports having a mediator prior to or instead of cases going to RRAC, to which Vice Mayor Vella responded that she would consider both; stated there could be three things to consider: 1) whether a mediator should be hired by the Housing Authority or contracted out, 2) whether the RRAC should be eliminated, or 3) whether certain cases should go to a Hearing Officer instead of the RRAC.
Councilmember Oddie stated that he agrees with suggestion to have an outside evaluation; when the ordinance was adopted, he proposed to have the RRAC as the appellate board for the Hearing Officer to ensure criteria for approving a rent increase was met; he is open to suggestions on how to improve the process; the more mediation up front, the better; he is concerned about the process being so public; however, Council thought the public shaming of going to the RRAC with a large increase might be effective.
Mayor Spencer stated that she is not sure who would be able to conduct the evaluation and is concerned about the cost; she does not support the City spending money on a consultant; she thinks the program is working very well; she attends most RRAC meetings; having both parties present is critical; the first step should be having a mediator; the Housing Authority should determine whether the mediator is on staff or a professional; the Housing Authority has been very effective at training staff; the RRAC process has been part of the community since the 1970s; seeing peers from the community on the RRAC contributes to having a genuine conversation; she would be concerned about having someone from outside the community; the RRAC members have an inherent interest in resolving the issue; paying someone might not be as effective; her goal has been for cases to reach a settlement.
Sunset Clause
Vice Mayor Vella stated Council has not discussed the sunset clause; that she would prefer to remove the sunset clause since Council can amend the ordinance at any time.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he does not think it matters; a Council will have to address the matter when the sunset clause ends; the voters approved language allowing the Council to amend the ordinance.
Councilmember Oddie stated that he supports removing the clause.
In response to Mayor Spencer’s inquiry, Councilmember Matarrese stated that he does not want to remove the clause if it will take additional time.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated leaving the provision in for now is okay; the City just completed the first year; more information is needed.
Mayor Spencer stated that she agrees with leaving the provision in right now.
RRAC Study
The Community Development Director stated that she would like to address the RRAC study which has been requested.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether Council would consider setting a limit to the amount that can be spent on the study.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she does not want to a make a decision without more information.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the matter has to return to Council if the amount is above a certain threshold, to which Councilmember Oddie responded in the affirmative.
The Community Development Director noted the amount is up to $75,000.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether Council is authorizing staff to spend up to $75,000, to which Councilmember Matarrese responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Oddie stated the amount is under the City Manager’s purview.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the information is worthwhile; that he does not want to make a decision based on the tradition of having the RRAC; having the matter objectively reviewed is worth the money.
The Community Development Director inquired how the Council might want to handle single family units, such as having the Hearing Officer make a non-binding decision; stated direction on exempt versus non-exempt units might be helpful.
Mayor Spencer stated that she would be concerned about not offering relief to tenants in single family homes; she wants protection for all tenants.
Councilmember Matarrese stated rather than the Council providing feedback, the consultant should analyze the distinctions and weigh the pros and cons; said information is what he expects from the consultant.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated although rent control cannot apply to Costa Hawkins units, there is value in having mediation for said cases.
Model Lease
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether staff is clear on the model lease, to which the Community Development Director responded in the affirmative; stated staff will look into a model lease.
Councilmember Oddie stated the process might be less expensive if there is a model lease.
The City Manager stated a number of landlords have leases particular to their property; stated rather than having a model lease, there could be model lease provisions since the intent is education; all of the details of a lease would not need to be included.
The Community Development Director concurred; stated there could be a model lease addendum similar to what was created for the City’s smoking ordinance.
Vice Mayor Vella stated the City of Davis prepared a model lease, which is a good way of ensuring Council’s intent is correctly interpreted; she would want to see model lease provisions because there were interpretation issues during the past year.
The Community Development Director summarized staff’s objectives: 1) craft a draft ordinance dealing with administrative issues that would return to Council on May 16th; 2) research and study just cause evictions and a FMR formula for relocation benefits; 3) commission a third-party study on the RRAC process; and 4) work on model lease provisions.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the model lease would be an addendum, to which the Community Development Director responded in the affirmative.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
(17- ) The City Manager outlined the numerous calls the City received related to the storm last night; noted the golf course is temporarily closed; stated every week there is a new federal list of sanctuary cities, so far the City is not on the federal list and the definition does not apply to Alameda; currently, the list focuses on cities and counties with jails.
Councilmember Matarrese requested the City Manager to repeat the announcement at the next regular City Council meeting.
The City Manager suggested everyone sing Happy Birthday to the Community Development Director at the end of the meeting.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
None.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(17- ) Vice Mayor Vella commended Recreation employees who saved a life on the basketball courts at Alameda Point using one of the City’s Automated External Defibrillators (AED).
(17- ) Mayor Spencer stated the splash into spring egg scramble would be moved to next Saturday, April 15th, due to weather conditions.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 9:03 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
****************************************************************************************************
UNAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- -APRIL 18, 2017- -5:00 P.M.
Mayor Spencer convened the meeting at 5:00 p.m.
Roll Call -Present: Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie, Vella and Mayor Spencer - 5.
Absent: None.
The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(17- ) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (Pursuant to Government Code § 54956.9); Case Name: Boatworks v City of Alameda, et al.; Court: Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda; Case Number: RG16841240. Not heard.
(17- ) Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Pursuant to Government Code § 54956.8); Property: Chuck Corica Golf Complex, 1 Clubhouse Memorial Road, Alameda, CA 94502; City Negotiators: Jill Keimach, City Manager and Amy Wooldridge, Recreation and Parks Director; Organizations Represented: Greenway Golf Associates, Inc.; Issue Under Negotiation: Real Property Negotiations Price and Terms of Payment
(17- ) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9; Number of cases: One (As Defendant - City Exposure to Legal Action)
(17- ) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 54956.9 of the Government Code; Number of cases: One (As Plaintiff - City Initiating Legal Action)
(17- ) Public Employee Performance Evaluation Pursuant to Government Code § 54957; Positions Evaluated: City Manager - Jill Keimach, City Attorney - Janet Kern and City Clerk - Lara Weisiger
Following the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Spencer announced that regarding the four matters heard, direction was given to staff.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 7:01 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
****************************************************************************************************
UNAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- -APRIL 18, 2017- -7:00 P.M.
Mayor Spencer convened the meeting at 7:07 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL - Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie, Vella and Mayor Spencer - 5.
Absent: None.
AGENDA CHANGES
None.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(17- ) Mayor Spencer announced Site A is in default and a press release went out, which outlined the steps to cure.
(17- ) Proclamation Declaring April 22, 2017 as Earth Day Alameda.
Mayor Spencer read and presented the proclamation to Patrick Russi and Alameda High Earth Team.
Stated it is time to update the climate action plan: Sylvia Gibson, Community Action for a Sustainable Alameda.
(17- ) Proclamation Declaring April 28, 2017 as Arbor Day Alameda.
Mayor Spencer read and presented the proclamation to the Public Works Coordinator.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(17- ) Vanessa Cooper, made an announcement regarding Stargell Commons grand opening.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Spencer announced the Investment Policy [paragraph no. 17- ] and the East Bay Municipal Utility District agreement [paragraph no. 17- ] were removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]
(*17- ) Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting Held on March 21, 2017. Approved.
(*17- ) Ratified bills in the amount of $3,051,066.86.
(17- ) Recommendation to Approve the City of Alameda Investment Policy.
The City Treasurer stated a ban on investing in Wells Fargo securities has been incorporated in the Investment Policy through 2020; current securities will be liquidated before the new fiscal year.
In response to Mayor Spencer’s inquiry, the City Treasurer stated the matter can be revisited in 2020.
Councilmember Oddie moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(*17- ) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a First Amendment to an Agreement with Akerman LLP for Federal Legislative Services Extending the Term for Three Years and Adding $90,000 Per Year, for a Total of $270,000. Accepted.
(17- ) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Short Term Agreement with the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) to Provide Services for the City of Alameda’s Potable Water System at Alameda Point.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she does not recommend transitioning from EBMUD to an outside contractor; inquired what is the impetus for the recommendation.
The Public Works Coordinator responded EBMUD does not typically provide operations and maintenance for a system that is not theirs but has been providing the service to the City since the late 1990’s through a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA); the short term agreement extends the JPA for six months, which gives the City an opportunity to understand the legal, regulatory, and technical aspects of having another service provider.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the primary consideration for seeking an alternative provider is because EBMUD does not do maintenance on facilities that are not their own, to which the Public Works Coordinator responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of authorizing the City Manager to execute a short term agreement with the East Bay Municipal Utility District to provide services for the City of Alameda’s potable water system at Alameda Point.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(*17- ) Recommendation to Approve the Webster Street Business Improvement Area (BIA) Annual Assessment Report; Approved; and
(*17- A) Resolution No. 15254, “Intention to Levy an Annual Assessment on the Webster Street BIA of the City of Alameda for Fiscal Year (FY) 2017-18 and Set a Public Hearing for May 2, 2017 to Levy an Annual Assessment on the Webster Street BIA.” Adopted.
5-G. Recommendation to Approve the Park Street Business Improvement Area (BIA) Annual Assessment Report; Approved; and
(*17- A) Resolution No. 15255, “Intention to Levy an Annual Assessment on the Park Street BIA of the City of Alameda for Fiscal Year (FY) 2017-18 and Set a Public Hearing for May 2, 2017 to Levy an Annual Assessment on the Park Street BIA.” Adopted.
(*17- ) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a First Amendment to the Agreement with the County of Alameda Extending the Term of the Community Paramedicine Pilot Program; Approved; and
(*17- A) Resolution No. 15256, “Amending the Fire Grants Fund Revenue and Expenditures Budget for Fiscal Year 2016-17 by $246,048 from Alameda County for Costs Associated with the Extension of the Community Paramedicine Pilot Program.” Adopted. [560-40]
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(17- ) Introduction of Ordinance Approving a First Amendment to a Lease and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a First Amendment to the Lease Agreement with Advanced Roofing Services, Inc. a California Corporation, for Building 612 Located at 1450 Viking Street at Alameda Point. Introduced. [In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this project is Categorically Exempt under the CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(c) - Existing Facilities.]
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether there are any other perspective lessees interested in the building.
Andrew Schmieder, Cushman and Wakefield, responded in the negative; stated the building is currently occupied by the tenant and is not being marketed.
In response to Councilmember Matarrese inquiry, the Assistant Community Development Director stated the building is not being marketed as a business retention strategy; Building 612 is in the Enterprise Area; short term leases are being done to provide a consistent revenue stream and to maintain tenants in small buildings.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the building will be marketed after 24 months.
The Assistant Community Development Director responded the Enterprise Zone is marketed in its entirety as a packet; short term tenants are kept so by the time the developer is ready to move forward, the tenant can be eased out of the building.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the $2,500 rent is the going rate for a 4,000 square foot building at Alameda Point, to which Mr. Schmieder responded in the affirmative; stated the rent has been increased 6%.
Mayor Spencer moved introduction of the ordinance.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(*17- ) Recommendation to Accept Status Report on Tidal Canal Project Phase I and Provide Direction to Staff on Moving Forward with Phase II and Phase III. Accepted.
The Assistant City Attorney gave a Power Point presentation.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired the height of the fence which is proposed to be constructed around the bulkhead, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded the standard height is six feet; the proposed fencing would be for safety and would not obstruct the view.
In response to Councilmember Oddie’s inquiry, the Assistant City Attorney stated the strategy is to treat everyone the same with two exceptions; one property on the west side added landscaping and private asphalt, reducing the pathway to five feet wide; the City proposes to retain the existing improvement under a license agreement; the second exception is the property which added a pool and stairs.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the plan is to add fencing for the remaining three properties, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated there is the exception for the property on the eastern most point with the pool and stairs, which is encroaching on City land; the costs to remove the encroachments are prohibitive, so staff is considering offering a leasing arrangement.
Councilmember Oddie inquired why the City issued a permit for the pool to be built if the property is City-owned.
The City Planner responded permits and the project were never finaled; the City inspector stated there is a problem and the project cannot move forward.
Mayor Spencer stated that she reviewed the project permit history which showed two inspectors made multiple approvals, but at the end the project was denied.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether the City has had the property surveyed, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated as part of Phase 1, the area was surveyed as recently as last year by the RJA Firm.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired what type of survey was performed, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded RJA Firm did a public record search, pulled title reports on every single parcel, and conducted an aerial survey to get existing conditions.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether the firm review permits from the past as part of the survey, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded in the negative.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the City is planning to make the property owners pay the same price, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded the affirmative; stated even though the public access easement will be recorded on title, the property owners would have full use of the lot until the City decides to build a public dock; there is no dimunition of the price.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the pool lot is the most encroaching, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative; continued the presentation.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired when was the last conversation with homeowners, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded that he spoke with some homeowners last week and other homeowners in December.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the Assistant City Attorney only met with one homeowner between December and tonight’s Council meeting.
The Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated that he informed property owners that he would follow up with them after getting direction from Council tonight.
Mayor Spencer inquired what is the width of the public access sidewalk with the landscaping, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded approximately five feet.
Mayor Spencer stated the Recreation and Park Commission discussed allowing small water craft access, such as a kayak; inquired about the public access points and whether the five foot width would be sufficient for kayaks.
The Assistant City Attorney responded the access points were initially put in as a view corridor; stated the City is proposing changing the use to allow water access.
The Recreation and Parks Director stated the Recreation and Parks Commission voted 18 feet would be adequate to launch small water craft and that one public dock would suffice.
In response to Mayor Spencer’s inquiry, the Recreation and Parks Director stated the Recreation and Parks Commission did not want to allow large motorized water craft at the access point; the Division of Boat and Waterways requires boat trailers to have turnarounds; having large motorized vessels would be unsafe; there should be a full public process.
In response to Mayor Spencer’s inquiry on fencing material, the Assistant City Attorney stated staff plans to work with the neighbors; depending on the choices, the City will work with the property owners on the materials and safety parameters.
Mayor Spencer inquired what the City has done to protect its rights along the public access point, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded he does not know what efforts the City has made since 1912, but efforts have not been sufficient to prevent encroachments.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the City has put up its own fencing, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded in the negative.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the City has made efforts to ask homeowners to remove the encroachments, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded he does not know of any efforts at this time.
In response to Mayor Spencer’s inquiry, the Assistant City Attorney stated staff proposed an 18 foot public access easement dock; the Planning Board recommended 35 feet to cover entire bulb out; new information revealed the bulb out on the land is 60 feet, but the Planning Board still recommends 35 feet.
In response to Mayor Spencer’s inquiry, the City Planner stated staff is asking if Council wants to proceed in subdividing the land to sell the parcel.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the matter has been discussed at a Planning Board meeting and shared with the public, to which the City Planner responded in the negative; stated the matter has not yet been to the Planning Board but will go in the future.
In response to Mayor Spencer’s inquiry, the City Planner stated staff thought the City only owned 35 feet of the total 60 feet; one homeowner has 10 feet, the other homeowner has 15 feet, and the City owns the 35 feet in between; the Planning Board logic was the easement should be the 35 feet owned by the City.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the City owns more than 35 feet, to which the City Planner responded in the affirmative; stated as of right now, the property has not been subdivided.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the original intent of the bulb outs was to provide a view corridor, not public access, to which the City Planner responded the original intent is not known; it is an assumption since no access was made in the last 100 years.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how did the point of having bulb outs come about if there are no recorded decisions by the City Council about the purpose of the pathways.
The City Planner responded that he can only speculate since the tentative map was presented to Council in 1912; given the shape of the bulb outs, the assumption is the public could walk to the bulb out to view the water.
In response to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft’s inquiry, the City Planner stated the thought was that the Alameda community should have access to a public dock if property owners will have access to the water from their personal docks; the Planning Board wanted to make sure there is enough space for public access and to reserve the space in the future.
In response to Vice Mayor Vella’s inquiry, the Assistant City Attorney stated the revelation that the City owns 60 feet of the property came about as an evolution; the initial purpose of the project was to facilitate the transfer the property from the federal government to private citizens; addressing the issues regarding the public access was not part of the project; when public access issues came up, the initial purpose was hijacked; staff made a decision to deal with the issues that have been festering while working through the property transfer issue; the public access area was not federal property, it was always the City’s property; selling the property to the adjacent property owners would prevent the community from having a public dock.
Vice Mayor Vella stated she is concerned about numbers changing; the City needs to show the work and that the numbers are consistent and correct; she would like to see more information on how staff arrived at the numbers; it is not clear to the general public.
In response to Vice Mayor Vella’s inquiry about whether the City issued fence permits, the Assistant City Attorney stated fences under six feet do not require permits; he does not know if a permit was issued for a retaining wall higher than six feet.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether any walls were permitted, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded the City has not done permit histories except for the bulb out property.
Councilmember Oddie stated that he thinks the fences are over six feet; expressed concern that the City did not know the numbers.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether permits were issued for decks that extend into the bulb out, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded the City did not a full permit history; staff wanted to get direction from Council first.
Mayor Spencer stated the home at 3267 Fernside Avenue has permits, including signed-off for a seawall, dock replacement, and gangway which cost over $15,000; their improvements extend into the proposed 35 feet; inquired whether the City will ask the homeowner to remove the portion which extends into the 35 feet, or if the homeowner will receive their money back.
The Assistant City Attorney responded nothing will happen until Council decides on if and where a public dock should be; stated staff hopes the property owners obtained proper permits; staff is proposing to sell property owners the submerged property behind their homes.
Expressed concern over the underuse of the public access points: John Knox White, Alameda.
Stated that she opposes Phase II as proposed; requested the City to repair the pavement and close the public access path from dusk to dawn; outlined safety concerns: Bethany Polentz, Adjacent Property Owner.
Discussed the best uses for the public access points; stated a boat launch would not be the best use; the Council has one shot to the project right: Serge Wilson, Alameda.
Stated most neighbors have responsible access to the water, she does not want to deny public access; it is the City’s responsibility to keep the area safe and clean: Mary Anne Ostrom, Alameda.
Submitted information; stated public access is hidden and limited; urged Council not to go further and develop something negative: Jan Schlesinger, Alameda.
Stated expanding bulbouts will attract more nuisance and enforcement is difficult; the cost of putting docks in will be enormous and needs to be Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant: Former Councilmember Mike Gorman, Waterfront Homeowners Association (WHOA) Executive Committee.
Stated the purpose of the pathways 104 years ago was to be able to get access to the water in times of disaster; Phase 2 needs to be revamped dramatically and is unsafe: Kevin Peterson, Alameda.
Urged Council to approach the issue with a good lens, not just a literal view of a 100 year old map; encouraged Council to find an appropriate and safe solution: Ezra Roizen, Alameda.
Stated the City has an opportunity to have a public asset on the East End, urged Council to keep options open and not privatize public amenities: Brian McGuire, Alameda.
Stated Phase 1 was a convergence of cooperation; the property it is an odd asset, urged Council to be thoughtful in consideration and find a defensible, safe solution: Seth Hamalian, WHOA.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Assistant City Attorney did an awesome job on the project; the City Attorney inherited the 100 year old mess; completing 91 transfers and only being held up by six is amazing; homeowners provided great testimony; she hears the concerns about safety; making the area safe and sensible is important; there are more sophisticated problems; she is glad the Police Department installed cameras.
The Police Chief stated he has been in contact with residents who have shared emails with photos and videos of incidents occurring in the area; regardless of where anyone is on this issue, no one should tolerate what happens there; calls to the Department increase with the increase of the homeless population; further stated the Department can do a better job of policing the area.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated there needs to be some balance in whatever Council decides; the title needs to be wrapped up; Council has a decision to make about where to expend City resources and keep residents safe at the same time; she is distressed at the condition of the area and has immediate safety concerns; making the area safe should happen sooner rather than later.
The Assistant City Attorney stated the City has looked into temporary fencing to address the safety issue; funds are already allocated to take the immediate step.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she supports pursuing the temporary fencing.
Councilmember Oddie concurred with Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft; stated “reasonable and feasible options” is a good starting point; each of the six homeowners may require a unique solution; he would like the City have more outreach with homeowners for a custom solution; he is concerned about safety; assertion of the City’s property rights should be backed up with responsibility; safety is the priority.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he supports the recommendation on direction to repair the pavement; the center access can be driven into, which is not a good situation; problems need addressing; staff needs to lock down the use; practical constraints should be considered; the review on how the public can access the water should be broadened; there are practical steps between the wants and what can be done; the immediate hazard to public needs to be remedied; for everything else, there is no rush; the project should be done right.
Vice Mayor Vella stated there needs to be a conversation based on the usable space and the feasibility of the options; the public is asking for a better boat launch; there is opportunity to ensure the public is able to launch on both sides of Island; she was appalled by the conditions; liability is a concern; trash receptacles are needed; signage needs to be improved; there should be reflective lighting at the end and signage on the gate; homeowners did not know the location of the property line; the City has not done due diligence over the years to protect the property; she would like to preserve water access; there is not enough information to give advice on the matter at this point; conversations need to happen before potential uses are decided; resources should not be spent if a plan is not feasible.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would recommend accelerating Phase 3 so Council can make a good recommendation sooner rather than later.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether City land which has been determined to be encroached upon would have a license fee, to which the City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the land will not be gifted.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the license fees would be a nice revenue stream as long as the fees are not constrained by law.
Mayor Spencer stated that she does not think the City has done anything to show the public the land is owned by the City; the City is responsible for knowing its land; inquired whether access to the water would be feasible for fire support.
The Fire Chief responded supplying water from the bulb out areas would be difficult; the firetrucks would not be able to get close enough to the water to pump it out; using fire boats from the water would only require alleyway access and a long hose.
Mayor Spencer stated that she does not think an ADA dock is possible, but she is happy to receive feedback it; she does not want to do Phase 3; the pavement needs to be maintained and improved signage for the three pathways is needed; a gate needs to be added to the top access; she does not want to change the use of the public access points; she would agree to an 18 foot area if it is large enough; she does not want to encourage large water craft use.
The City Manager summarized Council’s direction; stated staff would not be able to commit tonight but will return with a short term solution; for the long term, staff can get input from neighbors and bring back a feasibility analysis with more detail and design components.
Councilmember Matarrese concurred with the City Manager; stated that he does not want staff to have total say on the use before coming back to Council; having a Recreation and Park Commission recommendation is appropriate.
Mayor Spencer concurred with Councilmember Matarrese.
Councilmember Oddie stated that he concurs with Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft’s suggestion to move Phase 3 ahead; he would like to know the practicality of building a public dock before the City locks the six property owners into an arrangement.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like staff to meet with homeowners rather than making them appear at a public meeting.
Vice Mayor Vella stated if the Recreation and Park Commission desires to build a public dock, she hopes the discussion is not just limited to the three access points.
The Assistant City Attorney concurred with Vice Mayor Vella; stated other locations should be included in the analysis; reiterated Council’s direction for the immediate action which includes safety fencing, repaving work, and signage.
In response to Mayor Spencer’s inquiry, the Assistant City Attorney stated no fencing will be added on bulb outs on the land side; only safety fencing would be installed until further direction from Council.
***
Mayor Spencer called a recess at 9:51 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:59 p.m.
***
***
(17- ) Mayor Spencer inquired whether Council would be willing to continue hearing all the remaining items if it meant going past 11:00 p.m.
Councilmember Matarrese stated two of the referrals are the same, with support from three Councilmembers and he thinks Council will get through the referrals quickly.
Councilmember Oddie stated he is amenable to going past 11:00 p.m. if Council hears the Fire Department items [paragraph no. 17- ] , the Cross Alameda Trail [paragraph no. 17- ], Bird Safe Buildings referrals [paragraph no. 17- and 17- ] and Shoreline Park referral [paragraph no. 17- ]; and postpone establishing priorities [paragraph no. 17- ].
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated she would not support not hearing establishing priorities [paragraph no. 17- ] tonight.
Councilmember Oddie moved approval of hearing the Cross Alameda Trail [paragraph no. 17- ], Bird Safe Buildings referrals [paragraph no. 17- and 17- ] and Shoreline Park referral [paragraph no. 17- ] after 10:30 p.m.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.
The motion requires four affirmative votes, so it FAILED by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Oddie, Vella and Mayor Spencer - 3. Noes: Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft and Matarrese - 2.
***
(17- ) Resolution No.15257, “Approving Workforce Changes to Add Three New Positions to the Fire Department Fire Prevention Bureau Effective May 28, 2017: One Fire Captain and Two Fire Inspectors at the Firefighter or Apparatus Operator Rank for an Annual Cost of $799,206.” Adopted; and
(17- A) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager or Designee to Negotiate and Execute an Agreement for the Purchase of Three Staff Vehicles and Miscellaneous Equipment in an Amount Not to Exceed $188,684 to Support the Reinstatement of the Fire Prevention Bureau.
The Fire Chief gave a Power Point presentation.
In response to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft’s inquiry, the Fire Chief stated a total of 3.65 inspections are done per day per inspector.
***
(17- ) Mayor Spencer stated a motion is needed to consider remaining items
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of hearing the balance of the regular agenda and not hearing the referrals.
The motion failed for lack of second.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of hearing the balance of the regular agenda and the Bird Safe Buildings referrals [paragraph no. 17- and 17- ].
Vice Mayor Vella amended the motion to include Shoreline Park referral [paragraph no. 17- ].
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion.
The motion requires four affirmative votes, so it FAILED by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Matarrese, Oddie, and Vice Mayor Vella - 3. Noes: Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft and Mayor Spencer - 2.
Mayor Spencer moved approval of finishing the current item and hearing the Cross Alameda Trail [paragraph no. 17- ], Bird Safe Buildings referrals [paragraph no. 17- and 17- ] and Shoreline Park referral [paragraph no. 17- ].
The motion failed for lack of second.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of finishing the Fire items [paragraph no. 17- ] and the Cross Alameda Trail [paragraph no. 17- ]
The motion failed for lack of second.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of hearing the balance of the regular agenda, Bird Safe Buildings referrals [paragraph no. 17- and 17- ] and Shoreline Park referral [paragraph no. 17- ]
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.
The motion requires four affirmative votes, so it FAILED by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Matarrese and Vice Mayor Vella - 2. Noes: Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Oddie and Mayor Spencer - 3.
Councilmember Oddie stated he would like to get through at least three referrals.
Vice Mayor Vella moved approval of hearing the Cross Alameda Trail [paragraph no. 17- ], Bird Safe Buildings referrals [paragraph no. 17- and 17- ] and Shoreline Park referral [paragraph no. 17- ].
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion.
The motion requires four affirmative votes, so it FAILED by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Matarrese, Vella and Mayor Spencer - 3. Noes: Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft and Oddie - 2.
Councilmember Oddie moved approval of hearing all remaining items.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Matarrese, Oddie, Vella and Mayor Spencer - 4. Noes: Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft - 1.
***
In response to Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft’s inquiry, the Fire Chief stated fire suppression staff would still be used; there are approximately seven inspections per month; distribution of the workload will change to have fair coverage and enhance completion rates; additionally, a new software program with email alerts will be implemented to track inspection progress.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the City of Oakland had some communication issues affecting a recent fire incident because departments used different software which did not communicate; inquired how Alameda would make sure relevant departments could communicate with each other.
The Fire Chief responded the Fire Department is cross referencing with other departments to make sure nothing is missed; staff is reviewing all business licenses to make sure inspections are done, and assigning inspection dates so none are missed; the Building Department uses the same program for tracking permits; if an issue arises, the Fire Department will be alerted and can get involved.
In response to Councilmember Matarrese’s inquiry, the Fire Chief stated the two agencies using non-sworn staff as Fire Inspectors are Oakland and Fremont.
In response to Councilmember Matarrese’s inquiry, the Fire Chief stated the City has a non-sworn Code Compliance Officer and Fire Inspections are done by fire companies.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether adding two Fire Inspector positions is enough to get through the back log, to which the Fire Chief responded in the affirmative; stated having two inspectors and an additional Fire Captain would help the Code Compliance Officer do follow-up; he is concerned about not having a full-time Fire Marshall; he will come back to Council after the end of the Community Paramedic program to make a request for a management position.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired how much Alameda receives in Ground Emergency Medical Transportation (GEMT) funds, to which the Fire Chief responded $275,000 per year on average; he expects to continue to ask for reimbursements.
Councilmember Oddie inquired what does the City lose as a community by not having a full time Fire Marshall, to which the Fire Chief responded the City loses the management aspect; there is no one to explain policy and give direction; the position is important enough that it should be stand alone; a lot of technical information comes from the position; the City would be missing out on regional meetings a Fire Marshall would attend to be informed of fire prevention and new codes.
Councilmember Oddie inquired whether not having a Fire Marshall or other resources would impact public events such as the Park Street festival, to which the Fire Chief responded things would be slowed down; the department is not functioning at the highest level; it will be more difficult when the Department loses the Chief from the Community Paramedic funding.
Councilmember Oddie stated there was a huge cost overrun with the EOC funding due to lack of management of the IT aspect; inquired what the City would lose by not having management expertise.
The Fire Chief responded the City would lose direct management of several things, including the Fire Prevention Bureau, quality control, quality assurances and quality improvement; a framework will be pieced together but making sure the plan is working will be difficult without management to oversee it; the immediate objective is to complete the back-log of fire inspections; the bigger picture is that it will be harder to expand and be fully functional without management.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether the inspection fees are the same for a non-sworn and sworn inspector, to which the Fire Chief responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether there is an independent analysis of other agencies which indicate whether or not sworn or non-sworn positions is a good way of conducting the inspections.
The City Manager responded the Human Resources Department contacted the other cities; using non-sworn inspectors works for the City of Fremont, but they have a bigger department; there are more factors which determine whether cities select sworn or non-sworn inspectors.
The Fire Chief stated non-sworn Fire Inspectors do not have training or equipment and cannot be sent to an emergency.
Mayor Spencer stated nine Fire Fighters live in Alameda, which is 10% of the total; other cities require Fire Fighters to live in the city in which they work.
The City Attorney stated the resident status was a requirement in the past; the requirement is not legal.
In response to Mayor Spencer’s inquiry, the City Manager stated Alameda does not require Fire Fighters live in a close radius to the City; having such a requirement would cut back on the quality of candidates.
Mayor Spencer inquired what is the difference in the estimated post-employment costs of sworn versus non-sworn.
The Human Resources Director responded there is no additional cost; everything, including benefits, is included in the total salaries.
Mayor Spencer stated additional revenue is estimated at $400,000 per year; inquired where is the difference going to come from.
The City Manager responded $170,000 from the General Fund would make up the difference.
Mayor Spencer inquired whether there would be no encroachment into General Fund with a non-sworn inspector, to which the City Manager responded in the affirmative.
Stated the matter should be part of a budget discussion; the City is facing pension costs and retiree medical costs; if the matter is not addressed in this budget cycle, each city department will be asked to do more with less in the next budget cycle: Kevin Kennedy, City Treasurer.
Stated public safety is an area where he would not want to do more with less; protecting citizens is important; he supports staff; urged Council to bring back the Fire Prevention program: John Knox White, Alameda.
Stated there is a disconnect between sworn staff and non-sworn staff; having sworn inspectors creates a professional development tract; urged Council not to make the same mistakes as Oakland; stated Fire Inspectors need to be sworn staff: Dan Robertson, City of Oakland Fire Fighter.
***
(17- ) Vice Mayor Vella moved approval of continuing the meeting past 11:00 p.m.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would only support considering the current item.
The motion was not amended.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Matarrese, Oddie, Vella and Mayor Spencer - 4. Noes: Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft - 1.
***
Stated that he supports the item; he is surprised that a large number of buildings are not being inspected; it is the City’s job to make sure there is staff and resources for inspections; urged support for the safety and betterment of Alameda: David Mitchell, Alameda.
Stated his concern turned to worry for the safety of family and community; urged Council to restore a sworn Fire Prevention Bureau: Dennis Popalardo, Alameda.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the issue is important; she is mindful of the budget but the issue cannot wait for a two year budget; she wants to make sure the City can pay for firefighters in their retirements; the City spends money to keep the community safe; Alameda has older structures; she would like funds to go to having buildings inspected; safety is the highest priority.
Councilmember Oddie stated Alameda is not immune to a Ghostship [Oakland fire] situation; cutting corners puts Firefighters and citizens lives in danger; the number one priority is to keep the community safe; he is concerned about lack of management and not having a Fire Marshall; the EOC budget overrun was an example of a failure of not having management in place; the Police and Fire Departments should not be run like a business; he fully supports the funding.
Councilmember Matarrese stated there is a risk of losing lives when buildings are not inspected; he is not convinced that Fire Inspectors have to be sworn; the City of Fremont is doing a fine job with non-sworn inspectors; other factors led to the Ghostship situation which goes beyond not having a sworn Inspector; he supports non-sworn staff.
Vice Mayor Vella stated that she thinks for less than a few hundred dollars, the City is getting double the bang for the buck; Alameda is already short-staffed; if the money is going to be spent, Alameda should have the extra bodies to backfill in emergencies; risks are greater when under-staffed; having a Firefighter out injured does not help staffing; funds generated by the Department counteract costs; she is concerned that the Department is not being brought back to full capacity and will be doing more with less; she does not want to outsource and would like to see sworn officers; she is ready to support the recommendation.
Mayor Spencer stated that she does not support the recommendation; Firefighters have to go through comprehensive training to fight fires and she does not want Firefighters to do inspections; she supports hiring inspectors to do inspections; inquired what is the current dollar amount of unfunded liabilities, to which the Assistant City Manager responded $113 million.
Mayor Spencer stated the City could hire more non-sworn to do inspections and make sure Firefighters can fight fires; she does not want to confuse the two; Alameda has over 3,000 overdue inspections; Council’s number one priority is safety; the City not having a long term financial plan is a serious problem.
Councilmember Oddie stated he would like to bifurcate the motion.
Councilmember Oddie moved adoption of the resolution approving workforce changes to add three new positions to the Fire Department Fire Prevention Bureau effective May 28, 2017: One Fire Captain and Two Fire Inspectors at the Firefighter or Apparatus Operator Rank for an annual cost of $799,206.
Councilmember Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Oddie and Vella - 3. Noes: Councilmember Matarrese and Mayor Spencer - 2.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of authorizing the City Manager or designee to negotiate and execute an agreement for the purchase of three staff vehicles and miscellaneous equipment in an amount not to exceed $188,684 to support the reinstatement of the Fire Prevention Bureau; inquired whether the funds would come from the current Fire Department budget.
The City Manager responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie and Vella - 4. Noes: Mayor Spencer - 1.
***
Mayor Spencer called a recess at 11:18 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 11:23 p.m.
***
(17- ) Recommendation to Approve Design Concept for Cross Alameda Trail Gap Closure on Atlantic Avenue between Webster Street and Constitution Way.
The Transportation Planner gave a Power Point presentation.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like better graphics of the street level renderings; she cannot approve a plan without seeing better visuals.
The Base Reuse Director stated staff could have renderings prepared and come back to Council in June.
The Transportation Planner continued the presentation.
Stated the project is holding up two other projects; urged support of the plan: John Knox White, Alameda.
Stated Council does not need to delay the project; there was a unanimous vote from the Transportation Commission; the plan is good and is ready to move forward; delaying the plan holds up key pieces of Cross Alameda Trail: Brian McGuire, Alameda.
Stated 200 seniors live at Independence Plaza; she appreciates improved safety on both ends of major junctions; urged support of the plan: Vanessa Cooper, Alameda Housing Authority.
Vice Mayor Vella stated that she supports the midblock crossing adjacent to senior housing; she is concerned that the Transportation Commission did not include a midblock crossing; the crossing improves a lot of safety aspects of multi-modal transportation.
In response to Vice Mayor Vella’s inquiry, the Base Reuse Director stated staff talked to the property owner about removing the left turn into Starbucks and they were not supportive; the Transportation Commission can still explore the issue.
Vice Mayor Vella stated she would want a bigger conversation with the property owner; it is a safety issue.
The Base Reuse Director stated staff has talked to the property owners a number of times; the property owners were adamant about prohibiting access.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there is a median where pedestrians can get half way across the midblock crossing, to which the Transportation Planner responded in the negative; stated the proposed design is four feet wide but the requirement for ADA is six feet.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he would like to see a midblock crossing; such crossing would be a good benefit for residents of Independence Plaza and the shopping area; it is necessary for Council to approve the plan in concept and review the design again; suggested going forward with the plan and come back with details; stated Alameda has engineers that could answer the number of questions raised.
Councilmember Oddie stated that he would like to move forward; he understands the need to have better information; he is prepared to support the project.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she supports the project but needs clearer drawings; she is fine with the midblock crossing; engineers will come back with more information; she would like to know more that can be done for bicyclists and pedestrians to reduce traffic impacts.
In response to Mayor Spencer’s inquiry, the Transportation Planner stated there are two lanes in each direction that enter and widen out to three lanes at the Webster Street intersection, Constitution Avenue and Atlantic Avenue.
Mayor Spencer stated having a midblock crossing is critical; the Housing Authority and Independence Plaza is very inaccessible at the moment; that she would not support the recommendation without a mid-block crossing and a left turn in the Housing Authority; she would like to see better illustrations.
The City Manager suggested Council approve the concept.
Councilmember Oddie moved approval of the design concept for Cross Alameda Trail Gap Closure on Atlantic Avenue between Webster Street and Constitution Way, with a mid-block crossing design option.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion which carried by the following voice vote: Councilmembers Matarrese, Oddie and Vella - 3. Noes: Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft and Mayor Spencer - 2.
(17- ) Recommendation to Approve the City Council’s Priorities Established at the February 17, 2017 Priority Setting Workshop, the Referral Tracking Table, the Revised Form for Submitting City Council Referrals and a Process for Ranking/Addressing New Referrals.
The City Manager made a presentation.
Stated Council referrals deserve more consideration; the current referral process is a disservice to the Council and citizens; the chart was difficult to read; a better way to present the information to the public needs to be considered: Dorothy Freeman, Alameda.
Stated the chart is missing a timeline; urged Council to work harder to engage the public: Gretchen Lipow, Alameda.
Councilmember Matarrese stated once a referral is voted on it is no longer a referral; Council should be consistent; an estimate is needed as to when a referral would be done; the form needs to have a suggested priority level; suggested having the Eisenhower chart on the form; the understanding of referrals is that a Councilmember is not soliciting action other than to have Council agree before expending staff time.
Councilmember Oddie stated including the Eisenhower chart on the form is appropriate; he is concerned that there is no schedule or timeline; the community would benefit from a schedule that is regularly updated; having a schedule gives more notice, is more transparent, and would be an effective planning tool.
The City Manager outlined detail on the spreadsheet tracking referrals; including the Housing and Homeless, FAAS, and Zoning referrals.
Vice Mayor Vella stated the original date of the referral is missing from the chart; suggested changing ‘next steps’ to ‘projected timeline’ and including the original referral direction date to keep track; stated having a suggested priority level is helpful; she hopes there is discussion about the reality of how much time the referrals are going to take; expanding upon the upcoming items list and making it public would be helpful.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft urged Council to give the new referral form a try; the form places focus on what the Councilmember is recommending and helps prioritize.
Mayor Spencer stated that she does not like the form and it is not transparent; she prefers to make it clear to the public that Council may be able to take action that night or give direction; the tracker chart is not useable and has way too small print; the tracker chart needs a timeline and consideration of how much time all items would take to get done, not just high priority.
The City Manager reminded Council agendas are packed; stated there is lots of work with limited staff; referrals could be piled on but other items will suffer; the City does not have the budget to add additional staff to handle non-critical referrals and does not recommend doing so.
Mayor Spencer stated the referrals are critical and some could have significant impact on the lives of residents.
Councilmember Oddie stated there needs to be a balance; the Council is the policymaking body and has the right to bring the referrals, which will not slow down.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the way things have been done is not yielding the results hoped for; staff has to come close to a workable format in order to move items forward.
Vice Mayor Vella stated Council is willing to take a first step and be cognizant of a timeline.
Vice Mayor Vella moved approval of revising the City Council referral form to include priority and urgency, as well as distinguish whether or not the referral is asking for Council action; [the tracking form] is to include the dates when the referral was brought, when Council took action, and a general timeline for all items.
Councilmembers Oddie seconded the motion which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmember Oddie, Vice Mayor Vella and Mayor Spencer - 3. Noes: Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft and Matarrese - 2.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
(17- ) The City Manager announced the hands across Alameda and Coastal Clean Up at Crab Cove as part of Earth Day.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
(17- ) Consider Adopting a “Bird-Safe Buildings” Ordinance. (Vice Mayor Vella and Councilmember Oddie) [Not heard March 21 or April 4, 2017]
Council agreed to address the two bird safe building referrals together.
Vice Mayor Vella made brief comments regarding the referral.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the purpose of the referral is to establish an ordinance that people have to follow to make buildings bird safe.
Stated that she chose to live in Alameda because of its wildlife friendly reputation; urged Council to adopt a bird safe ordinance: Marjorie Powell, Alameda.
Stated it is time for Alameda to establish a bird safe ordinance; urged Council to adopt the referral: Linda Carloni, Friends of the Alameda Wildlife Reserve (FAWR).
Stated that she strongly endorses a bird safe ordinance; an ordinance establishes Alameda’s credentials as a bird safe city and would encourage other cities to do the same: Patricia Gannon, FAWR.
Stated there are many development plans in Alameda; establishing a bird safe ordinance is urgent to ensure there is environmentally safe development: Cindy Margulis, Golden Gate Audubon Society.
Stated that she is excited that Alameda is joining the list of communities that are concerned about bird safe buildings: Leora Feeney, FAWR.
Discussed the importance of landscaping and trees for people who live near well-lit buildings: Pat Lamborn, Alameda.
Mayor Spencer stated that she submitted a separate referral based on the Golden Gate Audubon Society’s standards for wildlife safety, not just bird safe; she would like a more comprehensive effort for protecting Alameda’s wildlife, including artificial lighting and trees.
Vic Mayor Vella stated the sample draft ordinance could work and includes the importance of landscaping and future related standards, atriums, greenhouses, and some of the lighting aspects; she hopes the ordinance addresses some of Mayor Spencer’s concerns; she would like the effort to be comprehensive as well, not just piece-meal.
Councilmember Oddie stated the draft Ordinance from the City of Richmond addresses the concerns; he would like Alameda to be celebrate being recognized for the effort; Alameda has done a lot of work to protect wildlife; Councilmember Matarrese took the lead on protecting the seals; taking the next step is important.
Mayor Spencer stated that she wants to make sure Council is agreeable to combining the referrals for a comprehensive effort.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council should place the appropriate priority level on the referral; the matter will go to the City Planner for review; she would like to know all the considerations.
In response to the City Manager’s inquiry, Councilmember Matarrese stated the referral is a medium priority similar to the lighting ordinance.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of giving direction to consider a comprehensive bird friendly ordinance with protections for other wildlife.
Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated while staff is reviewing the applicable criteria, the referral could be dependent on, and combined with, other projects or work efforts.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(17- ) Consider Directing Staff to Provide Standards for Bird-Safe Buildings for Council to Adopt.
Considered as part of the first bird-safe buildings referral. [paragraph no. 17- ].
(17- ) Consider Directing Staff to Prepare a Report on the City of Alameda Acquiring/Taking Title to the Uncompleted Strip of Shoreline Park next to Harbor Bay Parkway.
Mayor Spencer made comments regarding the referral.
Stated Council should clarify that the property is park land: Pat Lamborn, Alameda.
Urged Council to move forward with the referral: Cindy Margulis, Golden Gate Audubon Society.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the referral.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the adjacent property owner should pay for developing the park land; she does not support the City taking on the responsibility that rightfully belongs to a developer.
The City Attorney stated preliminary research of the documents and the strip of land indicates it is already to be dedicated to the City; there is a public access easement across the property; the idea is that when a developer develops the adjacent property, the City typically requires the developer to do some initial improvements to the strip of land, which is why the City has not yet taken the property.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the original referral regarding the issue is to direct staff to bring back a report on the request; he would like to see a report on what steps need to be taken to acquire the property; Council does not need to decide tonight whether to take the property, but he would just like to know what are the considerations; a report would help make the determination.
The City Attorney inquired whether the strip of land is the only consideration or if Council is interested in a broader piece of property, to which Mayor Spencer responded just the strip.
The City Manager inquired whether Council would like cost estimates to purchase, to which Mayor Spencer responded she would like to know the status; stated she understands the City could take title.
Vice Mayor Vella stated knowing what the cost would be to fix up the park would be helpful; she would also like to know whether the City would lose the ability to make improvements if a developer develops the property later.
Councilmember Oddie stated that he would rather take title when the property is developed instead of taking it now.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the issue is ripe; stated that she thought the hotel owner is planning to make another application.
Mayor Spencer stated the discussion should not be about the merits of the referral; Council is being asked to provide direction to staff to provide more information.
The City Attorney stated staff would be happy to come back with a report on the current status of the property.
Vice Mayor Vella stated the report could be rolled into a presentation if a new application is submitted, rather than asking staff to address it now.
Mayor Spencer stated that she is concerned the City having a right to the strip of land was not made clear at the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC).
Vice Mayor Vella stated the City Attorney’s interpretation of the property rights appears to be different than the developer’s interpretation; it would be helpful to get guidance.
Mayor Spencer stated that she does not want to wait until the developer submits an application; she would like the issue to be resolved so the Council and community know whether the property is the City’s and how much it would cost.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether the City Attorney has information readily available, to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated staff has started pulling together the documents so an analysis of the City’s rights could be done relatively quickly.
Councilmember Oddie stated he is concerned taking action on the referral so quickly would bump other referrals; he does not think the referral has a higher priority than some others.
Councilmember Matarrese restated the motion to approve the referral, including receiving a report on the current status of the property and whether a future developer would still have to provide improvements as a public benefit if the City takes title to the property.
In response to Vice Mayor Vella’s inquiry regarding the referral’s priority, Councilmember Matarrese stated the referral is medium priority; he does not think the issue is more important than the homelessness, mix used, and social development referrals, which he deems are frontline issues.
Mayor Spencer seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Matarrese, Oddie, Vella and Mayor Spencer - 4. Noes: Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft - 1.
Mayor Spencer moved approval of adjourning the meeting and bringing back the remaining referrals.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of tabling the remaining referrals.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated a motion for reconsideration should be made by a Councilmember who voted against it.
The City Attorney stated a motion for reconsideration would need to come from a Councilmember who would be changing their position.
In response to Councilmember Matarrese’s inquiry, the City Attorney stated if Council votes to table the remaining items, the agenda is finished and Council can adjourn the meeting.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council has kept the Housing Authority Executive Director waiting all evening; she would like Council to hear the Housing Authority item [paragraph no. 17- ].
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of hearing the Housing Authority referral and tabling the Climate Protection [paragraph no. 17- ] and Rules of Order [paragraph no. 17- ] referrals.
Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(17- ) Consider Directing Staff to Present the Steps for City Council to Return to Its Role as Board of Commissioners for the City of Alameda Housing Authority.
Councilmember Matarrese made comments regarding the referral.
The Housing Authority (HA) Executive Director made comments regarding the referral.
Mayor Spencer inquired why the HA was initially separated from the City, to which the HA Executive Director responded the 2012 separation was done to put a fiscal and reputational firewall in place; stated the HA assets, which have large capital needs, could be dealt with solely by the HA and not impacted by the City constraints.
Councilmember Oddie stated that he would like to hear more about the plan; there is no accountability to an elected official; the buck stops at Council with housing and rent issues; not having control over issues is difficult; having the discussion is important; he supports the referral.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she does not support Council returning to its role as Board of Commissioners for the HA; doing so would mean Council has the potential of placing the HA Section 8 funds in jeopardy; she feels the remedy is extreme with a lot of dangerous repercussions.
Vice Mayor Vella stated that she has concerns about the fiscal impacts; Council could address some of the rent program issues in connection with the services contract; she would prefer to maintain the basic relationship instead of taking the bigger step and placing funds in jeopardy.
Mayor Spencer stated that she would like to have more discussion on the referral; suggested a presentation from the HA to help Council understand how issues are being addressed; Council could reconsider after receiving more information; she does not support the referral at this point.
Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the matter is not agendized and Council cannot provide direction beyond directing staff to present steps as the referral states.
In response to Mayor Spencer’s inquiry, Councilmember Matarrese stated modifying his referral would no longer make it a referral; suggested the next Rent Review Advisory Commission (RRAC) report or the management of rental complaints be expanded to include the status of the HA projects.
The HA Executive Director stated there are privacy issues which may prevent disclosing tenant information; she would only be able to inform Council of general, statistical information.
Councilmember Matarrese withdrew the referral.
(17- ) Consider Directing Staff to Review and Update Alameda’s 2008 Local Action Plan for Climate Protection. Not heard.
(17- ) Consider Reviewing and Updating the Rules of Order for City Council Agendas and Meetings. Not heard.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(17- )
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 1:53 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.