Datasets:

lytang

/

MeetingBank-transcript

like 13

AlamedaCC_04052016_2016-2747

Speaker 9: And so what the regulate the regulatory system in the Bay Area has allowed is that essentially if you impact mitigation or you impact wetlands, you have to essentially mitigate your impact. And so that that overall that there is kind of a no net new net no net loss of wetlands along the in the coastal areas and in California. And in order to allow that, what has sprung up is essentially the ability to essentially it's created a market for areas where you can mitigate wetlands. And there are essentially developers that have been able to create wetlands mitigation. Banks were able to essentially purchase the right to impact wetlands in one location by mitigating, creating and enhancing or improving a wetland in another location. And there are all kinds of very detailed rules about how this occurs and a regulatory process that governs that. So usually what happens is a property owner. So for instance, the city of Alameda, property owner of land out at Alameda Point could essentially partner with a wetlands mitigation developer and create a bank on its property to essentially receive mitigation credits from developers throughout the Bay Area that are impacting coastal wetlands. And essentially they get paid to do that. And essentially what it does is from the proceeds of that, that banking you're able to create open space and wetlands on land. And so we did based on a referral from Councilmember Ody, we did evaluate this as a possibility at Alameda Point. So as a really as a means of creating open space and paid for through a funding source. So money that is, you know, not coming from the general fund, not coming from the base reuse department. But it also has a benefit of creating not only the the potential money for the creation of open space, but the maintenance cost. There's an endowment that's part of it that creates essentially has to spin off sufficient funds to essentially maintain those wetlands. And so definitely something that we've been talking about thinking about for a long time and a point and and and really needed to delve into the details to understand whether or not we thought it was feasible . And so that is what we did. We consulted with our kind of our environmental consultant with a wetlands mitigation bank developer, was consultants that specialize in helping to create these with legal counsel on some of the issues related to state lands. Really try to delve in and do an analysis as to how feasible is this at Alameda Point. So there were two locations that are essentially zoned open space in our zoning that we looked at. One is deep paved park down here on the western edge of the seaplane lagoon. The other is this Northwest Territories, and I'll explain why these are different colors. But you can see in the black outline about 170 acres, I believe, or 170 acres total, 150 acre eight acres here. And we looked at these two locations as possible areas for wetlands mitigation bank. And what we did find was that it is just a 3 to 5 year process with a number of uncertainties. And, you know, we're we are glutton for punishment and base reuse. So we are familiar with complicated processes and things that take a long time. And and so, you know, that's we understand that. And there are but I want to walk through a little bit what those would be. So there's kind of five things that we need to be thinking of in terms of analyzing those five considerations. And when we did our analysis that we thought were important, the first is you can't create wetlands on land that is contaminated or that would create essentially, you know, a hazard or potential for wildlife or other things. And so because of that, there were land that were eliminated at the base out on here, out on this corner . So we essentially had to subtract that land from the ability to to be a wetland wetlands area. The other is that they don't let you count public access as part of the wetlands mitigation, because the whole point is that this is essentially mitigating passive, very passive wetlands that exist today. And if there's public access, you can't. Essentially the square footage of public access. And so their staff's analysis of this, we felt that that, too, eliminated some areas from feasibility from our opinion, especially this Deep Pave Park, which we you look at the precise plan for town center waterfront area. Although it is intended to be more passive open space. It had significant trails going through here and intended to be a more highly used and active public open space area. And so essentially we felt this was also a very small area and makes you need some efficiencies and scales to really make this work. So essentially eliminating the option, we believe from our opinion of use of deep park, also wetlands construction, we learned a little about wetlands construction and that you you can only really count the areas that are wetlands. And the way that you construct wetlands, which we would essentially be doing here, is you can't count some of the upper layers. There's kind of this construction where it kind of comes down in tears. And there are certain upper tiers that you can't count that are essentially aren't are wetlands because you need the stagnant, the stagnation of the water and the still water to create the habitat for certain vegetation and aquatic habitat. And so you can only count the part that is that that creates that that's still water. And so you can't count those upper tiers. So that also eliminates land. There's a very detailed regulatory process, which is very complicated. It's not something, you know, I know from doing other permits through the Army Corps and the regulatory process, they're extremely impacted. Now with the economy, there's tons of applications. We're having a hard time. You know, even moving things through that process was something, you know, that's really improving water quality and other things. And there's the we understand from interviews is that that our local Army Corps isn't necessary. This isn't their priority. In other words, is it something that required to process and regulate? Sure. But because they see it as, you know, essentially allow helping to allow developers mitigate impacts, that doesn't mean they won't process the application, but it just means it's a little harder to move that process through a little faster. So it is very time consuming and onerous regulatory process. The last issue that we looked at is that the land out of the Northwest Territories is, once it's all conveyed from the Navy, is subject to Tidelands Trust. So as a state, essentially we are the city acts as a trustee on behalf of the state of California, which means we're all subject to all the restrictions that that land comes with. And that creates some problems because typically the regulators want to put conservation easements. They're saying to, hey, if you develop are going to get credit for impacting or eliminating a wetland. We don't want there to be this kind of time expiration on the mitigation that you created. So it. But the State Lands Commission typically does not like to put permanent restrictions on their land. It doesn't mean it's not possible. There's ways either through legislation, possibly through a memorandum of understanding with state lands and the regulators, that that could potentially get worked out. But it's just another consideration. And I think so once you take all that into consideration, really, we think the value that could come from this would be probably about when you pay the developer because they would essentially be taking all the risk. I mean, that's our assumption is that they would they would the developer would be taking all the risk, funding all the money up front. We wouldn't be doing that and that they would be taking significant amount of the proceeds to essentially pay the pay themselves back for constructing the open space and then essentially paying themselves a premium risk premium for having taken all that risk. So we we estimate in about $9 million after all of those reductions are made that could be netted from this. So I think in staff's, we think this is an option that should be absolutely kept on the table as a and we have this and a lot of things that are at the bases. We have a toolbox of things in terms of we've talked about this with regard to financing. We need to keep all of our tools in our toolbox and have them available and make decisions about when to use them. And we think this is one we should keep in our toolbox. We think there are other options. There are typically pretty significant funds from the state to fund open space and parks. There are about six and half million dollars in WW funds for the East Bay Regional Park District has for a park at Alameda Point. This is the location where they would like to build that. And so there, you know, staff believes there are other ways. And I think there are discussions that recently occurred with the subcommittee, with the Park District and the city about potentially exploring the possibility of in re initiating discussions about using that six and a half million dollars to create a regional park here. And so I think from our perspective is, you know, this is not a slam dunk. It was we didn't when we analyzed it, we didn't think it was kind of a panacea that was going to solve all of our problems out there. We don't think we should discount it completely. We think we could. If the council direct staff, I think we're planning we'd like to come back in June. To get direction from the city council to initiate re initiate those conversations with the Park District for a creation of the regional open space. But we don't. Those conversations may not be fruitful or they may be delayed. And so we think we should keep this wetlands but mitigation bank idea in our toolbox. We should keep it, consider it. And if at some point we think it makes sense to initiate it, you know, then we can start that up again. There's nothing that could that would stop us from starting that at a future date. Speaker 1: Thank you. And we do have one speaker on this item, Richard Banger. Speaker 6: Finally. Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam Mayor, and members of the Council, especially council member Odie. Thank you for putting this on the agenda in January of last year. In fairness to the staff, they did complete this report in a very timely fashion. It was done, I think, in August of last year. And so I think the staff for that, it was very informative. And I think for me it illustrated something that a lot of hot ideas are not so hot after you get all the information. And I learned a lot from this. One thing that I learned was that this is going to take it would take almost magic, I would say, to get the state to agree to allow wetland mitigation bank to happen on public trust land. As Jennifer pointed out, the State Lands Commission frowns on that. If we have to go to the Assembly, I can easily see the assembly. I mean, members all over the state saying, well, we set a precedent here. What kind of future developer shenanigans might happen because of this? Because now it's a precedent and why not just leave well enough alone? Another issue is the no public access. Well, soon as I read that, that is completely incompatible with our white long standing vision of there being a regional park there. And I think one of the goals of the park should be to bring people in contact with nature, not keep them away from it. There's already about 512 acres on the VA property that is off limits currently, and I would like to see nature to be accessible to people. Another issue that would come up is what mitigation bank is a for profit operation, and I'm fairly certain I could be corrected on this, but I'm fairly certain that. That precludes receiving public tax money. I don't think we can give public tax money to a for profit wetland irrigation bank. So there goes the six and a half million dollars for the regional park. We're not going to be applying for any of that new money from the the regional ballot measure in June, if that passes. So I think there I think there is opportunity to create wetlands there that end grasslands, other natural habitat without going through this exercise, which we don't know how long it's going to take to even get that, you know, fully sell all those credits. And there's also another wetland mitigation bank that's about to be approved in the South Bay. And of course, they'll be they'll be ahead of us and they'll already be. Offering credits for sale. It's about 58 acres. So. At this point, I would say it's not a good fit for Alameda point. Speaker 1: Thank you very much. Member It was your referral. Did you want to speak first? Speaker 6: Let's make a couple of quick comments. I'm glad that Richard, we were finally able to hear your public comments. I know you stayed late for a couple of meetings and an agenda item got kicked. So appreciate you hanging in there. I do think it's a good idea to keep keep this on the table. You know, it is, you know, a 5 to 6 year project if we decided to undertake it. I mean, whereas if we actually somehow made a deal with the Park District to either give them or sell them this property, they could in turn. Turn it into a mitigation. Is that possible? Speaker 9: Well, I think we first of all, we can't sell them the property because the state lands. When we act on behalf of the state of California as trustee to state lands, we have to maintain ownership over it. So we could only the maximum we could do would be a 66 year lease. And then I think, you know, that's going to be subject to the transaction. There would be a lease document and a transaction of the direction from the council were to essentially say the terms of you creating an open spaces that you can't turn around and create a wetlands mitigation mike that those could be discretionary terms that go into a negotiation and transaction with the Park District or the council could direct staff to say you could create it, but then we need to share 5050 in any proposal or you know, there is it would be like any other transaction that we could we could negotiate those aspects of it. Speaker 6: Okay. Thank you. So just on a high level, you know, we are on the front edge of the battle for climate change and the battle to combat climate change. You know, we are at sea level will be directly impacted by sea level rise and and wetlands are a tool to help combat that. So I don't think it's something we should, you know, take off the table. You know, I do understand the concerns that, you know, once you put it in a bank, it becomes a passive park and you're pretty much restricted and you can't do anything on it, even trails. So that's something I think if we do decide to go down that path, we keep it in our toolbox and decide to do that. That merits a lot more public discussion to see exactly what type of parks we want out there, whether we want them passive or whether we want them more active. So, you know, these projects and just looking at the bottom line, 450,000, somebody else told me that they could be up to 600,000 or credit now. So, I mean, my understanding is the VA watch the map was up there. It's the spot right below. Right below. Speaker 0: Okay. Speaker 6: We were thinking of doing a mitigation bank. They actually have to provide some mitigation so they will be in the market for these credits. Is that. That's not. That's correct, right. Speaker 9: That's my understanding. But I don't know for sure. Speaker 6: So I mean, it could it could be a win win for both us and the VA because that's a project that we're also very excited to see come to Alameda and again. The mayor has discussed this when we've talked about leases, you know, about making sure that we maximize the value we get for our properties because this does belong to the public. And I think this gives us an opportunity to do that. If we keep it in our toolbox and, you know, if we're able to net $9 million from this someday, then that 6.5 million, this would be a supplement from that 6.50, that's similar. 6.5, you know, not a replacement. So, you know, I think if we somehow had 15 and a half, $16 million that we could spend on parks in the long term, that would be a good thing for Alameda. So I hope that we keep this in our toolbox. That's pretty much and I think, Steph, for all the hard work they've done on this. Speaker 9: Can I just I just want to clarify one thing is that you can have public access. It's just that you can't count it towards the bank. So you have to kind of net that. I just want to be clear, you could have some public access. Speaker 6: Like a trail, you know, walking and seeing the bird's nest. Speaker 9: So that would be you'd have to net that out of it. Couldn't be counted towards the bank. Speaker 1: Any other comments? Right. Then we're going to move on to item six B. Speaker 0: Recommendation to appoint the nominated members of the Mayor's Economic Development Advisory Panel. Sorry to. Speaker 5: Good evening. I'm Debbie Potter, the city's community development director. And I am pleased to be before you this evening to request the council's appointment of the mayor's nominated members of the Economic Development Advisory Panel. The purpose of the panel is to enhance the business climate here in the city of Alameda, as well as support the city's key

Regular Agenda Item

Response to City Council Referral Regarding a Possible Wetlands Mitigation Bank at Alameda Point. (Base Reuse 819099) [Continued from March 15, 2016]

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_04052016_2016-2709

Speaker 5: Good evening. I'm Debbie Potter, the city's community development director. And I am pleased to be before you this evening to request the council's appointment of the mayor's nominated members of the Economic Development Advisory Panel. The purpose of the panel is to enhance the business climate here in the city of Alameda, as well as support the city's key economic sectors. And when staff was considering how we wanted to best kind of use the the members of the of the panel and the way that we could most efficiently and effectively organize that panel. We had kind of three key principles. One is that we wanted the panel to be flexible and we wanted a flexible structure that would allow us to really look to some of the business leaders and the personal contacts they had in their in the sectors that they represented. We wanted to have the work of the panel be very focused. We wanted to look at ad hoc committees and ad hoc structures so that we could bring the panel as a whole together or individual members to work on very specific issues or challenges in the economic development arena, and then kind of disband until there was another key issue that we wanted to work on and we wanted to use the panel and its individual members in an ambassadorial role where we could really rely on them. I think that when you're meeting with a new business or working within a business who wants to expand in the city, if you have another business person talking to them about the the good things about Alameda and the way it is to work with staff, it's a more compelling story when you have business representatives with you so that we really saw that ambassadorial role as key, too. So those were some of the important items we really wanted to focus on with the structure of the panel. And then when we thought about the key activities that we would want to engage the panel with is we really wanted to be able to look to the panel to help the city with business retention, expansion and attraction leads and helping to make recommendations to us as a city about ways that we could enhance retention and attraction within our key economic sectors. We wanted to be able to look to the panel to help assist us with business visitations, which we try to do on a regular basis throughout the calendar year. We wanted this panel to be a panel of experts who could advise staff, as well as the city council, to help us on any kind of specialized assignments or recruitment activities. And once again, we really wanted that third party validation of why Alameda is such a great place to do business. So those were the key activities that we envisioned for the Economic Development Advisory Panel. The mayor has nominated nine, nine members of the panel, along with one what we're calling an ex-officio member who would represent the Alameda business community as a whole. The other members are. Each representatives of one of the nine sectors are key sectors that you see listed in the slide. And these members would serve two year terms. There is a list of the proposed members in the packet. It's an exhibit to the staff report and we are asking that the council appoint these members this evening. That's my staff report and I'm happy to answer any questions. Speaker 4: An American. Speaker 1: Vice mayor. Speaker 4: I would like to see if we can. Separate out at least one of the nominees away from the vote as a number is a client of mine, and I'd have to recuse myself to avoid the appearance of any kind of favoritism. And one of the nominees is the CEO of Penumbra. I also have a question and a concern about having a ad hoc committee that has no agendas, no minutes, no notice, and formulating and advising the Council on Policy. In the past, I have tried to just to convince this Council that we should reinstate the Economic Development Commission. I think a commission is matters of economic development, particularly now. And actually, before we headed into the abyss of the great meltdown, where I think demanded a commission that has a balanced membership, that can advise the Council on what policies we want to make in the city with regard to economic development. And I, I can point to the Alameda Marina rezoning as as had an economic development commission looked at that. That parcel before rezoning, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in with it now, trying to save the jobs that are there. So I think it's really important that that that part of the work that's one of these key activities be on a commission level. So that, again, it's noticed. There's agendas, there's opportunity for the public to weigh in as those recommendations for or policy are are being formulated and the council gets the benefit of of what public. Participation and commissions give to us in sifting things down before it gets to this this council for decision. Speaker 5: I believe that staff absolutely anticipates that when meetings are convened, those meetings would be noticed, minutes would be kept, the public would be invited. And that just like with the America's Cup, when there are ad hoc committees that are convened, we're working on updating the economic development strategic plan. We anticipate an ad hoc committee. Those meetings would also be noticed. They would minutes would be taken so that all of those procedural items would be would be undertaken with with this panel. Speaker 4: Yeah. Speaker 1: Member, Odie. Speaker 6: Thank you. I guess I have a process issue on this because if you look at the staff report at the bottom of page two says the city council previously endorsed the structure and purpose of the advisory panel. And I remember this discussion and I just pulled the minutes from April 7th of last year. And then the presentation was to recommend to establish the Mayor's Economic Development Advisory Panel in lieu of reestablishing an economic development commission. And then there was an item there. A vice mayor at ABC moved approval of directing staff to follow the parameters of the referral reform EDC, which failed. And then on the call of the question, which was recommendation to establish the economic advisory panel, the question also failed. So I guess I'm not convinced that this council has endorsed the structure and this has come before us. And, you know, it was my memory or recollection is that, you know, it's not something that we authorized. And I'm a little concerned about. Speaker 5: Well, there was there was actually an earlier action in October of 2013, and it was. That's right. And the. Speaker 8: Council. Nor was the vice mayor. Speaker 5: Right. The council about it. The council voted to repeal the ordinance that established the EDC and directed the establishment of the Mayor's Economic Development Advisory Panel in October of 2013, so that the action and the discussion on April 7th of last year was a follow up to that action. And this action is now that we've actually got the nominated members of the panel. The request is to appoint the members of the panel. Speaker 6: I think we declined to establish it by our vote, defeating that motion. Speaker 1: And the motion was. You want to correct me if I'm wrong, the motion was actually in support. But there there had been action taken back in October 2013. The vice mayor's referral was to move forward with the Economic Development Commission, and that failed, which means then it's what stands is the prior council's decision of October 1st, 2013 , that it's not that it's not changed because the referral failed. Speaker 6: Well, that was the vote on the referral, but there was a staff report recommending to establish the Mayor's Economic Development Advisory Panel in lieu of reestablishing an economic development commission. And that question failed to yes, to no one abstain. So, I mean, to me, that's the direction of this council, not to create this ad hoc committee. And I think we were pretty clear that, you know, we didn't really give direction. Speaker 8: Mayor, I have a question as well. Speaker 1: Member Ashcraft. Speaker 8: Thank you. Speaker 1: So I. Speaker 8: I also concur with what Vice Mayor Ramirez's said about given the charge of this ad hoc committee to formulate policy, significant policy about the economic direction, development direction of our city. I would want that to be open and public and known by the community. And yet I think the next item we're going to consider or another item we're considering tonight are some proposed amendments to a sunshine ordinance. And from the description of the ad hoc committee in the staff report in your presentation, Miss Potter, this would seem to be a passive meeting. Passive? Because it's not a policy body that would actually. This is an advisory committee, at least under the red line version of the Sunshine Ordinance, which admittedly we haven't approved yet, but we're going to look at it. Advisory committees created by the initiative of a single member of a policy body, including the mayor or department. Head and passive meetings shall not include. Well. So not a my reading this correctly include a committee that consists solely of appointments of employees. Is this going to be a passive body? With that. Speaker 0: I think maybe. I don't know. Assistant city attorney Roger can weigh in. Because it sounds like even if it is a passive meeting body, that staff intends on noticing it. So. Speaker 2: Well, I think I think the question here really is that it's not this kind of a committee would not be required under our Sunshine Ordinance to do that. Speaker 8: That was my reading. Speaker 2: And we heard Miss Potter say is she's saying that that's what staff intends to do regardless of sunshine work. Speaker 8: And I appreciate that. However, I think this is significant enough that we should have a better sense of what we're doing, how the noticing will take place and. And I guess the question, the overarching question that I had when I was listening to the presentation is, is there anything that is being proposed in this list of of I'm sorry, I'm just putting this up in the the list of. Key activities that we were just looking at that couldn't be carried out on an informal basis. If you have a question about something to do with waterfront development, is there some reason that you couldn't call upon? Maybe not just the proposed panel member from Power Engineer? I think it is, but maybe Bay Shipyard and put together a group, although that probably doesn't address the openness, the open meeting question. But I think I agree with Councilmember too that this is perhaps not what we had envisioned or we hadn't hadn't made a firm decision about what we wanted to have come back to us. Speaker 5: I think that staff's understanding from that was that the referral the vice mayor made a referral twice about reestablishing the ADC and that in both instances that referral was not approved. And therefore the original action from October of 2013 to set up the advisory panel in lieu of the EDC was what stood, and that is how staff has been proceeding in terms of getting this this panel established. The panel itself and I would just want to clarify that the panel panel itself is not ad hoc. It's set up to be an advisory panel with the members serving two year terms, but that some of the activities that may be engaged in with would include participating on ad hoc committees. But the panel itself is not intended to be ad hoc. It's intended to be a formal standing panel that that is being adopted. That has been adopted in in lieu of the EDC. Speaker 1: And then October 1st, 2013. At that time, the council voted to approve having a mayor's economic development advisory panel. Is that correct? Speaker 5: That's correct. Speaker 1: And remember, Ashcraft, you were on it then. So my at that point, do you know what the vote was? Do you know if it was unanimous? Speaker 5: I believe it was unanimous. So I don't know for sure. Speaker 1: And do you do you recall, aware? Speaker 8: ASHCROFT You know, whether it was or whether it wasn't. There has been significant changes in our city, and we are considering it again so we can take a vote now and decide how we want to proceed. But I. I just I'm concerned with. The. The way this is structured. Speaker 1: Member De SA. Speaker 3: Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. When I look at the individuals who have been asked and who have agreed to participate, they represent an incredible. Group of corporations that we have here in town from the co-owner of Saint George Spirits, their distillery that many comedians love, and that is always in the Chronicle. So it gives great advertising for the city of Alameda. We also have a representative from Google and also the CEO from the. Medical devices company penumbra that recently located here. So there's an incredible amazing talent at that been coalesced here and. How I felt back in 2013 is and still prevails. I do think that we need a panel that can that's nimble and that can move quickly in addressing issues. And in, as you had said, serving that ambassadorial, serving like ambassadors to whatever companies that we want to bring into town or whatever companies that we want to keep in town. I have no doubt that if a panel like this was in existence even prior to 2013, the concerns about the marina probably would have been vetted from their lens and from that economic development lens. I think this is a plus for the city of Alameda. And if it means that, you know, we have to, in no uncertain terms, make sure that the Sunshine Act and all the Brown Brown Act provisions apply, then so be it. Because I suspect that these individuals are willing to do that. This is, I think. This is a benefit to the citizens of Alameda as well as the businesses. We tried the Economic Development Commission model and this is a altogether different model. I guess I would just want to close by saying, you know, I remember many years ago. I think it was ever since I was bought out by Abbott Laboratories and there was a possibility that that Abbott Laboratories was going to close the facility down. But we had staff. I remember, I think it was Erich von Stein. We were all along with then Mayor Beverly Johnson, along with, I'm sure you know, members of the of the chamber, you know, who rallied to sell Alameda. And I think it's that kind of team with that kind of incredible breadth of experience representing, you know, different successful firms in a variety of industry clusters that we have growing here in town. I think it's that kind of of approach to economic development that I think is sorely needed in this fast moving city versus city type of environment that we're in. So how I voted in 2013, I still feel the same way. I support this and I support this approach. Speaker 1: Ashcroft. Speaker 8: And I will just say thank you, Councilmember de like I said, you make a very persuasive argument and I could be persuaded. But my support would hinge on this specifically being a body that is subject to the Brown Act and the Sunshine Ordinance and not as a passive body, but as a policy body. Because I truly feel that this shouldn't just be a matter of, oh, you know, we'll have a meeting, and if we have time, we'll let people know we don't have to. And I think that's important. This is a significant enough undertaking. It should be open to the public. We should be transparent. So if that change can be made, I think I could go along. Speaker 5: And staff concurs with that, with that process. Speaker 3: So why don't we put it? Specify it. Yes. Not not into it. Speaker 8: Right. Speaker 6: Well, I'm still going to vote no, because I think it was clear that there was a recommendation to establish this that was not passed. So to sit here and say that we gave authority to do that and you kind of. Agreed with. We didn't give authority that a previous council yet totally ignoring the other motion and the result of that that vote. I mean, I think there are some fine people that are nominated, but I also think we have a chamber, we have business associations, we even have a mayor who acts as ambassador. So I mean, to sit there and say that we need ambassadors, you know, I think we need to focus on, as the vice mayor has said, economic development and some of these issues. And I just I just think you're kind of you're trying to pull a fast one on us, and I don't like it, so I'm not voting for it. Speaker 8: You know, I am going to jump in here because we've had conversations before about addressing our staff respectfully. I wouldn't I think there may have been some miscommunication. I wouldn't have characterized it as such. I do see that the recommendation is to appoint the nominated members to the this mayor's economic development advisory panel. The vice mayor was asked if that vote could be bifurcated because he has a conflict on one member. I think the the recommendation that needs to be voted on is also to specify, as I said, that this this body falls within the the the requirements of the Brown Act and the Sunshine Ordinance for a policy body. Okay. Speaker 1: Just a moment to make a motion. Speaker 3: Well, I would like to move staff's recommendation and add the amendment that and if you want to wordsmith it even better, feel free to that. This panel fully adopt both the Sunshine Ordinance noticing requirements as well as whatever Brown Act requirements that there are. Speaker 8: And I'll leave that to city attorneys in the cities to have to put it into the the correct language. I don't think that's asking too much of them. And I do think it's important. Speaker 2: I guess I just want to try to be clear here. I don't really understand the difference between how we are modifying this advisory panel. It sounds to me like we're making it a commission. So I'm just a little confused with what the council I mean, my understanding, frankly, had been that this advisory panel was going to be some kind of a much more flexible, not formal organization. It sounds like we're trying to make it more formal. So I'm just a little confused what you want us to do. Speaker 8: Okay. So if I could ask a question of your question, I what I'm looking for is so a commission, I guess, has set meeting dates, whether it's monthly or quarterly or whatever. This may be on more of an as needed basis. But I would still expect that there would be the sort of noticing requirements that we would have of a commission meeting. So however many days before this is this meeting is to take place in the location and all that is is specified. Speaker 2: So who calls the meetings of the the the panels? Speaker 5: So staff, I think the way it was envisioned that staff would convene the meetings and it could be that council gives direction that they would like the panel to have a certain issue studied, such as the zoning or Alameda Marina. Then staff could convene a meeting or if staff has an agenda that it would like to convene a meeting about. That is how we had envisioned it. I do agree, though, the idea was not to do a monthly meeting. A standing monthly meeting with the idea was to come together as needed to meet that those meetings should be open to the public, should be agenda ized. And then if there is an item, for example, that that the city wants to study a particular issue that either the council's director did or staff has, that there is an opportunity for individual members to serve on an ad hoc committee on a specific issue. Then that ad hoc committee would do its work. Pursuant to the Sunshine Ordinance and that with the same kind of notice seen in minutes, and then they would disband as they do under the Sunshine Ordinance. And that's kind of the flexibility that would be sought out if there were was a business visitation staff would be able to identify. Okay, we were looking at this, you know, this particular maritime business. We want someone from the maritime industry to come with us. We would access the panel for that kind of meeting. That that's the that's the idea. Speaker 8: Madame Maresca So what, what is seeming apparent to me and maybe I'm the only one, but perhaps we need to send this back to staff for some, some further clarification. Otherwise we're relying on essentially minutes of the meeting. I mean, you've you've made some very plausible arguments, Miss Potter, but I would have liked them to have been in the staff reports with the public and the council could be aware of them. Could we ask that this be brought back with all of the input that we've heard from Council for our consideration and have a little better idea of what it is we're voting on? Speaker 1: So I think. But. So let me ask you, is it possible to have that direction, given that we've already shared those specificities, the Brown Act, Sunshine Act minutes with the current motion? My preference would be to proceed this not necessarily the same five people, but City Council voted for this back October 1st, 2013. I've heard several councilmembers up here speak to how important it would have been if we'd had this commission or committee for some of these issues. And I think that it is important to get to actually start this and get the feedback from this committee, because we do have critical issues where I think we as a as a council would benefit from their input. So if it's possible to proceed. Speaker 3: Let me raise this. I mean, because I think it's it's it's important to have all the council members if we can if we can get that. I think it's important to have all the council members give their seal of approval for this. Is it possible that we can move forward with accepting the nominations and then so that these persons are and the companies that they represent, they know that, you know, we want them and that that the putting a little bit more meat on the bones discussion can come back. I mean that maybe that's what. Speaker 8: Well if it's. Speaker 3: At least it sends a signal to the to the members that we're serious about. Speaker 1: This. We we value represent. Speaker 3: But we're just going to put a little bit more meat on the bones. Speaker 1: Vice mayor. Speaker 4: I think this is creeping closer and closer to a commission, which is what I thought. And the reason the reason I want it is because when we talk, it's the the ambassadorship. I'm fine. The the ad hoc committees where you get a couple of the key business leaders together is fine. On a specific issue, for example, how do we entice maritime concern to move here, etc.? And I think that can be that can be accomplished here with these volunteers that have it is actually a pretty impressive list. But when we're talking about formulating policy. That has to be publicly noticed, I think. And it has to it can't be it. But I think there's value to having to having a commission do that. The commission delivered our economic development strategic plan, and I think it's worth keeping keeping that up. And I think the previous commission, I am repeating myself, but I think the previous commission died its death because of of lack of direction. And I think the council has to give direction to to kind of push this, just like the council to push the need for economic development strategic plan back in the nineties in anticipation of of growth here so of. I'm I'm fine with with putting these folks to work again as long as it's noticed, as long as there are minutes and as long as they report back to the council again, I think it gets us closer to its you know, if it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck and walks like a duck, it's a duck. We're going to eventually get there. Just. Well, the Mayor's Committee on Disabilities became the Commission on Disabilities because it was important. They don't want to lose the momentum. But I do want to make sure that we have that basically balanced to nine business people. Nine people who are interested in it have their own stake. And then there's 70 X number, thousands of people who who may need to hear or may need to help form those discussions. Speaker 1: So do you want to second his motion? Make a different motion? Where are we on this? Speaker 4: Yeah, I. Speaker 3: Know. I think. Speaker 4: I want. Speaker 1: It to sound kind of like emotion to. Speaker 5: Me. Speaker 1: I think somebody. Speaker 6: You know, is getting to compliment her day sucks point about, you know, trying to have us come together if if we had voted to establish this committee or at least set as established guidelines on what all of my colleagues had said we wanted to do around the ACT agenda, you know, whatever, whatever, whatever. I'm fine with it, but I still don't think we're there yet. So if maybe we can bring back a recommendation to create something, whatever you want to call it, I don't really care as long as it does what we want it to do. And then I'd be fine with voting for the nine people, but I just don't. I just don't think that I just don't think that direction is there. And I I'd like to at least have a vote that says we voted affirmatively this council to create whatever advisory panel slash commission under these guidelines, because I don't think we've done. Speaker 1: That comfortable voting yet. Speaker 3: And Madam Mayor, if I can. Speaker 1: Remember disagree, it's. Speaker 3: Altogether possible that the nine persons who are excited about signing up, it's altogether possible that they themselves would like us to come back with an outline of how they. At a minimum, c c proceeding. So it's something that they would like. So perhaps the thing to do tonight is to accept the nominees. To signal to them that we're serious about this, we're excited about their companies. But also along the lines of putting more flesh on the bones. And at the end of the day, when we put more flesh on the bones, it might look like a commission, but it's still going to be called the Mayor's Economic Development Advisory Panel. Speaker 4: Whatever it is. So the mayor with Councilmember de Sox explanation there. I would like to make a motion that we accept. Yeah. No, actually, I'll let someone else make the motion so I can recuse myself for Mr. Elsasser. Speaker 3: I'll make the first motion that we accept the names of the eight members in the ninth. Not because we don't want the ninth person, but for reasons of. Possible conflict. So that would be the emotion. Speaker 8: And I would second that. Speaker 5: May I clarify? It's actually ten because we have the ex officio at large position. So it's it's actually ten. Speaker 0: Right. Okay. Speaker 8: So nine is not voting on. Speaker 1: So we have a motion and a second. All those in favor I oppose. Speaker 6: I'm going to abstain. Speaker 1: One abstention. Four in favor. One abstention. And now. Yes. Speaker 4: Technically it'll. Speaker 8: Be a. Speaker 6: And I don't know what we're. Speaker 1: Yes. Speaker 8: So so I'll move that Adam Elsasser of Penumbra be nominated as the member of the is it biotech or his biotech. Right. Could be health care, too, but I know his health care. Okay. So biotech. Okay. It's been moved. Speaker 1: Okay. All those in favor I oppose. Abstain. Speaker 2: Abstain. Speaker 1: Passes, three in favor, one abstention. Speaker 5: And remember, vice. Speaker 1: May or may return. He counts as an abstention. Speaker 0: Then absent. Absent of. Speaker 1: All right. Thank you. So now we're going to move on to. Speaker 4: 61, so why. Speaker 5: Don't you. No. Speaker 2: I'm sorry. Speaker 4: Yeah, yeah, exactly. I'd like to make a motion that we send. The issue of the structure of this committee back to staff to ensure that the points that were raised, particularly around the formalities that are required by the Brown Act, the formalities that are that are associated with keeping minutes and providing agendas and public records are considered and brought back as a. That's a direction for how this committee will function and what its obligations will be. Speaker 6: Second. Speaker 1: All those in favor. Speaker 4: I. Speaker 1: Motion carries unanimously. Thank you. Speaker 5: And may I ask one clarifying question? So regarding policy, from a staffs perspective, the panel would never undertake any policy analysis or consideration unless directed to do so by the City Council, and that when that direction came, then panel would undertake that analysis and come up with those recommendations to return back to the Council is that I want to confirm that that's the sense of the Council to about how policy recommendations and policy analysis would be approached. Speaker 3: Well, you said. Speaker 1: That. Speaker 3: You said never. But my sense is you got 9 to 10 people with incredible insights and experience. So they themselves might have some policy ideas that want they want to percolate up to council vice mayor. Speaker 4: And to that point, as part of having that talent in the room on public display with public input and public comment is to me the real value of getting that back to it. So I don't want us to be the sole source of that. This is why we we've assembled the talent and we're grateful that they've volunteered. So I'd say that the answer is no is that the the policy can come from a direction can come from the council, but it can also come from the committee. Speaker 1: But I also want to thank staff and all these business leaders that have stepped up to serve the city. Speaker 5: Thank you. Speaker 8: Thank you. Speaker 3: Good luck. Speaker 1: All right. Our next item six C. Speaker 0: Introduction of ordinance amending the Alameda Municipal Code by amending adding a deleting sections of Article eight Sunshine Ordinance of Chapter two Administration concerning local standards to ensure public access to meetings and public records. Speaker 4: Keep put up the PowerPoint. Speaker 0: Oh, there's PowerPoint. All right. All right. I don't like. Oh, I'm sorry. I don't think it was attached to sir. I had the ordnance red line and then the current ordnance and the staff report in the open government minutes is there.

Regular Agenda Item

Recommendation to Appoint the Nominated Members to the Mayor’s Economic Development Advisory Panel. (Community Development 001-7010)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_04052016_2016-2637

Speaker 0: Oh, there's PowerPoint. All right. All right. I don't like. Oh, I'm sorry. I don't think it was attached to sir. I had the ordnance red line and then the current ordnance and the staff report in the open government minutes is there. Speaker 4: Well, there was but that but I think we can I think we can probably do without it. I'll get through the report. Speaker 1: Do you want to see the red line? But you want to get through that? Okay. Absolutely. Exhibit one. Speaker 4: Sure. Speaker 1: I think that might be. Speaker 4: It's not on. Speaker 8: Yeah. Yeah. We don't have a problem. Speaker 1: Should pull up exhibit one, the red line. I can just walk through that. That'd be great. Speaker 4: Madam Mayor, members of the council, Michael Roush from the city attorney's office, this matter as the amendment to the Sunshine Ordinance is back in front of you. It was before the council back in October of 2015. The council looked at a number of changes at that time, accepted some and sent some back to the Open Government Commission for its consideration with a recommendation back to the Council. There are three major items that the Council wanted the Commission to look at further, and those are the items that I will address tonight. The other parts of the redlined ordinance I certainly can come back to if anyone has any further questions about that. Well, let me focus on the three major items and those items being the use of electronic devices at meetings. The amendments to the provisions concerning responsive responding to Public Records Act requests. And the third item having to do with the training. The Council will recall that we had recommended that the prohibition on the use of electronic devices be fairly broad so that they would not be able to be used at the meeting. Council had some concerns about whether or not that was unnecessary, if the prohibition was too broad. And so we sent the matter back to the commission for it to look at, and it came back with the language for that section that essentially reads very succinctly in order to ensure that all communications to policy board members presented in a public meeting are shared with the Public Policy Board members are prohibited from communicating electronically with others during public meetings that pertains to the business thereof. This is in section 2.91891.4 Subsection H. And so we would recommend, based on the commission's recommendation of that, that that language be adopted, but with one slight change, and that would be after the word meetings that we add about matters. So the last part would read the policy board members are prohibited from communicating electronically with others during public meetings about matters that pertain to the business thereof. We think that will make the sentence read a little better, clarify it. And so we would recommend that be a slight modification to what the Commission recommended. The other primary change is in section 2.9, 2.2, talking about the circumstances under which public records must be provided to people who request them. Currently, the way the ordinance reads is that there is a very short time frame or for the city to respond when a person makes a request for public records. Basically within a three day period informing the person who, how and when those documents will be presented, that could be a trap for the unwary. For example, if a a for example, one of the requests came to a an elected official who may have been out of town and would know about it until he or she got back. It would be a technical violation of the ordinance. And certainly that's not the intent of what this ordinance is supposed to do. So what what the commission has recommended is that that that language be deleted from the ordinance, and instead the language in the Public Records Act be inserted, which basically still provides a barrier, a very short time frame in which to provide those records basically ten days, but also allows for the records to be produced in a slightly longer period of time when there are unusual circumstances and the ordinance defines what those unusual circumstances are. For example, if the records are very voluminous or if they have to be obtained offsite and again, we paraphrase what's in the Public Records Act itself. The the final area. Has to do with the with the training section. Currently, the ordinance provides that there will be annual training on the Sunshine Ordinance. As much as everyone loves the ordinance, I would like to have that annual training. It probably is an overkill situation. So we are recommending that it be done every three years rather than every year. We typically tape those recordings or tape those presentations so that as people are hired by the city who are required to review the ordinance or as people are appointed to policy bodies or new council members come on board, they can review that so that they'd be up to speed in terms of what that ordinance provides. So with those being the three major changes, the Commission is recommending that the ordinance be amended as set forth in the red line version, and I'll be glad to answer any questions about those changes or any other changes. Speaker 1: Clarifying questions. We do have one speaker. I'm going to go ahead and call the speaker then at this time, Irene Dieter. Speaker 0: Hello, Mayor. City staff and City Council. As a member of the Open Government Commission, I wanted to thank you all for your very thoughtful discussion last time on this issue and for taking the consideration of the Commission's input. I really appreciate it. It actually broadened my perspective of different areas within the ordinance, and it also showed how advisory bodies in the city council can work meaningful, meaningfully together to accomplish the task at hand. I'd also like to thank the City Attorney's Office for working to synthesize all the input that we made and going into all the intricacies of every little detail. I really appreciate that. And the one thing that I wanted to talk to you about is I think there's one mistake that is in the red line version and understandably so. I it was pretty hard. We talked about public discussion, public comment in a couple of provisions within the Sunshine Ordinance. And I think there may have been a mistake about not deleting one little section in the ordinance by accident. If you even look at the minutes of February 2nd and March 30th in your packet, it explains the whole conversation of the commissioners . So that one section that I'm referring to is on public comments by members of public bodies, which is 2-91.17. City staff had recommended that there be language added to that provision and of the thoughts that were the recommendation that the commissioners expressed was contrary to that, that we didn't think it was conducive to the Sunshine Ordinance to admonish volunteer board members that they can be removed by the city council, particularly in such a positive document, and particularly because it's under the public comment section. So I do think it was an oversight and I think it should remain committed. And I hope that you agree. And if you're unsure about it, the Open Government Commission can always look at it on the next go around of edits to the ordinance. So other than that one sentence, I urge you to take steps, recommendations from the Open Government Commission. Speaker 1: Can you clarify? Are you speaking what sentence? The one that's in red? Speaker 0: Yes, the one that shows that it's been added. Speaker 8: All right. The one that talks about the removal. Right. Thank you. A bit harsh. Speaker 1: Yeah. All right. That being said, any other questions, Vice Mayor? Speaker 4: I agree with the speaker in that section. Should. I would like to see it deleted. I hope my colleagues agree with me and also on the the training section. I'd like to have my colleagues consider adding a training when the ordinance is revised. And I think you can say every three years, but I think there should be some sort of notification or training upon revisions, and we would agree with that. And just coincidentally, assuming that these amendments were passed, we certainly have training planned for this summer that will discuss the whole ordinance as well as these amendments. May I suggest that perhaps that that training occur when there, say, substantive or significant substantive changes to the ordinance? I mean, there may be some tweaks here and there that may not necessarily trigger the need for the training. But certainly when you have these kinds of revisions, we would certainly think that would be a good idea. I'm amenable to that. Yes. Speaker 1: Thank you. Member Ashcroft. Speaker 8: And so I am. I agree with Miss Dieter. And by the way, in reading the minutes, I really appreciated your comments. I thought they were very well stated and persuasive on this Section two, dash 2.91, Dash 17 Public comment by members of policy bodies. Notwithstanding that language, there is still the direction that we as members of the City Council have had that if we were to say, attend, oh, a planning board meeting and say express our opinion about some matter pending before the planning board that then comes to the city council, that could create a problem for us of a different kind. Is that something separate and apart from the Sunshine Ordinance? Speaker 4: Correct. The the issue that that you raise is whether or not an appearance before an advisory body, let's say, with respect to a quasi judicial matter in particular, and and a council member expresses a viewpoint there. And then that matter comes to the city council, whether or not your participation would be construed as undue bias, and that might be a problem. Section 91 two, Dash two, Dash 9117 really doesn't address that. It really seems to go to a somewhat different issue, but the point you raise is valid. But the sunshine on this doesn't really address that. Speaker 8: Right. And I think it's covered in case law in other other areas that the point I raised. Okay. Speaker 1: And so any other questions or comments from Council member Jody? Speaker 6: So if if we do take out that entire sentence on 2.91, just 17. The. Speaker 8: It's the part. It's not the whole section. Yeah. The sentence. Speaker 6: The part that says. Nothing. Nothing shall be construed to provide rights to appointed policy members beyond those recognized by law or to create any new private cause of action. I mean, is that something that we might want to keep in there? I mean, I agree that if you have something in the charter that is there, there's no really need to reference it because it's kind of like overkill and it is kind of a little bit kind of pointless to get somebody. But is there some some reason why that second part of that sentence is in there? Speaker 4: Well, I think it it certainly wouldn't hurt to have that in there. I think the idea is that this section expresses the idea that that advisory body members and policy body members have the right to express an opinion. But we certainly don't want to necessarily create some sort of. Right. Should the council take action under the charter section to remove someone that someone would then say, Well, I now have some kind of vested right or some sort of liberty interest, which now you've created, that would then give me a cause of action to litigate against the city. So I would agree with Council member Ody that if you take out even if you take out that introductory clause, that you leave the rest of it in just as a belt and suspenders approach. Speaker 6: And nothing in this section shall be construed to provide correct rights to blah, blah, blah. Speaker 4: Leave it. Leave it there to the end. Speaker 8: It's actually sorry. It's actually referring to section 10.10, dash nine of the city charter. So I will leave it to the legal eagles to reword it accordingly, because you can't just make that clause the sentence. Speaker 4: We'll have to tweak that a little bit. But if the concept remains, if the council is an agreeable to keeping the concept, then we can work that language in appropriately. Speaker 8: I think it's a point well taken. Speaker 1: I think we need us. Speaker 2: I think we need to get the language, though, because this is first reading. If you want to go through that, another first reading. So perhaps if I understood what you're suggesting, Councilmember, is that in the read section, we would delete the in that in that section two nine going down one, two, three, four lines and adding nothing Speaker 6: . Well, adding something that, you know, prefaces that. Nothing. Speaker 2: Nothing in this section. Speaker 6: Nothing in this section or nothing in the charter shall be. Speaker 2: Construe, construe to and then pick it up with. Nothing shall be construed to provide rights to. Speaker 6: Something like that. Just so. Yeah. I mean, that part, I think, has some value. Speaker 1: So I swear. Speaker 4: I. I'm I'm I'm not seeing too much value in there because it's already by law. So the entire red line section from in that section 10.9 all the way through new private cause of action, I would say just delete it. Speaker 1: That would be my preference. My preference is to delete it. And I think that that's what. Speaker 4: The and we're addressing a problem that's not there. I, I think. Speaker 1: So at this point. Speaker 6: I'm just concerned that we're going to has the city attorney said they were going to create some private cause of action, that if for some reason the city council did remove somebody that could say, they could say I was removed for exercising my free speech rights. Speaker 1: This is under public comment under a section of public comment. And I would I would support the Open Government Committee's discussion on this and value that. And at this point, we've had a representative and we know we share their that sentence in its entirety to be stricken. I would agree with that. Speaker 6: But I mean, I have a right to have a differing opinion and I just want to protect the city from. Speaker 1: So is there a consensus to honor the work of the prior committee with this report to us or to make this change? Speaker 6: But if I would, I would characterize it as that. I think I'm perfectly fine taking out the part that refers to the city charter and the note the mention of the council being able to remove somebody. But I think there should be we should at least provide some protection that we're not giving anybody any special right or creating any cause of action. Speaker 1: Is that not true, then, with every one that serves on anything, I mean, why would that even be necessary to be included? You can always say you're not giving anyone one any additional rights for any reason unless it is actually affirmatively stated that you are providing that. I'm not sure why you would need to say that you're not. Speaker 6: That's a belt and suspenders as the city. Speaker 4: If if the council would like to leave it in, it should read something along the lines of. Nothing in this. Nothing in this section concerning the exercise of a member of a policy body to make public comment is intended to remove the council, is intended to prohibit the council member, etc.. That would be again, I think that gives the cat, the council and the city the most protection. But is it critical? I mean, I don't think it's critical. I think it gives you more protection than not having it. Speaker 8: And may I make one suggestion? So what I would just do is I would remove all the reference to nothing, you know, is intended to prohibit the council from removing a member. But I would say no sentence, nothing in this section, because we've already discussed what the section is about in the first sentence. So nothing in this section shall be construed to provide rights to appointed policy body members beyond those recognized by law, or to create any new private cause of action. And I do think that's just a good safety precaution. As you know, we do get sued. And so it's I don't and I don't think that that has any kind of harsh implications back to the policy body members. Speaker 1: So I appreciate that. I actually don't know when this city was sued by an appointed policy body member. And I am and I'm considering. Speaker 8: The standard. Speaker 1: I'm concerned with that suggestion that that's actually a concern. So do we have a motion to make? You had a motion, right? Speaker 2: No. Speaker 4: Did you? I will put one in. Yes. I moves that we adopt the. Ordinance presented with the exception of removing the red line section and 2.91-17 into. To consider adding the words to. A required training session when there are substantial, substantial revisions to the ordinance. Speaker 1: Then I think staff had set about to add the words about matters to subsection H. Speaker 4: Earlier to include that. As described by Mr.. Speaker 3: Rausch, an American. All right. I have a question for our staff member. Question for the staff. So what is ultimately staff's recommendation with regard to this discussion that we just had? I mean, whatever staff recommendations I'm fine with. Speaker 4: Well, I think again, I think that Councilmember Ashcroft's suggestion is is a good one for providing. Support for a situation where there could be some type of litigation filed because somebody might be removed based on public comment is a critical. The answer is no. Is it better? In my opinion, the answer is yes. Speaker 3: Okay. Speaker 1: So my concern with that would be that it could be chilling to members of the public to actually serve and then to speak, which is actually contrary to what we're trying to do here. We're actually speaking specifically that we do allow members of public bodies to also speak. Speaker 8: And that's what this. Speaker 1: Is about. Speaker 8: With The Voice. Speaker 4: I tend to agree with that because I think there's a problem. It's a problem we don't have and we've never had. I think the risk is low. It's always better to pile on protections, but then it becomes unreadable or not comprehensible. So I think the risk is low enough to excise the entire section that was red lined in. Speaker 1: So there's the motion of. I'll second it. All those in favor. Speaker 4: I. Speaker 2: I. Speaker 1: All those. And I suppose. Speaker 3: I'm going to vote no and. Speaker 1: Nothing. So a motion fails. Two in favor, three oppose. There another motion. Speaker 8: I will make the identical motion that the Vice Mayor made with the friendly amendment that we include. The clause that I had stated in my comments. Speaker 1: Their second. Speaker 6: Second. Speaker 1: Although some favor. Speaker 4: I. Speaker 1: Oppose no oppose. So three in favor to oppose motion carries next item six d. Speaker 0: Adoption resolution, adopting an addendum to the Certified Final Environmental Impact Report for the Army to point project for a new ferry Terminal Lagoon in Alameda Point approving a memorandum of understanding between the City and Water Emergency Transportation Authority and provide a framework for collaboration on funding operations and maintenance of the ferry terminal and approving a ferry terminal plan. Yes. All right. Speaker 9: Good evening, Mayor. Councilmembers Jennifer Bass, news director. We're here to ask you to take two or three actions tonight, all related to implementing a new ferry terminal at the seaplane lagoon at all points. So the three actions are approve seaplane lagoon ferry terminal plan approved memorandum of Understanding with the Water Emergency Transportation Authority and then adopt an addendum to the army to point the air. A little bit of background. The reason we're doing a ferry terminal plan, other than it makes sense to have a plan when you're moving forward with trying to obtain funding and other things, is that the disposition and development agreement the city entered into last year with Alameda Point Partners contemplated ? This is an important step. It was very important to AMI to point partners to facilitate the development of a new ferry terminal. And we'll talk about why on another side and as well as part of the city's plans for for the base to have a ferry terminal. And so it made sense to jointly develop together as partners as part of this DDA, this planning effort to start to work towards that Sea Plan Lagoon Ferry terminal. And so became kind of a essentially a condition to closing on the land as a condition that both parties agreed to to work together to adopt a ferry terminal plan. So that's what you have. That's one of the actions you have before you tonight. And the other is the memorandum of understanding. And this is really in line with having we, the Public Water Transit Agency in the Bay Area, provide that service for us, just like they do at Main Street and Harbor Bay. And part of in order to essentially move forward with a new location and expansion of ferry service, there's a policy that the water merchants wish to has that requires this kind of a number of steps that you follow and trying to implement that new service that they've adopted as part of their expansion policy. And one of those key steps is to adopt enter into a memorandum of understanding. And so that's why we're here tonight with that menu. And we'll talk more about each of these. Also, just as as a side note, and we'll talk a little bit more about the money. But our main point partners as part of their disposition, a development agreement agreed to provide a $10 million upfront contribution towards the construction of that new ferry terminal. The benefits. I want to stop and kind of do a little bit big picture before we get into the details of each of these documents. But there's a number of reasons. And when we the staff came to you with the site project in June, there were a big part of this was really focusing on the ferry terminal and the importance of it and all the benefits for not only, we believe, for the city, but for the developer and for the Water Emergency Transportation Authority. And this kind of combines all of those. But the from the city's perspective, why staff is recommending this to you tonight is really, we believe, as part of this strategy of getting people out of their cars developing. And I'm at a point in a smart way that really minimizes traffic impacts and congestion as having a transit hub at the heart of Alameda Point is an important component of that. And to do that as soon as possible so that you are attracting residents, attracting employers that are coming to the site because you have a ferry terminal, because there is ferry access to San Francisco, so that you're attracting people that are already predisposed to using transit. And so that is a key component of our overall transportation strategy and a key benefit to having that ferry terminal at the Sea Planet, going within walking and biking distance, but primarily walking distance of where the residents

Regular Agenda Item

Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending, Adding and Deleting Sections of Article VIII (Sunshine Ordinance) of Chapter II (Administration) Concerning Local Standards to Ensure Public Access to Public Meetings and Public Records. (City Attorney 2310)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_03012016_2016-2625

Speaker 9: Good evening, Mayor, Mayor and members of the city council. I'm Debi Potter. I'm the community development director for the city of Alameda. And as has been noted, this item before you and this meeting this evening is a continuation from the February 16th meeting. At that meeting, the agenda recommendations called for an introduction on first reading of a rent stabilization rent review and limitations on eviction ordinance, adoption of a resolution governing the program and policies of the capital improvement plan and an appropriation of $300,000 from the General Fund to conduct a study and fund the rent program through June 30th of this year. And embedded in that last recommendation was a request for direction from the Council about how to pay for for the administration of the ordinance. On the 16th, the Council did introduce an ordinance on first reading. And second reading of that ordinance is scheduled for later this evening. And for purposes of this meeting, I will be presenting on the Capital Improvement Plan Resolution and the program fee. As you know, one of the provisions in the ordinance for a no fault eviction is for substantial rehabilitation and staff. And the ordinance does capture that concept of preparation of a capital improvement plan when a property owner is undertaking substantial rehabilitation. And the ordinance contemplates that the city will adopt an ordinance will adopt a resolution excuse me, a resolution that contains the requirements of the capital improvement plan. And that the purpose of the capital improvement plan for substantial rehabilitation is to encourage housing providers to reinvest in their rental property. It ensures that providers get a fair return on investment, and it also provides tenants with relocation benefits if they are required to move as part of the substantial rehabilitation. Hmm. Did it? The Capital improvement plan as contained in the resolution requires that before you increase rent or you terminate tenancies in connection with a substantial rehabilitation project, you must prepare a capital improvement plan and capital improvements as they are defined. For purposes of a capital improvement plan is that they must add material value or prolong the useful life of the property. They would not include routine repairs or maintenance. The cost of the proposed capital improvements must be more than eight times the amount of the monthly rent, times the number of rental units to be improved. And as we've said, the plan must be approved by the city before undertaking any rent increases or terminations of tenancies. Under the proposed capital improvement plan. If a tenant decides to permanently relocate rather than pay the increased rent, they would be eligible for relocation benefits, relocation assistance. And those benefits would be the ones that are outlined in the ordinance, which are tied to the length of tenancy and then and can be exchanged for time versus money. So it's the same provisions for relocation benefits that are contained in the ordinance. And then if the tenant wants to stay and pay the increased rent but needs to be relocated during the construction, the improvement plan policy provides that the housing provider must relocate the tenant to a vacant unit on site while the work is being done, or if there is no onsite vacant unit, then the tenant would be permanently relocated with the payment of relocation assistance. So that is an overview of the proposed capital improvement plan. And before I move on to a presentation on the program fees, I do want to note that staff is recommending one slight revision to the proposed policy. So it's on page one, the resolution. So Exhibit A of the resolution is the policy. So on page one, on number two, capital improvement. Speaker 0: Wait a minute. You're way ahead of me. Okay. Where is this? Speaker 9: Yes. So on the resolution and there is a page A-1, which is exhibit A to the resolution. Speaker 1: It comes up as page to honor the resolution. But. Speaker 0: Okay. Speaker 1: But at the bottom of the page, it's printed A-1. Speaker 9: And then number two is called Capital Improvement. And so what staff is proposing. Speaker 0: Yeah. Page one. That's the page numbering system they have. Speaker 9: So a capital improvement. And what we want to insert is a capital improvement comma. For purposes of the capital improvement plan policy, comma shall be any improvement to the rental unit. And then it goes on with the definition. And the reason that we're asking for this additional phrase to be added is because we want to ensure that the policy is consistent with the definitions in the Ordinance of Capital Improvement and Capital Improvement Plan. So by making it clear that the capital improvement as defined in the capital improvement plan, then we are making sure that we are consistent with the definitions in the ordinance. Speaker 0: Okay. So you were planning to talk about capital improvement plan now and then continue to talk about all three the other issues. Now, without feedback from us. Speaker 9: I was going to present on the capital improvement plan, then the program fee. But if the Council would prefer to take questions on the capital improvement plan before we move on. Speaker 0: I'd like to do that. I'd like to address this issue because the motion could pose to this issue by itself also that. Speaker 9: That's correct. Yeah. Speaker 0: So that's what I would suggest. All right. So then Amber Ashcroft. Speaker 1: What I just want to say is, Porter, can we get this in print form? I mean, rather than you reading us some delineation because that's the language you just read to us is not here, is it? Speaker 9: No, it's not. Speaker 1: And why is that? We don't have a hard copy in front of us is my question. Speaker 9: Because. Well, I apologize for that. The the the desire to make it to make sure that the language was consistent was with the ordinance definitions, was determined on Friday. So I apologize that that we didn't turn it around for the council in writing. Speaker 0: But if I understood correctly, it's just a one, it's a capital improvement comma as defined by what was it's eight words. Yeah. Speaker 9: So it's. Speaker 0: Just. Speaker 1: Okay. And where in paragraph two. Capital improvement. Speaker 0: Yes, a capital improvement comma. Speaker 9: Okay. So it would be a capital improvement comma for purposes of the capital improvement plan policy comma. Speaker 0: Which is what this document is. So it's just pertaining to this then. That was the only change in. Speaker 1: Okay. Well, I, you know, not wanted to be too nit picky, but we get emails from the city clerk's office all the time and it's really easy and electronically document it just added and it gets downloaded next time we refresh. So I think I have that added text. Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. Member, only. Speaker 2: A couple of questions, but just a point of information management. We. Viewing our comments on this at this point to. Speaker 0: Clarifying questions, calm both her clarifying questions. Right. And then she could sit down and we can have our deliberation or we can just go ahead and have it with her standing there. I don't have a problem with it. Speaker 2: I guess. Well, two quick questions. So under nine nine, be relocation assistance for the work associated with a capital. Improvements cannot be accomplished reasonably and safely with the rent a page. Speaker 4: Mr. Audi A4. Speaker 2: A4. Speaker 1: It okay paragraph so. Speaker 2: 99. So who determines if the work can or cannot be accomplished reasonably and safely? And the reason I ask that is, you know, roofing is one of the options where you can have a capital improvement and pass it on. But I can't imagine that, you know, majority of the times that a tenant would have to vacate in order to have a roof done. But if the landlord, you know, says you have to, I mean, who gets to make that call? Is that the city? Is that some hearing officer? Is that the landlord? I mean, there's because there's a lot of wiggle room there. Speaker 9: So the it would be the program administrator. Speaker 2: And are we providing guidance? Speaker 9: Yes. Speaker 2: So the administrator with factors and then a housing provider must relocate the tenant to a vacant unit. If there's no vacant unit, then they get permanently relocated. But presumably the existing unit, when repaired, will be vacant. So is there any provision where a tenant that wants to stay and pay the rent increase can move back when the repairs are done? Speaker 9: So the provision is that they if they would be temporary, they would be able to be temporarily relocated. If there was a vacant unit on site, if there was no vacant unit on site, they would be permanently relocated with relocation benefits. And if there was a desire to come back to that unit, they could certainly do that. Speaker 2: But that's not spelled out in the plan now. I mean, that's a big concern of mine that, you know. We're going to have tenants being mass evicted for these capital improvements and then maybe they're perfectly willing and happy to pay the additional rent of the improved unit and happy to be in an improved unit with, you know , better heating, better kitchens, you know, not a leaky roof, no pests, whatever, whatever, whatever. But they're not going to have an opportunity to do that. So I think that's a big chunk that's missing from this plan. And then the other question I had is that I didn't see and maybe I didn't, you know, read it close enough , but I didn't see that there was any time limit on these improvements. I mean, because they're there two months. Are there six months? Speaker 9: In terms of the amount of time it takes to undertake the repairs. Speaker 2: I mean, what's how are we going to judge what's reasonable? Speaker 9: So once again, the program administrator would take in the capital improvement plan. They would render the judgments or the decisions about how much, you know, what's the appropriate rent increase based on the cost and the amortization, the interest rate, that kind of thing, whether or not permanent or temporary relocation was required based on the proposed improvements and the length of time that would be reasonable for undertaking the improvements. Those are all the kinds of factors that the program administrator would look at when determining what an approved capital improvement plan would look like. Speaker 2: Because I guess what I'd like to see in that is some provision where a tenant whose unit is being substantially rehabbed can have an opportunity to move back in. When those rehab and those rehab work is done, that rehab work is done, and it's not an excessive amount of time. I mean, we may have to quibble with, you know, how the relocation is handled, you know, because, you know, they're not they're technically relocating temporarily, but they're not relocating permanently. And I think that's kind of a big chunk that's missing. And I think it's a huge loophole that could be used to, you know, produce mass evictions. And that's, you know, that's kind of counterproductive to what we're trying to do here today. And I hope that I'm going quickly into my comments. They're going to be really brief, and I'll listen to the rest of my colleagues. You know, I've heard from landlords that they want to make sure that this is an easy to understand process. I'm sure tenants would prefer that as well, although I haven't heard that. And I'm really concerned that, you know, there's no standards in working. You're kind of asking us to take a leap of faith on how these things are going to be approved and the time length and how long people are going to be out of their houses. That's kind of where, you know, I stand on that one. Speaker 0: And the other member. Ashcroft. Speaker 1: So for clarification, we're still at Ms.. Potter's presentation asking clarifying questions, and then we'll come back to council deliberation. And I would prefer that just because I think we get the continuity of the of the report and some of the questions might be answered. I've heard from members of the public that they would they would like us to let staff while we. Speaker 2: Were finished with these things and we were into questions. Speaker 0: Yeah. Speaker 9: Yes. I feel we're doing okay. Yes. On the capital. On the capital improvement plan portion of the presentation. Yes. Speaker 0: We were going to bifurcate the two issues so that we could finish one before we start the next. Speaker 2: Well, there are two separate votes. Speaker 0: Right? Right. So that was what we had agreed upon. Vice Mayor. Speaker 4: My comment and I think Mr. already raises some good points and that's one of my reasons for of. Standing that this the termination of tenancy and relocation should be a mediated process because every case is different and you could have a large flat top 1960s building that when the roof is opened up, there's substantially more work that is needed than was anticipated. And to have all that sit in a hearing officer or program administrator at the city level, I think is a is a daunting task. And and if a tenant really does want to come back in, I think working out that temporary lodging for the tenant while the work is being done, I think depends on the case and depends on the relationship between the landlord and tenant. That's why I strongly believe in a mediated rather than a mandated approach. Or for this, I do think it's necessary to have a capital improvement plan if you're going to give no cause termination of tenancy so that it's real. Because the problem was that people were being turned out and there were no permits taken. It was like, Well, yeah, I'll do it. But the eviction notices went up and I think there is some sort of protection in, in our limiting. Limiting people to this particular activity by presenting a real plan that says that, yes, we are going to do this. We have our permits in place, we have tentative contracts, whatever, whatever those might be. But as far as the movements of the tenants, I think that's best mediated. Speaker 9: So staff the recommendation from staff to have the approval of the capital improvement plan be done by the program administrator was because there are technical aspects to the review and approval of the plan so that the expertize to to understand that the the reasonable cost of the proposed improvements to imputing the interest rate to the amortization over the 15 years to understanding whether or not it makes sense that tenants be relocated. Those are kind of more technical questions. So staff felt it was probably more appropriate to have the CIP process be handled by staff versus the rack who might not have that technical expertize. But there is definitely a process where it will be done case by case each. Property owner who wants to come in and propose a capital improvement plan, that that owners plan will be evaluated on its merits and on its merits alone, so that decisions would be made on a case by case basis. Speaker 0: A lunch spot you want to finish, right? Are you finished? Speaker 4: I said my piece. Speaker 0: Okay. All right. I remember. Did you? Speaker 1: That's my right hand. Thank you. Um. So, um. To Ms.. Potter. And I understand what the vice mayor is proposing. I would also be reluctant to have these items decided by the rack. I know we're starting a training program and that sort of thing, but I still I think we need to just see how well that body functions going forward. But what about, um, a mediator is we're going to use a mediator for some aspects of this. What about having these items go to a mediator instead who presumably would be informed of the technical aspects that need to be applied? Speaker 9: I you know, it could be a mediator. I think that we've been just proposing that it go to a staff person who would have the technical expertize. But if the council felt like there was something else that a mediator brought to the table in addition to the analysis of the technical documents, then we would you know, we could we could contract for that for that service. I don't think that that's I mean, that's certainly a possibility. Speaker 0: So remember day soccer. Remember Africa for you? Speaker 1: Finished for the moment. Speaker 0: Okay. Because then I'm going to rotate. Speaker 1: Yeah. We may go back over to thug. Speaker 3: Quick question on page a-1 item number for you reference, prime rate plus, I imagine you mean plus one percentage point. So. I think the issue there is if the interest rate that someone. It's for a project. Is above the prime rate. What you're saying is that. Only that portion that's mathematically within the prime rate. Is subject to being recovered by rent, is that what you're saying? Speaker 6: Well, we're proposing that. Speaker 9: The prime rate plus one, and we essentially contacted a couple of commercial banks to understand what the interest rate was for, you know, loan renovation loans. And that's that's how we arrived at this formula. Speaker 3: Why a? Why don't you just say the interest rate that the person has. Speaker 9: Done so well for for 70 central? For example, if you ask the owner of that building, he'll tell you that he his interest rates on his balloon loan is like 10%. And I don't know that we really want to reward, you know, business decisions that might not necessarily make sense for the tenants and that kind of thing . I think we felt like we should go and see if you go to a a standard commercial bank who does construction loans on multifamily property as a routine part of doing business, that that might be a good interest rate to use and that we might not want to encourage really high interest rates that are going to drive up the rents that you're going to have to charge to recover your cost. And then people aren't going to be able to continue to live there. Speaker 3: So you think? That a landlord. Seeking renovations. That are perhaps in the million dollars is purposely going to go after higher interest rates? Speaker 9: No, I'm just saying that it could happen. And that is the case that happened with 470 Central, which there was a proposal to evict all of the tenants to do substantial rehab. And he was proposing a doubling of rent because of the the financing that he had arranged for himself. And. You know, maybe maybe that's not an appropriate financing structure and to undertake your substantial rehabilitation. So I think we were just looking for, well, kind of standard business. Speaker 3: Maybe number four should be rewritten to capture various possibilities as opposed to having this one. It just seems a little too. Thank you. Speaker 0: All right. Mayor Brody? Speaker 2: No, I mean. Speaker 0: Well, if you wanted to. Go ahead, I'll go after. Speaker 2: You. Okay. Thank you, Madam Mayor. So I'm kind of intrigued by the comments and that the vice mayor added, because I think he's right. These are probably all going to be unique, almost one off circumstances. And if we did, at least for the relocation and maybe just for the relocation at the tenant wants to come back and we can have some type of of mediation, you know, after a staff report or even semi-private mediation, because I'm not sure these are issues that should be now resolved out in like a public hearing, like the rec. I'm not sure if the rec can handle something like this, but, you know, some type of mediation on these particular this is kind of a small, smaller subset of all of the tenant protections we're trying to enact. So, you know, I'm kind of intrigued by that idea. And then if it you know, if it works and if our ordinance if we pass it, you know, has some struggles around the eviction area, you know, we at least have a model to look at and say whether or not that might work or not, because I was a little bit intrigued by it at the last meeting, not quite ready to vote for it. But, you know, I think this might be a good, good opportunity to I don't want to say experiment, but at least have kind of a trial or a pilot of that. And, you know, especially if somebody wants to come back, you know, if they want to come back, then there's a lot of issues like, you know, if you go off for six weeks and maybe your rent is the same, you know, maybe all you need is moving and maybe you don't need relocation and moving back. You know, if your rent is higher, you know, maybe there's some negotiation or some mediation. I mean, if you're in is lower or if you find a hotel and that's lower. I mean, there's a lot of, you know, combinations you can have to deal with that interim period. So, I mean, I think that's kind of an intriguing idea. Speaker 9: So your what your if I can just rephrase back, what you're proposing is potentially a mediator who would handle the capital improvement plan for any particular project. And one of the things that they would be able to mediate would be the temporary relocation. Speaker 2: Right. I mean, if a tenant wanted to leave. Okay, fine, cut the check it out. Go forward. But if they wanted to come back, you know, have, you know, whatever type and maybe not have a mandated relocation because the reality, you know what, if, you know, they just hypothetically they find a place that's cheaper, you know, and the total cost of that place to live temporarily plus the cost of moving is actually less than they would have paid. I mean, granted, that's probably not likely, but it's possible, you know, then, you know, maybe they shouldn't have any relocation, but, you know, if they can if it's only two weeks and then they could put up in a hotel room and it could still come back, I mean, that might be something the landlords are willing to do. And plus, like I said, it gives us kind of an opportunity to try this out and pilot this idea of mediating evictions. Speaker 5: Can I go ahead? Go ahead. Speaker 0: You want to jump in? I'll go ahead and let you jump in because. No, I have I have general comments. Where. Speaker 4: General, go ahead. We'll come back. All right. Speaker 0: So I appreciate that, vice mayor. All right. Thank you. First of all, when I look at this, I see a housing provider being used instead of landlord, and I would prefer reuse in or to be consistent that everyone's okay with that in regards to staff versus semi-private mediator and actually some of these other things, can I ask staff, where did you find this? This is something that you were able to look at other other cities to see what they're doing or. Speaker 9: The basic outlines of the city. Yes, we did look at the city of Los Angeles, city of Berkeley, other jurisdictions that have capital improvement plans for substantial rehabilitation. Speaker 0: And do they have a staff person? Speaker 9: Yes, they they typically have a hearing officer, which is a staff person. It's a little bit different than our model, which is where you have a contract hearing officer. Right. If you're not going to agree with with the decision. Most cities with rent control have staff hiring officers. Speaker 0: So when I say so, I would think it would require some sort of expertize. Does this go through the planning department then? Speaker 9: Well, it would go it would go through the program administrator, whoever ultimately ends up administering the ordinance and the program, which I'm hoping would be the housing authority, and then they would hire staff with this expertize. Speaker 0: So the whomever is doing this would have to get permits through our planning department? That's correct. So why wouldn't this somehow connect to our planning department? Speaker 9: Well, it would that the permits would be the basis on which you would understand valuation and the length of time and that kind of thing. So there would be coordination. Speaker 0: The staff would already be getting the expertize from the staff, the current staff that issues the permits then. Is that is there more expertize than that needed in regards to the repairs or but sort of expertize is needed for a hearing officer versus a mediator. Speaker 9: Well, the here I believe that a mediator or a hearing officer could have the same skill sets. But essentially you want someone that is familiar with, you know, someone you know, familiar with construction and and the, you know, bidding process and what reasonable bids look like. And when a property owner is telling you this is how long it takes to do the improvements, you want to know that they have a good sense of that idea, that they understand kind of imputing the interest rate to come up with the value to calculate the allowable rent increase. Speaker 0: Okay. But that's to me a separate issue, the monetary part versus the part of how much time it takes to do the job. And I would actually think that that's going to be our planning department, that they're very familiar with what happens here in the city and how long it takes to do these different jobs. Speaker 9: That is true that the staff has familiarity. They don't typically weigh in or opine about the length of time if it takes one contract or six weeks to do something and another four weeks. You know, we don't really weigh in on on that, but they definitely have that knowledge. Speaker 0: Okay. So I don't I would think that there's some way to work with those people that already have that expertize, because I would not want to count on someone who's. Whomever a mediator is to just look at this like they look at all cities. And we have people here in our city, in our planning department, that are very familiar with the type of work, how much time it takes, that that sort of thing. So I'm not sure how how this really works. Let me finish. Sorry. Okay. And then in regards to the interest rate and what you charge. I actually think it needs to be based on the real number of whatever the loan is that the average being financed from the. Speaker 9: Interest rate changes all the time. So the idea was to pick a formula so that if, you know, today this might be 3% in a year, it might be 6%. So the idea is to. Speaker 0: But when they finance it, they're going to be getting, I think, a loan that has a set interest rate or or it would say that it's always going to be prime plus one or whatnot, whatever that is for. Then I would think that that's the information that gets plugged into this formula because that's the real number. And I actually think that the landlord would be trying to get it financed at the best rate that they could. And whatever that number is, is the number. And then in regards to nine A, if a tenant notifies the landlord, they want to pay a higher rent. Now that is language in here. So what a lot of staff thinks happens then. Because it sounds so. So that is an option. The tenant can advise the housing provider, the landlord, within 30 days that they plan to remain in the unit and pay the increase. Speaker 9: Right. Speaker 0: So so in regards to what member already was saying, does the staff connect this? You have your tenant that does want to stay. They want to accept the higher rent. Speaker 9: Right. So as as this is drafted now, if they have notified the the landlord that they want to stay and pay the higher rent if they need to be relocated, that temporary relocation is available to them only in the event that there's a vacant unit on site that they can be temporarily relocated to. And then they would move back into their renovated unit and they would pay the higher rent and they would go. Speaker 0: They would go forward. Speaker 9: If there's no vacant unit as this is drafted, they would be permanently relocated. Speaker 0: Okay. So, so I would think that they should be there. So I don't know what the solution is, but I would think they should be able to come back. Just because a landlord doesn't does not have another unit available, right. Then they will eventually have that unit available. And if the tenant is agreeable to paying the increased rent, then I would think that that's reasonable that they should have. Right? So one should do the right of first. Speaker 9: So one criterion could be when evaluating the capital improvement plan is to hash out what that temporary relocation would look like, whether it was a vacant unit or being put up in a hotel, or if you can, you know, take a little bit of money and stay on your friend's house if it's, you know, a couple of weeks, that kind of thing. Speaker 0: And probably right up to some Saturday, if it's going to take more than a certain number of days then. Speaker 9: And can I be clear that you're suggesting that that the landlord is responsible for relocating the tenant if there's no unit available? Are you just suggesting they have the right to come back if they're willing to pay the increased? Speaker 0: So I was speaking about having them come back. However, I think this does include relocation assistance if they're not able to house them. Isn't that in here? Speaker 9: Yes. If they are, then here if there is not any any temporary relocation solution, then the proposal says that you would be permanently. The guidance says you would be permanently relocated and you would get relocation as. Speaker 0: To the same formula that reflected the oil. That's that's what's in here already. Speaker 2: I mean, in the real world, you know, for example, if you have mold remediation in the landlord responsible for putting up the tenant in some temporary lodging and, you know, the tenant does not have use of the premises which they have a valid lease for. So they get compensated for loss of use. And then the landlord usually pays for some type of a temporary relocation. I mean, that's what happens in the real world when there's situations like this, like mold remediation, where it's just not the fault of the tenant at all. Speaker 9: Right. Speaker 2: And then, I mean, there's is precedent for doing this, right. Speaker 9: And often often you're moved into a vacant unit that might not have the mold or you're put up in a hotel. That's correct. Speaker 1: So I'm a swimmer. Speaker 0: Damn, that's what I wanted to circle back. Speaker 9: Well, I mean, you wouldn't. I'm. I'm thinking you're. You're suggesting that not only do they get relocation assistance that could be close to eight, $10,000, they get the relocation assistance and they have. Speaker 0: No one or they just want to. Speaker 9: Be closer to. Speaker 0: One or the other. Okay. Correct. You. So under this ordinance, they are they would receive the relocation assistance. Speaker 9: If there's no unit available and they are permanently relocated. Speaker 0: Correct. However, as member already was speaking about what if you have this tenant that wants to pay the higher rent, they you know, they don't have there's not another unit available for them. What happens to that? And my preference would be that we do have an some sort of ability to have that same tenant return. But but I would say the caveat would be that the repairs could be done in six months versus a year. I don't know. That doesn't make sense. Yes. Speaker 1: I think this maybe ties back into what the vice mayor was raising, that this is this it's hard to speculate because every situation is going to be a little different. So maybe this really is I would favor this going in cases and I don't think every one will be like that. But in cases where people might want to come back and circumstances might be different, it might be even more of a negotiation, if you will, with a mediator or an arbitrator. But I would caution one thing about the length of repairs. We happen to be homeowners of an old house, and it would be really difficult even going in signing a contract with a contractor. You always have to realize that there are things the suppliers you need might not come in on time. There's some delay for weather. And so I think we are we don't want to be tying our property owners hands inordinately. And that's why I agree with the mayor and Councilmember Desai on this interest rate. I mean, rather than some set formula and based on what the property owner at 470 Central did, and I know we all want to cast him as the boogie man, but we also have a policy that we want to see our old and decaying buildings improved. And if it takes a loan with the less than favorable interest rate to do that, why are we. Why are we penalizing that that building owner for doing that? So as long as you could show the documentation, I don't see why we need to have a set formula in here that's a little too cookie cutter. Speaker 0: But I should be vice mayor, and. Speaker 4: I'll clarify my point. My point is that I wanted two things I wanted termination of tenancies and evictions is subject to mediation. And second, if you're going to do an eviction to do substantial renovation, you have to prove it. And I think we can strip the rest away and still accomplish the protections that both sides need, though. And that's why I had that position of of and I strongly believe in in the mediation process. And I think at the point that I'm hearing, which I think is a good point, is a private mediation before it goes to the rack. I think is is time and money well spent. But the ordinance doesn't contemplate that. The ordinance looks at termination of tenancies and evictions as formulaic and mandated. So I think that's a problem. And that's why I voted no on the first time. That's why we're voting no on it again the second time. But I do I do think there's a place for mediation on the tenant landlord relationship there, and I'd strip this thing down the capital improvement land to subject to proof. Do you have do you have permits? Do you have your financing? And the rest is as do it. And we're going to watch until you get it done. And no landlord is going to want to have their units empty while they're renovating the building. They want to do it as fast as they can in the real world so that they can start getting the revenue back. So I'm thinking we're we're building this monster here. It's going to be impossible to administrate and it's going to hurt more people than it helps. Speaker 0: So member so I can. Speaker 2: Just weigh in on the rate. And one of the premises for me on this whole thing is to try to treat everyone equally, though, as much as possible. And, you know, I. You know, there's a comment about penalizing the landlord, but then you're also penalizing the tenant. If the landlord has bad credit and or was only able to get financing, you know, at ten, 12, 15% or whatever it turns out to be. So I. Maybe there's some middle ground, but. And I just hate to hear the word penalize being thrown around like this is a penalty. Speaker 0: Well, then let's say let's not use the word penalty. Well, I guess it's just this is an interest rate that we're talking about imposing. I actually want to circle back to the vice mayor. So did you weigh in on this issue on the interest rate? Speaker 4: I think it should be the real rate because whatever the bank will not lend at favorable rates on a building that's crappy. Speaker 0: And that's correct. That that. Speaker 2: Penalized the tenant for. Speaker 0: That. Well, no one tantalizes the tenant. It is. But nobody. Speaker 4: Is to bring the building up to. Speaker 0: No more than the landlord's being penalized. It's the same when someone is, you know, the landlord will be paying it. Speaker 2: The tenant will be going to use those words, throw those words around. We could throw them around on boats. Speaker 0: I don't think we are using the word penalty. Sorry, that's not use that word penalty. This is this is the interest rate that's being imposed. Speaker 1: By the mayor. So were you sort of. Yeah. Speaker 0: Member Did you want to any more. Speaker 2: I mean, nothing more than I already said. Speaker 0: Okay. So in regards to the interest rate, you know, what I'm hearing is that we would have to agree on principles and have this thing circle back again like we did before that. So should we look at that, for instance, the interest rate? Is there consensus that we would impose the actual interest rate? Speaker 3: All I'm saying in terms of the interest rate is that I just felt that the way that number four is read, it's really hard and fast that it's going to be prime plus 1%. So if the interest rate is roughly 2 to 2 or 3% and well, and probably for a construction loan, that's not going to be that low. But let's just hypothetically say, if the interest rate if the prime rate was 7%, then. And the interest rate that would be subject to number four would be 8%. All I'm saying is that and that's the formula by which every you know, all the different possible reimbursements would be done. But in the real world. Every property is different. And while there is the prime rate for purposes that people know, at least you know, what is the rate? The ultimate rate is subject to a variety of on the ground conditions and market factors. That's that. Instead of seven plus one, the real interest rate turns out to be maybe 8.5%. And then it's just that increment, which is a reasonable difference, is not captured in this. I think the reason why you created this is because of the situation where for 70 came in saying, you know, there they have a 10% rate . I don't know if that if if that's true or not. I mean, I'm not sure what the what the going rates are for construction loans, for major rehabilitation loans. But, you know, I think I mean, if I had to look at 30 year mortgages, they must be going at around, what, 5% right now or so somewhere around there, or maybe even lower than that, -4.7. So. All I'm asking for is just a little bit more flexibility. Speaker 9: That's all I'm hearing that the council consensus is that when we come back with the policy, we would reflect the actual rate that's been approved as part of the submittal for the work. Speaker 0: That's I think that's the consensus. Speaker 9: So we'll actually sell. Speaker 3: So here's my point, though. My point, though, is just in case someone does come up with this phony, which I don't I really don't practically see that happening. Speaker 9: I don't I don't see. Speaker 3: Someone actually these projects penciling out with, you know, a 15% interest rate. Speaker 9: And then without doubling the rent, I believe that project will be upside down. That's correct. Speaker 3: Okay. Speaker 0: All right. I mean that everyone is acting in good faith. Speaker 9: Yeah. Speaker 0: Yeah. Landlords and tenants. That's really where we've been. Speaker 1: I mean, isn't this along the same lines as documenting the actual construction work? Rehabilitations just document. Just because someone comes in and tells you something, you don't have to do it. But but, you know, we require documentation. And I also agree with I think it was the vice mayor, but maybe it is. Councilmember Brody said that these are the sorts of cases that are more appropriately handled in a semi-private setting of a mediation or an arbitration rather than in the rack. I think some sensitive situations like this and if, you know, if we were to consider when we talk about evictions, there might be some circumstances also, but we're not there right now. Speaker 9: And the proposal is to have this handled by staff, whether it's mediation or or a staff who's trained. And I think we're really looking to accomplish three things with the capital improvement plan, and that is to understand the cost of the capital improvement. And then it rises to the level of eight times the rent, times the number of units, and that it is not repair and maintenance, but it's really to prolong the useful life, to set the proper rent increase that reflects the amortized cost of the investment and then to to determine the the relocation, whether it's permanent or temporary . So those are really the three things that are intended to be achieved by the plan. And I don't know for us from staff, it feels like four pages is pretty, pretty succinct. But we can, you know, we that really is what we're trying to achieve with the policy. Are those three key things, a mechanism for approving the work, for setting the the allowable rent increase and for resolving what the the relocation should look like. Speaker 0: So in regards to proceeding tonight. Am I hearing that this needs to come back with corrections and that it would be a semi-private mediator? Or is that something that staff would have as part of an administrative regulation? Does that need to be reflected here? Speaker 9: It's it's actually not reflect. I mean, it's the fact what's reflected here is that this would be handled by staff. But what? But who that staff is is not specified. And I think from our perspective, we would leave it to the program administrator to determine that the best qualified staff to handle this based on training and expertize . But I'm hearing that the Council is very interested in somebody who is trained and versed in mediation, and that can be part of what is looked for in that skill set for the staff person. I think we're estimating when we looked at the program fees, perhaps 15 ships a year, maybe, you know, it's and we'll you know , we'll see. But that gives us time to to really think about the kinds of skills and put something together where, you know, somebody somebody has the capacity to do this as well as other things. Speaker 0: Vice mayor. Speaker 4: I think I understand that the and the way I break the two down is the CFP. The actual work that's being done, the valuation is, is a technical exercise. It's, it's, it's formulas. It's measuring against, against, against interest rates, against cost, etc.. But the relocation side of it to me is, is a negotiation if we can separate those. To somehow in this and describe it better, at least it might be understandable. Speaker 0: And Brody. Speaker 2: Thank you. But just just a mediation on the relocation at the tenant wants to come back and how the temporary relocation would or would not be done. They want to leave. You know, we have a formula. Write the check. Leave if they want to come back, willing to pay the rent, then that would be something to mediate. But not mediating the interest rate and. Speaker 1: No, no, no. Speaker 4: No, no, no. Speaker 1: That's the formula. Speaker 9: And I. And I. And I. I understand the distinction that's being requested. I'm not sure that it needs to be two separate people. There could be one person that could work with the tenant and the the owner to to get to the conclusion on everything. But I understand and I'm hearing that the desire on the part of the council to have that mediated. Speaker 0: All right. Any other comments on on the side on this part, the CFP. Speaker 2: And we kind of have a recap on what we think. Speaker 9: I'm happy to do that if I'm that. Speaker 0: Yes. Speaker 9: So we will make that we will insert the eight words that I mentioned earlier as part of the definition of of a capital improvement. We are going to go back and have language on the interest rate being the actual rate of the loan that is secured. Speaker 2: Or the one on that. Speaker 9: For me. Speaker 2: 4 to 1 on that. Speaker 9: Okay. And we are going to talk a little bit more on some guidance about whether or not the work that's being proposed actually triggers the need for relocation. So we will we can beef up that. We are going to talk about temporary relocation that we are going to have a process for discussing options for temporary relocation beyond just a vacant unit on site. And that that would be that would be negotiated or discussed. We are going to look at a cap on the temporary relocation so that, you know, six months, eight months, if the work takes longer, then it's going to be a permanent relocation with a payment of of the relocation fees. So those were the items that that I had noted that the council would like to see when this comes back. Speaker 0: All right. You make comments member. Speaker 1: And is a question as far as timeline, when do you anticipate can move back? Speaker 9: So I think that we would come back on April 5th and I would note that. Well, so the moratorium right now, I think the ordinance also says that you cannot evict, terminate for substantial rehabilitation until the CIP is adopted. So I believe that there won't be kind of any gap in coverage so that there wouldn't be evictions for a substantial rehabilitation without the CIP in place. So if we come back on the fifth, I think that would be timely and a resolution is effective immediately. Speaker 0: Okay. Because the ordinance would be it takes 30 days to become effective. Right. So this would become effective immediately. So then that that would work. And then the part about substituting the word landlord instead of housing provider. Speaker 9: I believe we actually did that on one of the versions. So we. Okay. Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Any other comments from Council on this part? Speaker 2: Are we sure about the timing on that? Because that the moratorium is extended, we're extending it to. Speaker 9: But I believe the ordinance says that there aren't of. Speaker 3: Those things in the words. Speaker 9: Yeah, it's in the or it's in the ordinance it's in the ordinance itself says that there there is you can't evict for substantial we have until the council has adopted the CIP. Speaker 8: Yeah. Speaker 3: That there. Yes. Speaker 0: Okay. Okay. So then we can move on to the second part of this agenda item appropriation of thank you. Speaker 9: And we appreciate the direction provided this evening program fee. So how to pay for the ordinance and the ordinance does need to be funded. I mean, this discussion we just had on the cap was a good example or an illustration of a component of the ordinance that will need to be enforced. It needs to be funded and staffed to be successful. And staff's proposed funding mechanism is a program fee. We are proposing that a program be imposed on all housing providers, landlords on a per unit basis, and that one half of the fee can be passed on to the tenant and not calculated as part of the rent increase . The 5% that would trigger the mandatory notification to the rack. We have been working closely, city staff has been working closely with housing authority staff to come up with with an estimated budget of what it would take to administer the ordinance as it stands at first reading. The Housing Authority staff has been handling all of the public education and questions around the moratorium since November, so they have a good sense of the kinds of questions and what's involved they have put together. There were several flow charts that were in the staff report about how they think the process, the ordinance would be administered. They've come up with an estimated cost of 1.9 million annually, which is $129 a unit. However, by law, we are required to do a study to determine what the program fee would be. So we are not requesting that the council approve a program fee this evening, but that we get direction regarding the Council's willingness or desire to fund this program through a program fee. And then we'll come back at before July 1st with the actual results of the fee study. And we thought I showed this slide on the 16th. I'll just go quickly. But just if you assume a 50 unit property in Alameda with the average rent just over 2100 a month, and if we look at program fees for cities in the Bay Area, sampling of cities with rent control and add in the business license, you would see at 129 units a fee. Alameda is kind of in the bottom half of of the cities with business licenses as well as program fees. So we feel like we would still be competitive as a place to to conduct, you know, business as a rental property owner. And then if the council is interested in where we sit just with our business license, you can also see once again, assuming a 50 unit property with an average rent of 20 $100, we are also in the bottom half just with our business license fee. So this these two slides are just kind of to show you that even if we were to adopt a program fee, we would still be kind of in the middle of the pack relative to the cost of conducting rental property and still residential rental property business in the city of Alameda. So what would the program fee be used for? It's you know, the biggest part of the fee is to administer the program. And that would range from scheduling and conducting rack hearings to coordinating all of the public education, to verifying that evictions are being done pursuant to the ordinance dealing with the CIP data collection for the binding hearing process. This fee. Presumes that we would contract out with hearing officers because that's not a full you know, there's not going to be hearings to justify a full time staff. The city attorney office would have a role to play because it would provide legal advice. When questions came up, if we were sued or we looked to enforce our ordinance, we would look to the city attorney's office to carry out those activities. And then staff's proposal is that the fee be part of the annual business license billing. So the finance department would also have to bill for and collect the program fee, manage the database, you know, do collections, that kind of thing. So those are the components of the fee. And so as I mentioned tonight, we are we are tonight asking for an appropriation of funds in the amount of $300,000, $50,000 to conduct the fee study that would we would provide to the consultant all of the data that's been prepared to date. A consultant would work with us on the fee study. We would come back before July one because we're proposing that if the fee is adopted, it would be effective July one and run on the fiscal year and then an appropriation, the balance of the 300,000 that we're requesting to be appropriated. This is me this evening would be to fund the program through June 30th of this year. So that that is a request that we're looking for this evening. If later on tonight the council approves the ordinance on second reading, we are going to we will have an ordinance in 30 days and we're going to need a way to implement it. So we are going to need the appropriation for the general fund. Speaker 0: So. All right. Member Ashcroft. Speaker 1: I'm thank you, Madam Mayor. So, um, on the. The anticipated expenses, the one area where I would like to see some comparison done is on this. I think it was three full time equivalent equivalents in the legal staff. And I'm assuming you're meaning three full time equivalent attorneys as opposed to paralegals, or are. Speaker 9: These two attorneys and one paralegal? Speaker 1: So I would I would like to see a comparison of what it would cost us to outsource some of that work to a firm that does specialize in this area and also anticipated litigation. I mean, we probably may get some, but not every day, all day. And so do we really need an attorney sitting there waiting to defend, or is that something that we could outsource to a a specialist? Because bear in mind, we pay we pay benefits when we hire people full time. And so we have to factor that into the costs. So I'd like to see a comparison of the two methods of staffing. Speaker 0: Did you have any other comments? Remember Ashcroft vice mayor? Speaker 4: I think I'd like to hear what the city attorney says, and then I'll make a comment. Speaker 3: Madame Mayor, may I respond to the council members Ashcroft's comments? Councilmember Ashcroft, We're thinking that this is a very conservative estimate of three full time FTE ees, and we're looking at that from a dollar perspective, not a body perspective. I think that your instincts are correct and that the city attorney, if she were here, would tell you that her intent would be to hire outside counsel as needed in the initial stages to see how this program works. If we determine at a later time that there is a need for full time hired staff. Speaker 4: We would make that determination. Speaker 3: And then there would be a job allocation, a job slot. Speaker 4: That would come to you, and we would do that. Speaker 3: So hopefully those costs will be less. But as a conservative matter, we wanted to make sure that we had enough money to see the program through until the program fee was adopted. Speaker 1: Okay. So if I understand correctly, you are contemplating outside counsel at the outset. Speaker 3: Yes. And we and we get the three full time PhDs because we figure one would be an advice counsel to help educate landlords and tenants on the program supported by a paralegal and one litigator specializing in this area. Speaker 1: That sounds reasonable. Speaker 0: Remember? Speaker 2: So procedurally, you know, are we being asked to. Speaker 5: Approve. Speaker 2: This $300,000 appropriation before the second reading? Speaker 9: Yes. Speaker 2: Okay. I mean, you could you could come with that or. I'm sorry, but we don't know for sure. And the reality is we don't know for sure it's going to pass. Speaker 0: If it didn't pass them. Speaker 4: Which is appropriate. Speaker 9: Okay, great. Okay. All right. And it's just a continuation of the meeting from the 16th. Okay. Speaker 0: Vice Mayor. Speaker 4: I think the reality is the $300,000 between now and June, we have to do the study and this has to be administered between now and then. So I think we should appropriate the money. We can always if it's not all spent or if something radical changes, we can always re re distribute them this appropriate. What's the right word. Speaker 5: To put it back? Speaker 9: Unencumbered. Speaker 4: Unencumbered. So I have no problem with that. And I think this budget is is conservative as it should be. Although I can anticipate. Problems that would make this realistic. And I see that. Legal fees because this is a legal entanglement are 25% of the entire budget. And to me that seems. Reasonable, given what we've constructed here. Speaker 2: Brody So thank you for allowing me that clarifying question. This is just kind of my general comments, and I think it's fair that this is allocated equally between the landlord and the tenant. Hopefully when the fee study comes out, you know, we'll see that there may be some classes of tenancies that don't cost as much. For example, single family residents that are not subject to cost. The Hopkins are not going to ever go through the, you know, the hearing process or the finding the. Speaker 9: Binding hearing price. Speaker 2: That's correct. So, I mean, I think there's some justification to say that the fee on those might be less. And if we ever adopt something like a model lease that may calm tensions, then, you know, in theory, that may be a situation where the fees might be less. So hopefully when that study is completed, you know, we're given different options. Speaker 0: Remember Daisuke. Speaker 3: I'm of the opinion that the city of Alameda should. It, find the money with it within its own budget to run this program. So I don't support a study. I think we should make decisions that look into our own reserves or budgets and. You know, I fundamentally I just think it's unfair that that that you're sticking this to especially the smaller mom and pop landlords. And I mean it's it's just seems unfair that and not only have this draconian project and then well here's the bill like I can't support the study on which is predicated any fees. Speaker 0: All right. So in regards to the B study, are they going to come back? They'll come back with what they estimate the cost will be. And then what will they look at? What is the proportion in it? I also have concerns about how much of this should. Who should bear the costs of this. And I would like to see. I actually think the arbitration, if it goes beyond rack, should be somehow shared between the parties that require that next level. I think that we want to encourage settlement Iraq and that that would that would actually encourage meaningful participation at Iraq. And so so will they be looking at things, you know, things that may increase the cost? Because I think if the two parties don't have that, I'm going to call skin in the game and then everyone goes on to arbitration, then the costs will be extremely it could be extremely expensive. So I think at least I would like to see the parties pay at least 25% if they go on to that next level. I'm concerned about unlimited use of arbitration beyond Iraq because I really want the focus to be on meaningful participation in Iraq. Speaker 9: Yes. If I just can clarify the fees, not going to tell us who's going to pay fees. Going to the fee study is going to tell us how much. Speaker 0: Okay. But if they're assuming. Speaker 9: Our decision to decide so. Speaker 0: Then they must be making some assumptions of how many cases are going on to arbitration. And I see that as a what could be a very big cost. Speaker 9: So we assume 20 cases, which is $90,000, but we can certainly look at both. And that's why when we did the math, the fee was really the same for the the exempt and the nonexempt units because the 90,000 was a very small percentage. But we can certainly when we get the fee study, if the counsel is asking us to look at pain, you know, a pain for a portion of the hearing officer process and or looking at a different fee, we can certainly do that. When we come back with the analysis from the fee study, from the policy perspective. Speaker 0: And how many cases go to rack currently as you come up with the 20 cases that go to arbitration? Speaker 9: Well, that's the number. Just trying to make an educated guess. Speaker 0: Okay. Okay. So and it's 50,000 for that study. And then when it circles back, we would be able to see how to allocate the money. And I would agree that at least some of the money should come from the general fund, because I really think that this is not simply a landlord tenant issue. I think this is a community issue, and I think that is why we've gotten here at a council. And if it's a community issue, then at least some of it should come from the general fund, I would think. Yes. Speaker 1: So we will have another opportunity to discuss who, if at all, should be paying for program fees or helping to underwrite this this the costs of these. Speaker 9: Yes, we it is useful for staff to get a sense at the council about whether it should be a fee that's required to be paid by the property owner with an opportunity to pass through a portion of the cost. I hear some direction about it, potentially some of the general fund. We will look at all of that. It's helpful to have a sense not. Speaker 1: Knowing to interrupt you. I would say on this point, I think it's fair to say there is not consensus of the council. So you should look at the whole range. Speaker 9: So it will. Speaker 1: Yes. And then I believe somewhere in these materials you look at what other jurisdictions charge for program fees, is that correct? Speaker 9: Right. We showed a slide on that. Yeah. Okay. Speaker 0: Thank you. Member desk. Speaker 3: Of course, I have my qualms with the fees, but I'm just going to ask a question about the fees. The way that is structured is that it's it'll be potentially split $65 by the landowner landlord and $65 by the tenant. And. Can the tenant write the check to City Hall instead of having once a year, instead of having the landlord have to pick it up so that it doesn't get included into the roll, into the rent. Because we want to keep the rent as low as possible and that the tenant understands that this is a program run by the city by making that annual payment. Speaker 0: And that's something else I'd like you to look at. You can look at that and bring that back. But then Brody like to move on comments. Speaker 2: Like to move approval of appropriation of 300,000 from the general fund to fund a rent program piece, study, and cover the cost to administer the rent related programs through June 30th, 2016, should they be passed? Speaker 0: It was. Did you say the 50,000? Speaker 2: Well, the 300 includes the 15. Speaker 1: In the training. Speaker 3: I'd like to, if I could offer an alternative approach of bifurcating the $50,000 fee study and the $250,000 to fund the program. Speaker 0: We could do two separate motions. Speaker 3: We could do to separate motions. Speaker 0: Break it up. Speaker 1: I prefer to keep it at one, but, you know, it's whatever emotion gets a second rate. Speaker 3: Okay, well. Speaker 4: That'll be our second emotion. Speaker 1: Who's. Speaker 5: It's mine. Speaker 4: Yours. Speaker 0: So I'm. Speaker 5: Sorry. Councilmember Otis. So? Speaker 0: So we have a motion and a second. And I do want to speak to it. When a council member suggests bifurcation of an issue like this, we have traditionally separated issue. So then a council member can vote yes on one and no on the other and not have to vote no on both. I would prefer that we have two separate motions. Speaker 1: We have a motion on the table. Speaker 4: In favor of that so that we can separate them. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 3: Oh, he's in favor of separating. Speaker 0: There's three of us would appreciate that. Speaker 2: So. Okay, so. Speaker 0: I call the question. Speaker 4: One. Speaker 0: Friendly and then. Speaker 3: I'll move the 250,000. Speaker 4: Second. Speaker 0: Okay. All those in favor. Speaker 4: I, I I'll move the 50,000 for the few second. Speaker 0: Although some favor. I oppose. Speaker 3: One. Speaker 0: Or two one. So they both passed. One was unanimous, the other was 41. So thank you very much, Council. I appreciate that. And I mean, look back at our agenda. That was the final item on the regular city council meeting at February 16th. So I will now adjourn that meeting and we will take a we will start, you know, 7 p.m. with our regular city council meeting. Thank you, everyone. Speaker 3: Thank you. Speaker 4: For listening. You can do this well. Speaker 10: One. Good evening. Speaker 9: Pop. Speaker 0: Hello, everyone. Okay. Sorry. All right. Good evening, everyone. Welcome to our regular city council meeting. 10 minutes after seven, we're starting. And we have representatives from Alamitos Boys and Girls Club that are going to come up to the podium and lead us on the pledge. Speaker 8: A. Speaker 0: Yeah. Yeah. Back here, behind the podium. Speaker 9: Horrible. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America into the republic for which we stand, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty for all. Speaker 0: Thank you very much. And later this evening, they'll be receiving a proclamation. Speaker 6: All right. Speaker 0: All right. Roll call. Speaker 7: Council member states. Up here, here, here, here they are, Spencer. Here, five present agenda changes. Speaker 0: Six RD Which is? Which item is that? Speaker 7: The Wetlands Mitigation Bank. Speaker 0: The Council referral regarding possible wetlands mitigation bank at Alameda Point is going to be continued to March 15th. That will not be heard this evening. Were there any other agenda changes?

Regular Agenda Item

Summary title: Related to the Rent Review, Rent Stabilization and Limitations on Evictions Ordinance Consider: 1) A Resolution Adopting Policy Concerning Capital Improvement Plans (CIP), and 2) An Appropriation of Funds. Adoption of Resolution Adopting Policy Concerning Capital Improvement Plans; AND Appropriation of $300,000 from the General Fund to Fund a Rent Program Fee Study and to Cover the Cost to Administer the Rent-Related Programs through June 30, 2016. (City Manager 2110) [The Public Hearing was held on February 16, 2016 and the Council discussion was continued to March 1, 2016 at 5:30 p.m. Therefore, there will be no additional public comment.]

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_03012016_2016-2563

Speaker 1: Calendar, there are three items regarding the Gene Sweeney open space park. Two financial items five F and five G represent. Speaker 9: Along with the cross Alameda bike trail. Speaker 6: The actual start of park construction. Speaker 9: These items authorize funds necessary to start soil remediation and construction design for the entire park. Jane started her work on the park in 1998. Speaker 1: Now, 18 years. Speaker 9: Later, the construction work is. Speaker 0: Actually going to start. Speaker 1: 2016 is the year. Speaker 9: Alameda can say Jane's dream will finally start to become a reality. Speaker 0: Item five A. Speaker 1: Third item supports the Alameda Food. Speaker 9: Banks request to enlarge its space on. Speaker 1: Land at the Jane Sweeny Park. Jim and Jane always supported the Alameda Food Bank. Speaker 9: And Jane promised she would support support it. Space in the park. Speaker 1: The increased. Speaker 9: Size of the food bank will compliment the space. Speaker 1: Where the new community garden. Speaker 9: Will be located in the park. A large. Speaker 1: Food bank. Speaker 9: And community garden will both honor Jane and. Speaker 1: The people of Alameda who. Speaker 9: Rely on their services on behalf of Jane. They opened. Speaker 1: The Jane Sweeny Open. Speaker 9: Space Park Fund, which is board members Jim Sweeney, Dr. Hahn and myself. Speaker 1: We would like to thank. Speaker 0: All of Alameda for their. Speaker 9: Support for the park throughout this long process. Speaker 0: We would like to thank. Speaker 9: The many city councils along. Speaker 0: The way. Speaker 9: Including our current council, for their support for the park. And a very special thank you. Speaker 1: To. Speaker 0: Air PD. Speaker 9: Director Amy Aldridge for. Speaker 1: Your dedication to this very large. Speaker 9: Project. Thank you. Speaker 0: Mr. Sweeney. Speaker 5: Evening. Council members. Staff. I'm Jim Sweeney. I'm very happy to be with you tonight. As you address staff, we request to execute agreements for site investigation, environmental reports, services, design services and authorization for the Interim City Manager to execute a memorandum of understanding with the Almeida Food Bank, all in regard to the Jean Sweeney Open Space Park . Has taken 18 years of effort, perseverance and patience to get where we are today. I believe it has proceeded as expeditiously as possible, given the circumstances which confronted us over those years. With outstanding guidance from Parks Director Amy Wooldridge. The strong supportive counsel and inspiring public support. The fact that we are closing in on the final design and construction is a momentous achievement. It is very exciting for we who are members of the of the steering committee for the park to be able to pass pass on the elements of the final design and help make Jean and the public's dream come true. I commend the staff reports to you and I urge you to approve the recommendations. Thank you. Pleasure to be here. Speaker 0: Do we have emotion? Speaker 1: I knew I would be pleased to move approval. Can I do all three items at once? Approval of items five F, five G and five H whose titles have already been read. Speaker 0: Second, it was G.H. and I believe. Speaker 1: I'm sorry. I circled them right back. Speaker 0: All those in favor I motion carries unanimously. Thank you. And now we move to our regular agenda. Item 6 a.m.. Speaker 7: Adoption of resolution approving a 15 year concession agreement with a ten year renewal option with. Oh, I'm sorry. How do I say this, Amy? Don't let me be known as James on the course. The provision of food and beverage services at the Chuck Creek Golf Complex. Laura. Oh, I'm sorry. Speaker 9: Good evening, Mayor and Council Amy Wooldridge, Interim Assistant City Manager and I. I'm here tonight also in part in my role as a recreation and parks director. So to give you some background, we the city has an existing agreement with gyms on the course that's been in place since 2006.

Consent Calendar Item

Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Consultant Agreement with SLR International Corporation to Provide Site Investigation and Environmental Report Services for the Jean Sweeney Open Space Park, Including Contingency, for a Total Amount Not to Exceed $363,610 and to Amend Project Revenue and Expenditures Budget by $170,610. (Recreation and Parks 91309)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_03012016_2016-2246

Speaker 9: Good evening, Mayor and Council Amy Wooldridge, Interim Assistant City Manager and I. I'm here tonight also in part in my role as a recreation and parks director. So to give you some background, we the city has an existing agreement with gyms on the course that's been in place since 2006. So it's been operating. They're doing food and beverage at the Chuck Creek Golf Complex for the last ten years. That that agreement was a five year agreement. He extended his second his first option to renew for another five years. And the city did was not interested in continuing to renew at the existing terms and worked started negotiating directly with gyms on the course for new terms. And so therefore his current agreement expired just some of this December 2015 and he's now in a holding over clause month to month in his existing agreement. The bit one of the biggest reasons that the city chose to start negotiating a new new terms was was the need for expanded food and beverage facility to accommodate golf tournament dinners. And we recognize the great work that Greenway Golf is doing in the expansion with the course and anticipated the increased need for food and beverage service out there. Specific agreement terms. This is a 15 year term with a ten year option to renew. All construction and renovation expenses are the responsibility of the concessionaire. Those I'll get into more detail in those in a minute. But the basics it includes adding an enclosed patio for four golf tournament dinners and extend and expanded seating. It also includes exterior facade and a number of interior detailed interior renovations. Another big difference is that the concessionaire assumes utility costs. Currently, the city pays all utility costs at for the food and beverage for the restaurant. And with the new terms, the concessionaire will assume responsibility for that. The concession fee payments to the city for years, one through six or 5% for years, seven through 25 through the remainder of the term is seven and a half percent. However, there's two years of concession fees that are waived once the enclosed patios, construction is constructed and occupancy permit is issued for the next two years. After that, the fees would be waived. The concessionaire must meet all standards of the agreement for the city to affirmatively renew the option, the tenure option. Another thing is that the concessionaire in this agreement is required to hire a manager that is trained and solely focused on golf services, which is golf tournaments, the on course, food service and generally interaction with golf. And that person is to be trained by someone that on golf matters, by someone approved by the city. I also want to point out that there's been discussion about lease agreement versus concession agreement. And one of the primary some of the primary things that make this concession agreement is that a lease agreement? Allows the operator to use property, the property as collateral for a loan to make improvements and use it as security. And that's not the case here. It's a concession allowing for operations and. As we've just as I'll discuss in a minute Jim's in the course has shown sufficient financing capacity and doesn't need does not need the golf course restaurant as. Collateral for improvements. Additional agreement terms. The concessionaire will pay 0.5 half percent of gross revenues into the golf course, into a golf course capital improvement fund, essentially a savings account to ensure that they're continuing to make improvements to the facility above and beyond what's required and stipulated by the agreement, those structural improvements. So that money is put aside when in improvements, for example, replacing the roof needs to happen. Gyms in the course would come to the city to get authorization to use those funds to repair that roof. In addition, a big difference with this, with these agreement terms is that the concessionaire is responsible for all building and maintenance, including all structural systems. So whether it's HVAC, plumbing, the roof, all of those would now be the responsibility of the concessionaire. And previously the current agreement are the responsibility of the city. So getting into the financials. What this is showing you is the past years, past three years of concession fee revenue to the city. It shows the payments to the city, which in 20 1415. So it's currently eight and a half. This is current financials, currently eight and a half percent of gross revenues, which equal 125,000 to the city, minus utilities paid by the city. So the city received a net revenue of 45,000. And with the anticipated revenue, because we are now transferring the utility cost over to gyms on the course, even with the five with a lower percent rate on the on gross revenues in year one and 2016 remaining at the same gross, assuming the same gross revenues as currently the annual net revenue to the city would be $61,750. What this is also showing you under anticipated revenue. So the years two and three, which I mentioned, there would be no concession fee for the first two years after the enclosed patio is built in years, 4 to 6. We are anticipating after the enclosed patios built that we assumed an increase of 25% based on an expanded dinner menu. Expanded seating and golf tournaments. Now coming in means a higher gross revenue and thus net revenue coming to the city and that's 4 to 6 is still in the 5% gross revenue. And then years seven through 25 moves to the seven and a half percent of gross revenue. So I also want to mention the total improvement value is anticipated to be $750,000. That's $500,000 for the enclosed patio construction and about actually 275. So 250 to $275000 for the interior improvements. The city does retain this improved value on its property. And what we did is we used those numbers to do a financial review with Will Dan, which is a financial and economic consulting services group. They looked at the liquid assets, assets, as well as the line of credit available for gyms on the course and deemed it adequate for the scope of work for this agreement. And they based it on that $750,000 construction amount. Construction estimate. They also looked at the reported gross revenues and its within its within the standard expected range for full service restaurant and it's significantly higher than one attached to a golf course. It's common that restaurants attached to a golf course don't do as well as a standard restaurant because the attendants, the patrons come and go a bit. They go up and down. If it's raining, there's not folks there. There's weekdays are less folks there than on weekends. So it's not as reliable as a standard restaurant. So four, four standard industry for restaurants at a golf course, it's considered revenue of $5 per round or 100,000 rounds per year is considered standard, industry standard. And that totals $500,000 a year. Currently, John's on the course. GROSS revenue is $1.235 million per year, so exceeding that. And he's well within the range of what's expected for a restaurant, a non golf course restaurant. So even though the existing agreement does not require any improvements, James on the course has been has done some interior improvements . They've done some basic improvements to the men and women's restrooms. He's done some back area improvements to the kitchen and some improvements to the snack area. What this agreement does is requires interior a number of interior renovations, essentially the whole facility. There's back area improvements to the kitchen. It's essentially adding a second a second kitchen, a kitchen. And that will be able to serve larger banquets for the golf tournament dinners. It also improved require improvements to the snack bar new flooring. They'll be adding new display cases a second register, more staff to increase as we expect the number of golf patrons to increase. That will increase the flow of folks through the snack bar. Also, significant improvements to the dining area windows, flooring tables, all of the treatments. Other interior interior renovations required include the bar. The goal is to expand it and better define the bar area and include as shown new ceiling and modernize it. New lighting, new bar tables, new furniture. And then the intention is and what's in there is to do a bar patio as well, just outside the door that leads outside from the bar with pavers and umbrellas and outdoor patio heaters. And that's in addition to the enclosed patio. So moving on to the to the patio enclosure where you see before you, it doesn't show very well on the on the screen. But the red L-shape is is the patio wrapping around the existing facility. This is a schematic showing that it would add banquet seating, style seating 180 folks for regular style seating 164 people. It could be. What's nice about this design is the enclosed patio could be utilized separately from the dining area, so it can essentially be closed off. So when there's a tournament dinner, it can be private in step. And in that enclosed patio area away from the regular dining patrons or the entire facility can be opened up to be used for for a larger event. The city feels that it's a more functional use of the space than a separate banquet facility. Because it has that multi-use function, it can be separated and closed off for a private dinner, but it can also be opened up when it's really busy on Saturday and Sunday. Brunches for additional seating for the restaurant as a whole. This patio enclosure concept was approved by the Golf Commission in July 2015, and Greenway Golf also approved it at that time. And that was the basis that we used to start moving forward with the negotiating of this agreement. So the patio enclosure has full glass all the way around with accordion glass doors. It would keep the additional outdoor seating near the memorial and outside the bar door. So basically it adds capacity to the restaurant, but it keeps completely outdoor seating as well. It wouldn't replace the outdoor seating with with the umbrellas that exists there now. The agreement requires the concessionaire to match the design style and color scheme that Greenway Golf plans for the facility as a whole for the clubhouse. And so we would expect Greenway Golf to work on those design styles and colors and then the city and then the city would work with as well with gyms in the course to make sure those are being matched. And the agreement requires that the city approve all improvements. So we would be tracking that to make sure that we want it to look like one cohesive facility, not like two separate facilities. So for some renderings, these are renderings of the the planned enclosed patio. It has a fully retractable roof, which would lead to more, you know, a nice days, which we have many of them here in Alameda would would be. You could have that open air feeling. The accordion glass doors could open and close. The roof could open and close. And so they're fully weatherproof. So on a rainy day, you can completely enclose it. And it would have heating for the colder days, but it can also be opened up to to to allow the nice Alameda air and sun to to shine. And as shown here, will still include what you see to the right. It will still have the outside. For those who just want to be completely outside with some with umbrellas, it will have that as well. This is another view showing that with the tempered glass doors there would be full views of the golf course. And the goal and the vision of this improvement is to create a facility that's casually elegant and comfortable for golfers and non golfers alike. And one of the reasons. Well. And one thing, as I mentioned, what we're planning on what the plan is, is to some sample tournament dinners. Gyms in the course already provides tournament dinners with a number of these type dinner packages. He will be expanding dinner for the community as a whole, as well as working with Greenway to to work out dinner sample dinner menus that they're interested in. He always works with individual tournament folks hosting tournaments on what types of menus they like to see. I've seen a range of food that he's provided out there. So with that, a couple other points I want to hit. One is the process. If this concession agreement is not approved, then what the next steps would be, because that's been a question that's been asked by the community. And so if this concession agreement's not approved, then the city has in our lease agreement with Greenway Golf. Greenway Golf has first right of refusal. So the city would then enter into negotiations for food and beverage services with Greenway Golf and would bring that agreement then to council. Or they could choose to waive their first right of refusal if they waive their first right or refusal, or if for some reason council didn't agree and voted down the terms with the city, came to Greenway Golf then and opened, and only then would an open public RFP take place. So that's the process and steps that would occur. Gyms is a well-established Alameda restaurant. He was ten years at the golf course, 55 to 60 years on Lincoln Avenue, and they really give back to the community. I think you may hear from some folks the the youth and the women's club. In the men's club, he's he's often he does what he can to help support those organizations. And he's shown that over time. In addition, I met today with the Golf Commission. They and the Golf Commission recommended that the city extend Jim's on the course existing concession agreement for six months and bring back to the next Golf Commission meeting on April 12th, 2016. A revised, revised agreement terms with Jim's on the course that was discussed and agreed upon with Greenway Golf. So essentially what their recommendation today was, they all expressed solid support for Jim's on the course as a concessionaire at the golf course, and they asked that Greenway Golf and Jim's in the course work on the terms to ensure that it incorporates Greenway Golf as golf's feedback. So I mentioned previously that since July in July 2015, the Golf Commission approved the enclosed patio concept. And what I told them at that time is with this approval, we were going to move forward. I would move forward in negotiations with gyms on the course. And so I have been in negotiations actively with the owner, Tom Jericho, since that time. I have been in discussions with Greenway Golf to the extent legally allowed to keep them as well apprized as I could on on how that was moving forward. We try to include their needs and their requests as feasible things such as making sure that, you know, everything is is a comprehensive look and feel to the course. I do want to remind this is an agreement between the city and Gemma's on the course. It's not a three way agreement, but it's between Jim's and the course. And city staff feels. I feel this agreement before you best represents the needs of the city, the revenue it will bring to the city, which goes into the golf fund, which then goes back into the golf course for improvements such as the front gateway that we've all been waiting to prove for a very long time. It would go back into resurfacing the parking lot, so any increase to revenue to the golf fund will be put back into the golf course. The city feels jammed on the course is a proven partner. He's had increasing revenues. Overall for the last ten years. A strong service to the community and proven reputation. Alameda. So with that, I. Conclude my presentation and I'm open to any questions. Speaker 0: Any clarifying questions from Council member Ashcraft? Speaker 1: Thank you, Ms. Wooldridge. I have just a couple on the slide show. You just showed us the renderings. Who prepared this? Speaker 9: Gyms on the course. Architect. I'd have to bring him up to get the exact name of the architect. Speaker 1: And we get an eight. Speaker 0: You want the name of the architect that you're asking? Speaker 1: I did. Who did the rendering? Speaker 9: You come up? Speaker 7: I know. Speaker 6: Happens. Yeah. Speaker 4: Believing. Speaker 0: You can introduce your guests. Yes. Speaker 1: The microphone may be just a bit taller. Speaker 5: Madam Mayor. Speaker 4: Members of the city council. My name is Tom Nicos. I'm the owner of Jim's coffee shop. Speaker 8: And Jim's on the course. I guess I'm here to answer questions. Speaker 1: I just wanted to know the name of the entity that did the. Speaker 8: MLB MLB design. Speaker 1: I'm sorry. Speaker 4: M l de design. Speaker 1: M l p d d. Speaker 4: M l d. Speaker 1: L the design. And so have this been submitted to the Planning Board for design review or what stage are we in? Speaker 8: I can. Right. Speaker 0: Let's go back to staff, please. Thank you. Speaker 9: Yeah, thank you for the reminder. So any. No, it's still in concept. And the enclosed patio. The agreement requires that the enclosed patio be the detailed design be approved by the Golf Commission, as well as approved by the planning board. Speaker 1: That's my only question on the renderings. And one other question has to do with the, um, I believe you said in your presentation that you wanted to, um, we wanted to expand the service at gyms to, um, also serve dinner. And I'm just looking at exhibit one, the concession agreement, and on page ten, paragraph 7.0, 2 hours. It says concessionaires business operations that the premises shall be open for breakfast and lunch each day of the year, that the golf complex is open. But I don't see a reference to dinner. Speaker 9: The breakfast and lunch is what's been done, and that's a minimum requirement. Speaker 1: So how do we require dinner if it's not in the concession agreement? Speaker 9: We could add it if we want to require. Um. Speaker 1: Did I not hear you mention that in the presentation? Speaker 9: Yes, you did. The intention is to add dinner were especially with tournament dinners and to serve tournaments, and the minimum is certainly breakfast and lunch. But he will be adding dinner. All right. Speaker 4: Thank you. Just to add to what Amy just said. Ever since we've been there, winner, ten years at the golf course now and our hours of operation have always been 6 a.m. until roughly 8:30 p.m. in the kitchen and around ten or 11 p.m. at the bar. That's been consistent throughout the whole time we've been there for the last ten years. So even though it doesn't say in our agreement that we should serve dinner. Speaker 8: We always have. Speaker 4: But because due to the limitation of the of the kitchen facilities. Speaker 5: We're just limited as to what type of dinners. Speaker 4: We can serve. So now that we have a little more kitchen space, we're doing much more dinners. And. Oh. Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. All right. Questions of member out for you. Finished? All right, Vice Mayor. Speaker 4: A couple of questions and I'd like to ask the city attorney again to repeat the difference between a lease and a concession agreement so that everybody is clear about this. Speaker 0: Hmm. Go ahead and take your seat at this point. Speaker 5: You think? Speaker 3: Thank you, Vice Mayor. Matter. I see this concession agreement that's before you differs from a lease in several legally significant aspects of first a concession. I think first and foremost, a concession agreement does not grant any interest in the property. As you know, a lease granted leasehold interest in the property which can then be used to secure mortgages. And Ms. Woodridge spoke to the fact that this lease would not allow that. Also this concession agreement provides that it grants a concession in licensed gyms to the right to operate the facility for food and beverage operation. That is all. The concession agreement does not also doesn't have those typical types of terms that you find in a lease agreement. There's no obligation to pay rent. There's no obligation for the concessionaire to be responsible for the interest tax, i.e., that leasehold interest that they would have if they had a true lease. Similarly, as Mr. Aldridge alluded to before, there are limitations on being able. Speaker 4: To use the property in any way. Speaker 3: To finance. Speaker 4: The improvements that have been discussed here earlier. Thank you. And my second question and this maybe Ms.. Roach can answer is, has there been a value assigned to the maintenance and repair costs based on what the city's maintenance and repair costs have been for the building? Speaker 9: Well, honestly, the city has not put any any repair into that building since the ten years that the gym's on the course has been in there. So I and I, I don't have a specific dollar amount for you. Councilmember matter. I say my apologies, but it's really looking at a 4050 year old building and needing to coming down the pike will be relatively soon. The roof and the HVAC and it's easily 50, $60,000 with the repairs coming up in the next 3 to 5 years. Speaker 4: And that liability has shifted completely from the city to the concessionaire by this agreement. Speaker 9: That's correct. Speaker 4: Thank you. Speaker 0: And Brody. Speaker 2: Just a couple quick questions firm as well. Rich, the the two party agreement, if I recall what you said, correct? Speaker 6: That's correct. Speaker 2: And then under our charter, what body has the authorization to give you direction to negotiate price in terms. That. That's the counsel, I understand. Correct. Speaker 0: I'm sorry. Speaker 3: I'm sorry. Speaker 2: Councilmember Ody, who has the authority to give staff the ability to direct or to direct staff to negotiate pricing terms? Speaker 3: That would be you, the council. Speaker 2: Okay. And if I'm correct, then we have given you that authority previously. Is that correct? Speaker 9: In closed session. Yes. Speaker 2: Okay. That's all. Thank you. Speaker 0: Remember, these are. Speaker 3: Just a clarifying question. Earlier you mentioned a standard. I don't know if it's. Concession revenues per round. And you mentioned that it was $5 per round or something. A golf course that generates 500, 500,000 rounds a year. So. So my math is that. The revenues per rounds for the entity we're dealing with is pretty, pretty much higher. And and that fact that standard. Speaker 9: That's correct. So the standard is $5 per round for for food and beverage services at a golf course. It's a good average for a golf course. Rounds is 100,000 rounds at that. That's assuming $500,000 per year is 100,000 rounds, $500. $500,000 per year is a baseline for food and beverage concessions at a golf course. Speaker 3: Okay. All right. Actually, what I was trying to finagle was. I'm trying to do the precisely get get what our rounds per round is at. But, but it's I have them estimates, but all my estimates are I don't know if that's confidential information by the way, but you did mention what the the revenue figures. Speaker 9: The revenues, public records in this last year. It was a 1.235 million. I don't have a top of my head the exact number of rounds for that same fiscal year. Speaker 3: Okay. Speaker 0: Are any of the clarifying questions at this point council? We do have speakers. I'm going to go ahead and call the speakers at this point. You have ten. If you would like to speak on this item, please turn on your speaker slip. And it'll be Peter Fletcher and then Ken Campbell. Beverley Blatt. And this will be 3 minutes each. And then Pam Curtis, then Jane Southwold. Speaker 8: Madam Mayor and members of the council. I'm Peter Fletcher, a lifelong resident of Alameda and a long time real estate broker. I'd like to speak in favor of the concession agreement that the city has drawn up with Tom G. And she and Nikos, the owner of both Jim's Diner and the concessionaire of Jim's, on the course, which you'll be dealing with tonight and hopefully renewing this agreement at this meeting. Tom and Jim's Home Style Diner have been one of the longest continuing running, continuously running businesses in Alameda and has been the concessionaire at Jim's on the course for some ten years. I have known Tom for at least 12 years and have had many business dealings with him. Tom has been honest, trustworthy, fair and generous in every one of these dealings. I currently help run the monthly marketing meetings for the Alameda Association of Realtors and Gyms on the course has been our venue for nearly seven years. They have always delivered excellent service and provided delicious meals at very fair prices throughout the entire time. Longtime Alameda owned businesses need to be supported by our city. We are seeing lots of new growth in our little town and as we grow, we need to be careful not to lose those time tested businesses that have stayed the course and delivered good service and products to our community. Please vote yes to sign the new concessionaire agreement with DOMA Inc, better known as Jim's on the course and give them the opportunity to refurbish the building and to continue to serve us in the future. Thank you. Thank you. Speaker 0: Ken Campbell and then Beverly Black. Speaker 5: Mayor Council. My name is Ken Campbell and I'm a principal owner. Speaker 4: In Greenway Golf. Speaker 5: The current golf tenant for the city of Alameda. And I first want to say that we're in support of the existing operator, Jim's and Tom. He's been excellent to work with. We do have some thoughts that we wanted to share and we've been sharing those with the Golf Commission earlier today. Currently, we you know, when you look at the long term agreement that's being proposed, we're going to be married to the restaurant operator for a long time. Both parties are. So we feel it's important that there's as much clarity as possible within the existing proposed agreement. We've been working to try to address these, but we feel that due to some of the privileged information, we weren't able to see a lot of the context of the agreement until it became public record. Our concern is not so much Tom and Jim's as the operators, much as that we feel that there's a lack of clarity in the current proposed agreement. We provided you some of the bullets, but we believe that on the context of the exterior patio, we did endorse the general concept of that. It was on the Golf. Speaker 4: Commission agenda in. Speaker 5: July, but we did it under the context that we wanted to see more conceptual drawings and more detail, and we did not have that opportunity until the. Speaker 4: Agenda packet was released for this. Speaker 5: Meeting tonight. We feel that there's some ongoing concerns that still need to be addressed, being that it's a long term agreement. We want to get this right with you guys too. And with the partnership with what Jim's on the on the course, we believe that there needs to be better clarity with some of the common area maintenance . There's no reference to on course convenience carts, which is an integral part of golf course services that we feel needs to be addressed, as well as what the defined services would be for food and beverage at the practice range in the par three. As you're probably aware, our company is making a sizable investment into the property over the long term, and we just want to work together with the partnership of the restaurant to make sure that we have the services that everyone wants within the community, and we feel like there's still more work that needs to be done on that . As I said, we're supportive, but we feel that there's needs to be a little bit more addressing of the encore snack bars. There's one on the north course that's in disrepair, as everyone knows that the golf course, the clubhouse, the restaurants all have been neglected for many years. So we want to make sure that that's clarified in the agreement. Currently, there's nothing in there that requires anything to be done to the North Core Snack bar or what may be done in the future. And we feel like that needs to be addressed as well. We're asking that you follow the recommendation of the Golf Commission and give us a little bit more time to have some real work sessions. We feel like we've had good dialog with Tom and the operations there and we feel that we can get these items addressed. Now that we're privileged to all the information we feel that we can sit down and go through these concerns through a work session. We value the community input that we had and went through the process when we were doing the golf golf course proposal. It helped provide the clarity because at the end of the day, it's not our vision. It's the community's vision that we want to see happen out there. So our position is, if you please look at what your golf commissions asked and give us just a little bit more time before you approve this tonight. Speaker 0: Thank you. Beverly Black and then Pam Curtis. And then Jane sold. Speaker 1: Well, good evening. Good evening, council members. I'm Beverly Blood. I'm chair of the Golf Commission. And I just wanted to. Speaker 6: Give you a quick summary of of. Speaker 1: What went on this afternoon. Mayor Spencer was there. Speaker 0: But the others of you were not. I think that we had. Speaker 1: On quite short notice. Speaker 0: Quite a few. Speaker 9: Members of the Gulf community. Speaker 0: Present all expressed complete enthusiasm for maintaining. Speaker 1: Chimps. Speaker 9: On the course and also. Speaker 1: How much they appreciate what Greenway. Speaker 0: Has. Speaker 9: Done so far. Speaker 0: And what we expect further from them. The as Ken just said. Speaker 1: The issues that. Speaker 0: Came up were. Speaker 6: Because. Speaker 0: Of the process. Speaker 1: Amy Wooldridge was negotiating the lease and they. Speaker 0: In their conversations with with Tom, thought that certain things would be included and when the final product was out they didn't see them. So what we were asking for. Speaker 6: Is just the time. Speaker 0: To work out all these details. Speaker 9: Everybody's in favor of. Speaker 0: Maintaining the relationship with the concessionaire. It's just that. Speaker 1: We want to make sure that. Speaker 0: Everybody's happy. Thank you. Yeah. I'm Curtis. And then Jane saw Walt. And then Joe Van Winkle. Winkle. Speaker 6: Mayor Spencer, members of the city council. I'm Pam Curtis. Speaker 0: And I'm a resident of Alameda. Speaker 6: And a golfer. I am not here to speak in opposition, Jim, on the course. Speaker 0: I am here to get some facts. Speaker 6: I want the best restaurant banquet facility for the golf course and for the city. I don't want to say 15 years from now that I supported the wrong group. Speaker 0: I need some questions answered. Speaker 6: And people have been talking about them. How much money has Tom agreed to put into the new facility? Is he trying to get. Bye bye. Spending as little as possible? Or is he willing to support a first class banquet facility that will accommodate a couple of hundred people for tournaments, weddings, and other special events? These are questions that I need to know the answers to. I want the Check Creek, a golf complex, to have a first class banquet restaurant facility to go with its first class golf course. I want a restaurant that I'm proud to take my out of city guests to. Please don't rush this action through. Make sure all the details are worked out before voting. A 25 year contract. Speaker 0: Can be a win. Speaker 6: Win, but it does not come with that guarantee. Please make sure all necessary t's are crossed and I's are dotted to avoid unnecessary surprises. We want a first class complex. That will meet the needs of our citizens. And that includes a first class restaurant banquet facility. Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you, Jane. So, Sobel. Then Joe Van Winkle and then Kathleen Thoms. Then. Good evening. I'm Jane Saul Wald. I'm the former chair of the Gulf Commission, and I was actively involved with the process by which we selected Greenway. Speaker 9: Golf as our golf vendor. Speaker 0: And I'm very proud to put that on my resume is helping shepherd that through because I think Greenway is doing an exceptional job at. Speaker 9: The golf course, which. Speaker 0: Many of you. Speaker 9: Went on the tour last November promises. Speaker 0: To be really outstanding. And I think we need to have a restaurant facility that. Speaker 6: Matches that outstanding. Speaker 0: Golf course. Speaker 9: That we anticipate seeing. Plus, Greenway is ready. Speaker 0: To jump in and work on the other golf. Speaker 9: Course as soon as the. Speaker 0: First one's done. It's going to be a fabulous facility. Let's make sure we have a restaurant to match. As was pointed out, unfortunately not. Speaker 9: By. Speaker 6: Ms. Wooldridge, but by others. Speaker 0: There was a. Speaker 9: Very extensive and lengthy meeting. Speaker 0: This afternoon at which a lot of. Speaker 9: These issues. Speaker 0: Were discussed. Speaker 9: And it's correct, no one was against gyms on the course having a lease. It's just let's. Speaker 0: Iron out the details and make sure the lease that they sign. Speaker 9: Covers all of the. Speaker 0: Aspects of the agreement before you sign it. Speaker 9: So the solution that was. Speaker 0: Proposed by the Golf Commission that I very much urge you to take. Speaker 9: Is for. Speaker 0: Sake of Tom's. Speaker 6: Peace of mind, extend his current. Speaker 0: Lease for six months, but make it mandatory that there be negotiations between Greenway and. Speaker 9: Jim's on the course to work. Speaker 0: Out all these details that are still unsettled and have that done by April 12th, which is what the Golf Commission asked you to do. I urge you to do that because the. Speaker 6: Last thing we want is to enter into. Speaker 0: A 25 year lease and then find out that the agreement or the. Speaker 9: Facility. Speaker 0: Improvement that's being proposed by. Speaker 9: Jim's on the course is. Speaker 0: Not really what we want and not really something that would. Speaker 9: Measure up to a world class golf facility that we're building. Speaker 6: That takes some time. There's no urgency for this. Speaker 9: There's no reason. Speaker 6: That you have to give him a. Speaker 0: 25 year lease tonight. You can do it a couple of months down the road once these details are ironed out. Now, the last point I want to just make is, although I'm a lawyer, I haven't done any. Speaker 9: Legal research on the difference between a lease. Speaker 0: And a concession agreement. But what our assistant city attorney pointed out, I think, is makes this that this is maybe not a concession agreement after all. Speaker 9: Remember, he pointed. Speaker 0: Out that in a lease. Speaker 9: The lease holder. Speaker 6: Has to pay taxes. Speaker 9: Or a possessive rate. Speaker 6: On possessor interest tax. Well, I urge you to look at Section. Speaker 0: 4.05 of the proposed lease that has the concessionaire paying. Speaker 6: Exactly those taxes, which our assistant city attorney told us. Speaker 9: Earlier in. Speaker 0: The evening. Speaker 9: Makes this a lease. Speaker 0: And not a concession agreement. That's, again, one of the details that you need to look at, make sure it's ironed out before you go forward. So I urge you. Speaker 9: To. Speaker 0: Accept the. Speaker 9: Golf Commission's recommendation, do a six year extension of the current contract. Speaker 0: Make it mandatory that everything be worked out by April 12th, and then. Speaker 9: Go forward with the 25 year. Speaker 0: Agreement. Thank you, Joe Van Winkle. And then Kathleen. Speaker 8: Madam Mayor, council members and staff. The process broke down. But since today's word is praise, I'm going to praise the golf commission. The Golf Commission heard about this concept back in July, but then it was radio silence from then on. And then they noticed that it came up on your city council agenda tonight. So they jumped in and they held an emergency meeting today. Now, it's pretty unprecedented, I think, to shove the golf commission meeting right before the council meeting so you can get some input. But they got it. A lot of people showed up. There were more than 30 people there and they brought up lots of points of concern. 19 by my count, as I was trying to get them far too many to enumerate here in 3 minutes. And some very serious points. So they were unwilling to support a 25 year commitment, yet they had a sense of urgency that something needed to be done. And they also recognized the lack of clarity that needed to be resolved. The Golf Commission realized no amendments made by you tonight will fix that. So they did their job and they made a unanimous recommendation for the city to pause, allow gyms on the course in Greenway to work closely together, bring them back in early April, and most importantly, allow for the public to have their input, the public to see some drawings, the public to review the details. You should support the Golf Commission. They are a vital part of the city's management structure. They are the only group chartered and fully focused on the golf course. You've got rent control and bike paths and all sorts of other things to worry about. You've got staff doing two jobs the last several months. I urge you to praise the Golf Commission to acknowledge their recommendation and to give them the time to clarify this. And that other point that Jane raised about the lease versus the agreement, because as I'm sure you'll know, the lease requirement in the city charter is for four votes. And I'd like you to be compliant. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you, Kathleen. So Sampson and then Peter. Yes, you may. Speaker 6: All right. I'm the heart of the relationship high. And Peter's the lawyer. Speaker 0: You could use the mic, please. Speaker 6: One of the first people we met in the city was Marilyn. We've lived in a lot of places. We've been to a lot of restaurants. And this was the first place that we went to. And I came home from the hospital for surgery recently. It was the first place that we went to. I came home, that airplane in the city. We could have gone anywhere. This is the first place that we came to. I think of Cheers. My husband's lived in 26 places around the world, and this is like cheers. I love the fact that it's not perfect. The imperfection of it is what I think is charming. I love tobacco, but there's something charming about this place. There's something about the fact that it doesn't open our drain our wallets. We go there at least three times a week from six in the morning till ten at night. I don't care if it's not perfect. Imperfection to me is perfect. So I hope that I don't know the numbers or anything. But we love this place. We love Tom. We love every Greek in the place and every Spanish person and everybody they hire. We love the place. Now, Peter will probably make it more business. I talk from the heart. Speaker 8: Well we I think we are the. Speaker 4: Representatives of the non golfing customers of Jim's on the course and I'm sure there are quite a few. I think there's a great potential there. Speaker 5: To increase the visibility of the facility to attract people who. Speaker 8: Are nearby and I think. Speaker 4: They just don't know about it. I'm amazed he doesn't know about it if they don't have to play golf. Speaker 5: And I think they should promote that side of it. I have read the agreement. I have looked at the proposal. I think it's very exciting and I hope that one way or another you get to move ahead with it. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 9: I'm just going to give you my card if you. Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Speaker 6: Just because I'm leaving early, because I do have a health issue. Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Next, speakers, Norma Aunor. And then I'll be Little Arnold. And then Richard Waxman. Norma. Speaker 6: Honorable mayor and members of the city council. Speaker 0: For the mike down. Thank you. Speaker 6: Stand back. Speaker 1: Pull it down there. Perfect. Speaker 0: I can hear you. Speaker 6: I'm ale. I emailed some of this to the council so you're aware of it, but I'd like public to have a little input on it. And I want to give you a little history of golf course restaurants. I have been very active at the Chuck Greca Golf Complex. It's 1968, served as president of the Women's Club, appointed to the Golf Commission by Merrick Chuck Krieger as the first woman to ever serve. And I am presently president of the Alameda Junior Golf Club, and I spent countless hours at the golf complex. In a nationwide survey. The results showed that municipal golf course restaurants do not fare well and they do not make a profit. Over the years, our many restaurants at the golf complex have come and gone. None have ever had the great success that gyms has today. This problem actually goes back to 1927 when the course opened. The minutes show that from the very beginning that the city had problems with the restaurant. And it has continued over the years. One of the main. One of the main. Oh, oh, I'm sorry. Over the years are many restaurants at the golf complex have come and gone. None have ever had the great success that Jim's has today. This problem, actually. Well, I think I read all three. One of the main reasons for the failure of past restaurants is the owners spent more time playing golf on the course. Jim's restaurant on Lincoln Avenue has been a family owned business and tradition in Alameda since 1960, and now they are having the same success with Jim's on the course. They are not golfers, but our business people tending to their business and the people they serve. Check the city records and you will find that when golf was down, gyms on the course feature, the city was going up each year and still is. The anarchist family has always worked well with met with all the many clubs at the course and are experienced in providing elegant banquet or casual affairs and are able to keep the prices reasonable with the present plans to expand the restaurant. It will be win win for the city and. We will get more tournaments to use our facilities as golfers would rather stay off the course they play to hold their awards. At the present, we lose many tournaments to other facilities that have come that have room for functions following golf. You know, my husband put that three minute rule in when he was on the city council. And I don't like it right now. I'm trying to finish up as fast as I can. Speaker 1: Be sure to tell him that, Norman. Speaker 6: If you were to go out for bid, you would naturally have many bidders that would promise you the moon to take over a successful operation. I guarantee that you would never get anyone that has too many years of experience, success, and caring for Alameda and the customers they serve as the great Orcas family. When Greenway finishes the new Jack Clark course and the restaurant expands, Alameda will be a destination for golfers. Even without the remodel, golfers and families are now still enjoying the present restaurant. My intentions. Over the many years, I have always been for the good of the golf complex and for the city I love. There is no reason not to renew the contract with gyms on the course. Their second. Their record speaks for itself. I strongly recommend that you unanimously approved the contract as presented. The city staff have done their homework and have put together a contract. That will be a great it will be great for the golfers, the public and for the city of Alameda. And I have quite a few pages here of people that have signed in favor of the restaurant. Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, little arch. Lil, your turn. And then Richard Waxman and then George something. Speaker 5: Thank you very much. I. Didn't quite get what my wife said there, but it must have been funny about me. And we now will be married 66 years and 67 coming up in November. But I don't know that I don't know if we're going to make it after tonight. I really don't. She put her foot in a hole. So with that much said. No wonder you're a mayor because you beat me to the punch line tonight. I don't think I'm being time for this. You did? Because on behalf of the mayor of Alameda and the council members up there, you did a wonderful thing for Liz . Warmer damn here at this evening. And speaking for myself and friends who have been here in city government since 1952, I'm going to say this unequivocally. I have known many, many mayors. Citizen, city manager, city managers, council members, you name them. I've known them all. There have been some wonderful ones. There have been some lousy ones. But I want to tell you this in all honesty, she stepped into some deep shoes when John Russo left, and she just did a marvelous job. The city staff loves her. The people love her. It's been almost one year since you've taken over. We're sorry to see you go. But we will welcome the new city manager on board next week annually with a city in good hands. Congratulations. Speaker 9: Thank you. Speaker 5: In regards to the reason I'm here. I have a book here, which is one of two books. The only ones in existence next to the Bible. Laura, your city clerk is dying to get into them. There are so many contradictions between the ordinances that she has on the golf commission and the concessionaires that are so different. And if you will bear with me a few minutes, not even at I very seldom speak from prepared notes, but I have to to keep my facts in order. The very first. Commission meeting of the golf course was held on October 28, 1925, in the office of the City Manager. In October six of 1926, construction of the clubhouse was given out with 11 bidders. That should be a four mile clubhouse or not event drive, which we all go to in order to price, came in at $10,870 to build the Grand Pavilion. The dedication of the clubhouse took place on Friday, May 27, 1927. Now. The Golf Commission was integrated into the RPG with the Recreation Commission at that time in 1954 until 1985. Those are the era that I served from 53 to 86. I worked with the pros out there are all Frye, Max, McMurry, you name them. I work with them. I also work with the concessionaires. We had five concessionaires during our brief arrangement with the Recreation and Parks Department after 1985, and I reverted back to the Golf Commission. To the best of our research, which have gone back almost 90 years, there have been a total of 14 to 16 concessionaires during 90 years of operation. Most of the contractors did not very well, and nine of them did not have their options removed. It is a very difficult business also. To the best of our knowledge, Gemma's along the course has a general enviable distinction of being the longest concessionaire at ten years and three months. Gems has consistently increased city revenues each year. There were record is impeccable, as is the restaurant on Lincoln Avenue, which is the second oldest in Alameda at over 60 years. Next to all these. But since his arrival here, George Kelly and Greenway Golf Operations have also performed brilliantly, redoing the classic Par three. The renaming of the Jack Clark, the remake of the Jack Clark's Al Gore, and many of the other amenities he has brought to the complex. He does a remarkable job with the two courses par three and driving range. George is to be commended and I have great respect for George Kelly. However, Jim's under the leadership of the Iraqis family, has done equally as well and deserves the type of superlative that I give Greenway. They both perform excellently well at what they do. Kelly In the golf business, Jim's on the course in a concession. Better. This issue has been on the back burner for three years and has taken immeasurable time off city staff and department heads. Staff reports cost time and money, as you can see tonight. Quite frankly, I believe that the council has more serious issues to address. Like rent control, Alameda Point, Central Avenue, bike lanes, Marina Village, Del Monte Properties and others too numerous to mention. This should actually be at the bottom of the ladder. James is a fact. They have a minimum. What I like about Jim's is we go out to at least 2 to 4 times a week at breakfast. They have a minimum of 25 to 40 employees, nearly 90%, which are students, of which 80% are minorities that are in college working their way through. They are local people getting local money, doing local things. And in closing, I have two final paragraphs. It is my hope and desire and those of many people I know that both gems on the court and Greenway Golf can each work within their God given talent to make the golf career of golf complex a jewel for the city of Alameda. And I am strongly recommending the staff report be accepted and a unanimous vote entailed that will continue the operation the way it is. I'm not going to use that trite phrase. If it's not broken, don't fix it. But I will give you one that I use a lot. 20 years ago. Last week. Last month. The most recognized brand in the world in China, Australia and Russia. The United States is Coca-Cola, number one. Without a doubt. Nike, all of them second best. Hey, you know what a guy did that they brought in from South America 20 years ago? He says, I'm going to change the taste of coke. Well, bring in a new no new taste. He brought it in. All right. He cost Coca Cola $1.2 billion. So, ladies and gentlemen, you're the all good party up there tonight. I have sat where you have sat. You have difficult decisions. To me, this is a no brainer. Let Jims do his work at the concessionaire and let George Kelly do his work there. And hopefully everything will fit like a glove. I want to thank you for giving me the time to express not all my views, but those of many other. Thank you very much. Speaker 0: Thank you. Which Richard Waxman. Speaker 4: Hi, my name is Richard Waxman. And I'm Tom Jericho's attorney. And I've been working with Amy and several other people at the city of Alameda for a number of months and negotiating the terms of this new contract for the concession at the golf course. And I believe that the terms of that agreement are very detailed. It's not unusual for some lease type provisions to be in a concession agreement, such as property taxes, because the city of Alameda wanted Tom to take responsibility for those costs. And so that's why there's that provision is in there. It doesn't change the fact that that is a it is a concession agreement. It's not a leasehold interest in the premises. And it's very clear in that agreement on the terms and conditions. Now, if there are some issues that need further clarification, I know that Tom would be more than willing to sit down with Amy and the other people at the city of Alameda to try to work those things out. He has cooperated in every respect to provide financial information, to get a line of credit with his bank, and to take all necessary steps to meet the requirements to make sure that the city of Alameda is comfortable with moving forward with a new contract with Tom. And I believe it is a very good contract and it is fair for both sides. Thank you very much. Speaker 0: Thank you. Next speaker Jorge s e f s t h h iou. And then Doug Duncan and then Tom and our last speaker. Speaker Cheryl Saxton. If you want to speak on this item, please turn on your slip. Speaker 8: Thank you. You spelled my name perfectly. Speaker 1: And you pronounce it. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 8: My name is George to you. A little background on me. I have owned world class restaurants. I have owned a catering company. I've done banquets. I am also a food wholesaler. Tom G. Nikos has been a customer of mine since 1992. Is my oldest. Not age wise. He is my longest customer that I have ever had. His longevity is due to his ability to run a restaurant. I have seen when I first started selling him food in 1992, he had a little hole in the wall little strait restaurant that, I don't know, seated maybe 25 people. And through his determination and his knowledge and his commitment to quality and good service. He's built gyms to what it is today. Sorry. I'm not a great speaker in front of people, but I think that. There is no better operator in this city and even around in the area. So I think Jim's should get the the deal. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you, Doug. Don. Speaker 8: Thank you. Good evening. Council mayor and city manager. Oh, I'm. I'm here for another topic, but just being on the golf course, I have to speak. Okay. And pardon me because it's going to eat into my time at a later point. Oh, I am. Feeling very comfortable that I here. Greenway wants to really delve into this and work with James. Let me give you a background. Everyone else has given their background. James is part of the family of Alameda, the fabric of Alameda. They sacrificed their own business out here to step out there. They were successful and they moved forward. The problem was a small businessman. He needs a commitment, a long term commitment so they can put invest the money and move forward. I do not support that. You move it out another six years and extend it. We are on the verge. On the verge. Greenway has done a remarkable job in renovating the course. And the course is. And the of. Driving range. But what has to happen today is the devil's in the details. We've been working on this for three years. I believe you have a very solid proposal. What is so unique? We do not want a country club atmosphere, particularly in the restaurant. I do bring the family out to James. I know many, probably half their patrons are people that are not golf. So that gives you a feeling of what they have done and they have the longevity. So if there's details to be worked out, work about quickly, make it happen and let's move on for a year and a half or a year from now, we're going to have that. Premier facility out there and we'll have the adjacent concessionaires. So thank you very much. Speaker 0: Thank you. And I'll be Tom, Janet Goss and Cheryl Saxton. Those are our last speakers on this item. If you want to speak on this item, please turn in your slip. Speaker 4: Good evening, Madam Chair. Members of the City Council. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to come before you tonight. First of all, I want to thank Amy. Most of all, she worked. Speaker 5: Tremendously hard on this. Speaker 4: On this whole project. She put a lot of work and I thought time, a lot of effort. And I want to commend her. Speaker 5: She's a pleasure to work with throughout the whole time. Speaker 4: It's been a long process. We've been at this well over a year and Amy hung in there all the way and all the hurdles and all the obstacles. And secondly, I want to thank everyone who spoke for and against me for all the nice words they said, you know. So, Jim, just pretty much I mean, everybody knows germs have been around since 1960. We're going on to the third generation. You know, I'm not as young as I used to be. My son, you know, will probably be taking over the business. And, you know, our goal. We are a family in the restaurant business. That's what we do. You know, we do restaurants and, you know. Speaker 5: We do them well. The only measure of success. Speaker 4: At a restaurant is its longevity. Every restaurant the last five years, depending on who statistics you look at. Speaker 5: Russ was the last. Speaker 4: 90% of restaurants go out of business in the first five years of operation. We've been around for a long time. Speaker 8: That alone is a testament to. Speaker 4: To our business and what we do so. We currently have around 60 employees between both locations and we have 20 to 25 employees at the at the golf course. Speaker 8: And we hire local people. And we we are. Um. But can I say this? Speaker 5: We. Speaker 4: We like being part of the community and we want to stay at the golf course location. And without saying a lot that I'm going to get myself in trouble with, I just want to say, you know, I wish you would approve my lease tonight so we can move forward with this project. Okay. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Cheryl Saxton. Speaker 9: Hi. Good evening. Uh, mayor and council members. I'm also a part of the Gulf Commission. We met for about two and a half hours this afternoon. And first, to just clarify, was not six years that we recommended was six months extension of the current lease with the ability to hammer that out much sooner as soon as 30 , 60 days. If they could get that information worked between Greenway and Jim's on the course and get it back to the Gulf Commission and subsequently to all of you. I worked at the. Speaker 6: Golf course when I was 16. Speaker 9: I worked at the Snack Shack. I was a breakfast cooked out there and I. Speaker 6: Know the. Speaker 9: Condition that it was in back then, and I don't think that it has changed much, much since then, until Jim's on the course took it over. Speaker 6: There's no question. Speaker 9: That anyone is. Speaker 6: Against. Speaker 9: Jim's on the course. Everyone is very much in favor, but with the amount of work that Greenway Golf is putting in and the caliber of golf course that we're going to have out there, just the little details. Speaker 6: That are not. Speaker 9: In the agreement at the moment. We would request that some of those get added and amended before the agreement is signed. Um hmm. An example of that is for the caliber of golf course it's going to be. It'd be nice to have a cart that goes around providing beverages or whatnot and nothing like that. Was a provision in the lease currently or in the agreement excuse me, and the change to the snack bar on an on the north course. Some details like that need to be added or changed or. Speaker 6: So. Speaker 9: It is our recommendation that the extension be six months, but certainly that the agreement could be signed much sooner as soon as the two could get together and hammer out a few more of the details. Um, thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. She's our last speaker. Council members, member OTI. Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank all of the folks who came out tonight to speak and thank staff again for a tremendous effort in putting together this concession agreement. Now. As a new council member. You know, I try to look up to some folks in the community who I consider mentors whose opinions are very important to me. A Two of them are here in this room and they spoke on this issue. One of them in a little ironic. His wife, Norma. For full disclosure, they invited me over for coffee and one donut from the new shop on Park Street. And Little pulled out the book, the Golf Commission book. And it was fascinating for me to sit there with Lil and Norma and actually relive the history of the golf commission. And, you know, he tried to do this in four or 5 minutes when I was at his dining room table. It took a little bit longer. And I really appreciate that. But, you know, one of the points that stuck with me from that meeting with Lil and Norma was that this concessionaire actually has been the longest concessionaire of anyone we've had in the golf course throughout Alameda history. And to me, that's important. We need to have some stability out there. I remember when there was a previous restaurant there and I'd never gone there, you know, even though living here 20 years yet, I've been to gyms many a times, both on the golf course and on the main island. And sometimes, you know, when you live on Bay Farm, as as Peter Fletcher talked about and, you know, that's the place to go. I mean, that's the restaurant you want to take your family. And I agree with Doug. You know, believe it or not, I do listen to you and you do mentor me and provide comments. And, you know, I call you often and and get those the gyms is a fabric of our community, you know, not only for Bay Farm, but even those on the main island, you know, all is too busy. Or gyms on Lincoln, which has been there 60 years. If they're too busy, then, you know, we hop in the car even though we shouldn't use greenhouse gases and we drive out to the golf course because we know the line is shorter. So I think that's important that, you know, we're putting our faith in an Alameda business and not an Alameda business that's just starting. We're not an Alameda business that doesn't have a track record, one that has 60 years, one that has skin in the game. You know, part of the concession, because this is a concession agreement, you know, he can't use the property to get a lean to finance. So he's they're going to use his personal funds or use a lean against his existing business. I mean, to me, that skin in the game and that's the type of partner we want in our community. I think this is you know, it would be great if, you know, you know, we could have a Black Hawk or something like that. But, you know, this is not the character of our community. Our our character is is a family city, a place where you could take your kids or like I think it was Kathleen and Peter, you know, when they come home from a trip, you know, they can grab something, you know, casual I think casual elegance was that was the term that I heard, you know, or if you're all sweating and after your golfing, you know, that's the place you want to go. You know, we have tobaccos. You know, we have some nice places to eat. But, you know, on the golf course, you know, for folks and families on Bay Farm Island, you know, I think this is the perfect match. No, I'm I respect the Golf Commission's suggestions, but from what I heard from both the attorney and from the owner, you know, there's nothing stopping the owner of Jim's and Greenway from engaging in negotiations. If we approve this this concession agreement and actually working on some of these points and I sensed willingness to do that and I will trust that there is a willingness to do that. But I do believe that we should give gyms the, you know, the certainty of having an agreement and maybe give them some equal bargaining power in those negotiations that they might not have if we place this agreement contingent on fulfilling those conditions. So nothing in my mind, you know, prevents you from doing that. I'm wholeheartedly in support of this. Please don't confuse my brevity with any lack of commitment. I'm full fully in support of this and hope that urge my colleagues to support this and hope that we can begin a new chapter on golf on the golf course with gyms as a long term concessionaire. Speaker 1: And. Thank you, Mary Spencer. And thank you to everyone who came out and spoke in all the letters we've received up until now, I don't think we heard anybody say, don't give the concession to Jim's on the golf course. But what I did hear and I put great weight into the work of the Golf Commission because they study these issues more in more detail than we do. And they're recommending a simple six month extension. They're saying we all like Jim's, but there are some details that need to be worked out. I think all of us who've had a chance to go out and tour the new about to be newly renovated south course, which is going to be lovely, are impressed. And we've seen what what Greenway has already done with the Smith Albright and the the driving range south course is coming along beautifully. It is reasonable to want facilities and it's not country club but just nice, decent, good design standards to be consistent with what is is being done out there. Now I think people agree that the selection of Greenway Golf Golf was an inspired one. They they've shown themselves to be very capable in what they're doing. So it would be very difficult for me to go against the unanimous recommendation of the golf commission. I think it's completely reasonable what they're doing. And as Mr. Saxton just reminded us, it doesn't have to take six more months to get this agreement inked because there is a motivation to move quickly. I know Greenway Golf would like to see that restaurant finished in time for the completion of the New South course. So I think that everyone is going to be motivated to do their best. But it is important. This is a 25 year lease for all intents and purposes that we would be entering into. We don't take that lightly. I can't remember if we've done 25 year leases added. Allow me to point. We don't do this every day. So let's let's take the six months or less and and move forward with deliberation. So that would be my recommendation that we followed the recommendation of the Golf Commission. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Speaker 0: Member de SAC. Speaker 5: Oh. Speaker 3: Well, thank you very much. I this was quite an interesting issue in the past several weeks. I had a great opportunity to listen to various sides of this issue from people who care about our community deeply, as well as people who care about the Gulf community as deep, if not more. And people who really know what they're talking about. I met and listened to Jane SolarWorld and Joe Van Van Winkle, who offered some really good points that we need to consider when moving forward. I also had the great opportunity to. The former council member, former vice mayor Lauren Rich, along with Mrs. Arnold as well, and also understand from their viewpoint some of the issues that are both pros and cons. But also, you know, I heard from I met and listened and heard from Tom, the owner. So it was very informative process. I felt like a judge, you know, being able to because everyone is raising good points. But as a judge, you ultimately have to say which issues and which questions trump this or that. And I appreciate listening to what the Golf Commission members who took the time to come out this evening to go to our meeting. Now, just as an aside, I work during the daytime in Walnut Creek, so it's sometimes difficult for me to make daytime meetings. So so that's an explanation to me. What it comes down to really is a staff recommendation. And I don't say that lightly because sometimes staff, in my opinion, on some issues perhaps will not make the right recommendations. Or sometimes I will think, well, did they really think think it through? But I know that the team of city manager in a Liz Warner dam and Amy Woolridge, I think they really looked out for all the all the issues that we need to be concerned about. And if there are some questions that we need to further analyze, particularly with regard to thinking up this project, this restaurant project, thinking that up with what Greenway ultimately wants to do out at the golf course, which I'm not, I'm not I don't really familiar with that. You know, I know that our staff will will help us think it through. And our staff will be there to to make sure that, however the restaurant is designed and laid out, that it's linked up with how the I think the golf course is going to get expanded. So that's the recommendation I take very seriously. And, you know, with the successes that especially APRA or APD director Ms. Woolridge has as a demonstrated, you know, these are not recommendations that we we ought to take lightly. So I'm comforted in moving forward with staff recommendations this evening. In the final note. You know, the thing that really strikes me about this. Proposal is that. I see in gyms a product that basically sells itself. You know, it's going back to the the revenues per round numbers that I mean, the revenues per round seem to be a lot higher than what the standard. In my estimate is if the standard is $5 per round, my estimate, based on whatever information I can glean, seems to be around 13 to $15 around. I mean, so that says something about this outfit that it's a product that it has sold. You know, it's sold itself, basically. And you know, the few times that I've been to the golf course, not much. There seems to be a lot of people. I think I've only been on the golf course five times. There seems to be a lot of people at this restaurant. So, you know, I'm I'm comfortable with moving forward with the staff's recommendation. Speaker 0: Vice Mayor. Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam Mayor. I would like to see if we can have the performance information that's provided in the slides and in correspondence of be attached as a file to this contract. Because I think it's important for us to monitor and a lot of questions have been answered from the TIME staff report has gone out and now particularly the benefits to the city shifting the liability of the maintenance of the building from the city to the concessionaire, the delivery of capital improvement to the city's own facility. The contribution, though it is different to common area maintenance, I think is is important. Nonetheless, the concessionaire is responsible for or those that see IP allocation. I'd also like us to keep a timeframe and of all the lists that were on the paper that was just given to us from Greenway and whatever the Gulf Commission has concerns about. I think those can be dealt with in an additional contract, but I'd like to see this contract move forward. We have a concessionaire with it, with a track record that's worked in a very difficult environment because this contract started in 2006 in the heart of the recession. So we know that there is activity, and I think six months may not sound like a long time, but when you look at the time frames that are demanded by the contract to deliver the exterior patio, the interior improvements and the back kitchen improvements, these are tight. If we want this to coincide reasonably with the opening of the improved golf course. So I think from a business standpoint, it makes sense to go forward with this contract. And. I don't know that the city has to have a negotiation between Greenway and and. Jim's on the course, but I expect them to work together with the Golf Commission being the platform for that to monitor and to provide us with the recommendations where we might need another contract. Snacks. Snacks. And the addition of a, of a, um, a mobile cart. I think our features that may be become necessary and should be included in an concessionaires contract. But I don't want to hold up this concert contract while we're waiting for those peripherals. They're important. But again, the timing of this, I think, demands that we we move forward on it. Speaker 0: Counsel, did you want to respond at all to his comments? I just want to give you the opportunity. If you felt like. I wasn't sure if there was any questions in there. Speaker 4: An additional contract is beyond this to cover other things that come up. Is that possible? Speaker 3: Basically sort of a side letter or side agreement. Speaker 4: Or a separate contract. However, whatever tool there might be, yes, that's acceptable. And I think that would take six months or longer, depending on what the what the subject matter is. Speaker 3: If I understand the question correctly, you're talking about a side letter or side agreement that might be between Jim's on the course and Greenway. Speaker 4: No, between us and. And Jim's on the course as our concessionaire. He's not Greenway's concessionaire. They should work together to make the golf operation work as a unit. But the contract as a concessionaires with us the city. That's correct. So if if there is something that comes out of those discussions between Greenway and Jim's on some of these peripherals and the Golf Commission says, yes, we want this, that can go forward as a recommendation for an additional contract or addendum to this. Speaker 3: I see what you're saying. Yes. If if through those negotiations, we feel that some of those areas should be further addressed in this concession agreement. It can either come back to you as an amendment to incorporate those items or. Speaker 4: Be the subject of a new agreement, if that's possible. I don't see those. I see that being a parallel path to getting this project started. Speaker 0: Kid and I would say on an as needed basis then. Right. I mean, that's the whole deterrence. Speaker 4: Was started today at the Gulf Commission. There was a discussion. We have no minutes yet from it. Well, it's hard to tell, but they're right. That's all. I didn't see any show stopper saying, we don't want this patio, okay? Or the $750,000 is not worth the concession, the terms that we're giving in this contract. Speaker 1: All right. Speaker 0: Member Ashcroft I. Speaker 1: Have I have no idea what you're talking about as far as the subject matter of this contract amendment. You're using this list. That was the talking points. You'd like to see these as the subjects? Speaker 4: No, I don't know. I haven't seen one. Speaker 0: There's an unknown. But at this point I'd like to. Speaker 4: That's a theoretical. Speaker 0: Yeah. Yeah. So we'll see on that. And I appreciate your comments. I actually appreciate the comments of all the council members. And I want to start first with today at the commission. We really do value the work of the commissioners. We value the actually everyone taking the time and going down there this afternoon and speaking and coming out here tonight. And we've received many emails on this issue. But I have heard. Unanimously from everyone is that we want gyms to stay on the course. There has been no one that has said that they do not want gyms to stay on the course. I think that the concerns raised by the commission. Some of them are legal questions. At the end of the day. I don't think that they outweigh the importance of the city supporting Jim's. So that they can be successful. We are talking about a small business, a very challenging business, a restaurant business. And as much as Greenway is stepping up right now, you have a course that is not at the start, at its optimum. And yet Jim's has continued to serve our community very, very well. And I don't think that we I agree with the majority of this council. Let's move forward with Jim's. I am confident this will work out successfully for the city. And let's keep in mind, gyms does not serve only people that golf we act. We know that if honestly the numbers would not add up otherwise it has been successful because the community supports gyms. And given that I do support this, I'm confident gyms has actually been a really good part of our community for many, many years . And I agree with the speakers that say they don't want a country club. I don't want a country club out there. I don't. I like alameda gyms is a big part of Alameda. It is important for our city, as we see here, to continue to support it. Why? Because we all like going to gyms. We actually like going to gyms, whether it's on the course. We like them. So I will be supporting this. Is there emotion? Speaker 4: Emotion. Speaker 2: Second. Speaker 4: I wanted to describe the emotion first. It's okay that we approve or adopt a resolution approving the 15 year concession agreement with a ten year renewal option that the performer information is summarized and put in a in a formal format and is attached to this agreement, and that we get periodic reports that coincide with the approvals that are listed are the milestones that are listed in the agreement. From Gyms and Greenway through the Golf Commission to us. Speaker 2: Still second thoughts. Speaker 4: Thank you. Speaker 0: All right. And any comments? All those in favor. I oppose no motion passes. 4 to 1. Thank you. And this. Speaker 10: Point. At this point. We're going to take a brief recess. Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Thank you. Speaker 4: That's good. Speaker 0: That's a good motion. Speaker 5: Thank you. This place. Speaker 2: Becomes the operation. Speaker 5: Center. Speaker 0: Take their seats, please. We're going to resume. Thank you. And we're going to be calling six C and then six B, so we're at six C. Speaker 7: Okay. Response to City Council. Oh, yes. Response to City Council referral regarding reactivating the Airport Operations Committee to address impacts from Federal Aviation Administration Next Gen Program by authorizing the mayor to send a letter to the Representative Barbara Lee, and then reactivating the Airport Ad Hoc Operations Committee to oversee next gen issues. Speaker 8: Good evening, Madam Mayor and members of the City Council. My name is Bob Hall. I'm the interim assistant city manager. This item is based upon a referral made on February 2nd. We're moving very rapidly on this referral by made by both Tony de SOG and council member Odie. So we've moved fairly rapidly. We have three recommendations for you this evening, and it's basically reactivating. One of the recommendations is reactivating the airport operations committee. The airport operations committee was never officially disbanded, but we can kind of just restart it up.

Regular Agenda Item

Adoption of Resolution Approving a 15-Year Concession Agreement, with a 10-Year Renewal Option, with Dialemi, Inc. (known as Jim’s on the Course), for the Provision of Food and Beverage Service at the Chuck Corica Golf Complex. (Recreation and Parks 5301)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_03012016_2016-2619

Speaker 8: So we've moved fairly rapidly. We have three recommendations for you this evening, and it's basically reactivating. One of the recommendations is reactivating the airport operations committee. The airport operations committee was never officially disbanded, but we can kind of just restart it up. Staff is proposing to start it up on an ad hoc basis. We have a couple of volunteers already. We have Walt Jacobs and we have Bersani. Both have volunteered and we're looking for a retired professional pilot. If there's any retired professional pilots out there that anybody knows, please call the city manager's office and give me their name Speaker 2: . Jim Hager. Speaker 8: Yes, we. It's a very technical thing we're going on right now with the gen program. We're really asking for a kind of a left turn early on. So it's kind of a technical situation. So staff is recommending to bring in the committee on an ad hoc basis and deal with these technical issues and start drafting letters to the FAA in Washington. We have a draft letter attached to this item this evening going to Representative Barbara Lee. We kind of vetted that letter with our federal lobbyists. They strongly suggested that we have kind of a more local angle in that letter than just the broad NextGen. And so to that end, Matt Farris, Lonnie here is going to be drafting us a paragraph to inserted into that letter tomorrow morning that addresses the request, the left turn request that we actually need to avoid noise within the city of Alameda. So we will be incorporating that one paragraph and all councilmembers and the mayor will be copied on the letter. Speaker 1: May I ask a question, member Ashcraft, just for the benefit of everyone in this room who possibly doesn't know what you're talking about. Can you just summarize? This is a really interesting and I think an issue that is would be of importance to many of you. So just, you know, how did we get to this point? Speaker 8: How we got to this point? We've had dealings with the airport off and on for a great many years. We were sued by the airport at one point and then we through the airport at one point. We currently are operating under the second settlement agreement with Oakland Airport, and that's actually operating very well. The second settlement agreement, the airport's complying with that. During the four years when we were going back and forth with the airport, we formulated the airport operations committee. This was a number of people that sat on this committee. They advised staff and the council regarding air operations out of the Oakland airport and noise reduction. There is also class formed community. Yes. Right? Yes. And that was yeah, it was class that was form. There's a number of organizations. There's an organization in Berkeley. We're trying to we're outreaching to all of those organizations were outreaching to the city of San Leandro, the city of Oakland. Montclair has some impacts from this next gen. The next gen thing was an initiative by the FAA to simplify the air routes within the United States. And in doing so, that kind of condense those routes. And in condensing the routes, they created additional noise problems unintentionally. And so that's really where we are today, is addressing this next gen. The South Bay and the West Bay have organized significantly over there and are strongly lobbying the FAA to look at this. Again, we will be joining that effort with them to to lobby our federal representatives. That we're also adding to asking you to add this to our 2016 legislative program. That's why for you, we could not send this letter without getting that added to the legislative program that we're asking that we're asking to reactivate the Ad Hoc Airport Operations Committee, and we're asking to authorize a letter to Barbara Lee with that additional local annual paragraph. That concludes my report, and I am here for question. Speaker 0: And I wanted to start with number de Sock. This was. Speaker 3: Well, thank you very much, Mr. Horn. Great to see you back, by the way. Next gen basically is the FAA is transitioning the flight path to into a satellite based path. And as a result of doing that, communities across the United States, including in California, have been experiencing incredible amounts of noise. What that also means is that many communities in trying to deal with that with the FAA are beginning to organize. And so at the leadership of of the late Dave Needle and also at the leadership of Walt Jacobs and Mrs. Barbara Talia and also the late red was well rather Weatherill. Many members of class you know they've really been encouraging us to begin to also mobilize because you know many cities are going to begin to mobilize and we need to know and what they're going to seek isn't necessarily in the best interest of Alameda. For example, after the last airport noise for a meeting that I attended, there were a lot of Montclair residents at the noise board meeting, and they were clamoring all about this. So I appreciate staff's recommendation and bringing us forward because we do, as Mr. Jacobs said. While Jacobs said, we do need to be a presence at the table in staff's recommendation, also working with our lobbyist in in Washington DC is also key too. So I really appreciate that. I think, you know that we've got a lot on our plate tonight, so I think we need to move forward. So I'm going to move staff recommendation and encourage also that we vet any people through class as well. Thank you. Speaker 0: And we do not have any speakers on this item, so I'll second. All right. So there's a motion. And second, any questions, comments, all of those. Speaker 2: And I just want to just add two quick things. One, it's great to see you back. Thank you. And I'm really glad as someone who used to live right in that flight path, I'm glad that we're examining that that left because a lot of pilots do it voluntarily. Right. A lot of them, particularly the freight airlines that come at two and three and four in the morning, refused to do it. So I appreciate that. Speaker 8: Thank you. Speaker 0: And I also want to add that I was able to speak with Barbara Lee Council Representative Barbara Lee, staff on this issue. They are already trying they are already working on this issue. However, it is important that we take these steps so that it makes it easier for them to argue on our behalf. Okay. That being said, all those in favor, I am curious unanimously. Thank you very much. Oh, all right. Next item six. Be as in boy. And I do have a question. Does this item need to be heard tonight or what's your time estimate? Speaker 9: We would like to have this item heard tonight because there's a long lead time for some of the steps that we have in front of us. Speaker 0: Okay. Do we have any public speakers on this item? No. Speaker 9: We will. We can go through it fairly quickly. Speaker 0: Okay. We could do that quickly because we have two other items that do have public speakers. Speaker 9: Okay. Speaker 0: So let me I'd love to dismiss this by term, but it doesn't look like that's going to happen. Speaker 9: Okay. Speaker 0: Go ahead. Speaker 9: So very quickly, as councilor will recall, last October, we came to you for authorization to proceed with a survey essentially to determine if our voters were interested in actually taxing themselves for city services and if they were, which of those services were important.

Regular Agenda Item

Response to City Council Referral Regarding Reactivating the Airport Operations Committee to Address Impacts from the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) NextGen Program by Authorizing the Mayor to Send a Letter to Representative Barbara Lee; Reactivating the Ad-hoc Airport Operations Committee to Oversee NextGen Issues; and Adding NextGen to the City’s 2016 Legislative Program. (Community Development 481001)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_03012016_2016-2620

Speaker 9: So very quickly, as councilor will recall, last October, we came to you for authorization to proceed with a survey essentially to determine if our voters were interested in actually taxing themselves for city services and if they were, which of those services were important. So we did actually go forward with your authorization to do that. We hired FM three to conduct that poll, and tonight we'd like to share those results with you and then the next steps. Very quickly, before we go into that, before you, you have Kurt Barlow from Form three, who will present the polling results. We also have Tom Clifford, who's from Clifford Moss. He's our outreach consultant. And then we also have with us Don Maynor, who's our attorney, who's helping us on the utility users tax ordinance and language. So we have a bunch of folks here that we'd like to offer to you at the end of this presentation if we have any questions. So with that, I'll give turn it over to Curt. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 5: Thank you very much, Mayor, and members of the council. I will try to keep the mayor's advice here and go through as quickly as I can with all sorts of nice numbers in here. All this first time a few the specifics of the survey we conducted we conducted interviews the early first half of last December, telephone interviews with registered voters in the city who are likely to vote in this November's election. We conducted 600 interviews over the course of the survey, roughly for the margin of error for the first time in interviews. This is a 4% we split sample. Some of the questions were half the respondents, 300 heard one set of questions, and that's roughly a 5.7 or 6% margin of error. And we do have we did connect the survey for the city back in 2008. So it's a pretty big time gap between there. But we do have some comparison points for questions that we asked in both those surveys that were helpful to look at. So our basic approach to the survey is that half the respondents were asked about a general purpose sales tax measure and half respondents were asked about a U. Modernization measure. And then the full samples asked about a Paques parcel tax. And for those first two measures, we did a little bit of testing of pro and con argumentation to see where people would land in the context of an exchange of information in an election context. I hit on a few of these key findings and hit on them in a little more specific detail momentarily here. We asked a question about issues concerning residents and voters here in Alameda. Top issues were the drought and housing costs. Now the drought the issue was before the rains hit, but we've had a nice, unfortunately dry February. So that would probably probably be top of list. Once again, things that have changed a little bit since 2009 was economy and crime have gone down as concerns, but housing costs and traffic both gone up. We'll see those numbers momentarily. In terms of city services, we went through a series of questions that were corresponded largely to the performance metrics for the city. By and large, very large, very high levels of satisfaction with them, maybe the only kind of squishy area that were street maintenance. And we'll see what that looks like momentarily. And then getting to the couple of measures we have considered here, a general purpose sales tax measure at half cent level had initial support at 63%, and that's a majority vote measure. So it was above the vote threshold for passing one beauty modernization measure. And this is not an uncommon dynamic here. Start started off at 52% in the candidate vote yes with a pretty high level of people being undecided. We spent some time explaining what to you is and how it would be updated and then support went up quite a bit to 68%. So again, both of those were some sort of explanation were above the majority vote threshold and stayed that way over the course of the survey. A paques parcel tax we asked about. We'll talk about that momentarily. It's a two thirds vote threshold and we only saw 49% in the candidate vote yes for that measure. So let's get into some perceptions and just the mood of the people and voters living here in Alameda. Pretty happy people here. Back in 2008, we had three quarters of respondents who indicated they thought their neighborhoods were headed in the right direction. Almost identical now in 2015. Looking at the city more broadly, about three in five indicated they were happy with the direction of the city is and that was very similar to that in 2008 . No real big changes there. As promised, we went through a list of different items here. We presented as potential problems facing the community, and we asked respondents to indicate how serious of a problem they thought each of these may be is an extremely serious problem, very serious, somewhat serious or not too serious of a problem. So you see the orange juice bars here are the extremely and very serious problems. Those are items, items that generate some little more intensity, those dark blue bars or the percentages of people who suggested that these are not too serious of a problem. And you'll see the top two items here were drought and the cost of housing, where you have roughly a third who indicated those were extremely serious problems. And just about seven in ten say that they're extremely or very serious problems. A pretty clear top tier of issues and problems voters feel like are facing the community here. Obviously, the drought conditions are a bigger, bigger issue, but you clearly have some ability to address that locally in the cost of housing. Also, obviously, a local issue you'll discuss later on tonight. Looking a little bit down here through some other items here, sort of on the heels of those top ones are traffic congestion. Almost half thought that was an extremely, very serious problem, 46%. And then another little sort drop down to too much growth and development at 38%. Several of these other items here we're seeing, you have pretty strong majorities saying they're not too serious of a problem that includes a lack of parks and open space crime and the condition of the local economy. Now. I picked out a few of these here that we actually had tracked some 28. We asked a slightly different list this time ago. This time around, somehow tracks for every item here, but you'll see items related to crime, whether we characterize them as gang violence or crime. Broadly speaking, both of those were seen as less serious problems 2015 than they were in 2008. Also we asked about waste and inefficiency in local government that has gone down and concern has decreased significantly, as do the concerns about the amount people pay in city taxes and the condition of the local economy. That's the that's going down 8%. Feel like that's extremely, very serious problem when it was 44%. And obviously in very different economic times in 20. However, as promised, a few of these items have ticked up the other direction in terms of the concern levels here. Cost of housing being one of them. It was not. It was still one of the top tier issues in 2008, a 55%, but now it's up to 69%. And now we've got just about that third. And a lot of that increases in the intensity there. The extremely serious went from 22 to 32%. Traffic congestion also enough about 20 points in terms of extremely and very serious parking and commercial districts and open space are about where they were in 2000. This next question follows closely with some of the city's performance metrics here. And we asked and random order and the language here pretty much echoes some of the things you've adopted as goals for the city here. We asked respondents indicate whether they felt like these city services were being provided at an excellent level, a good level, an only fair level or a poor level, and give that only to the fairly put me a little tiny tinge of negative. Just so we have two and two, but you'll see here that by and large you have really strong majorities in the care. They felt that the city is doing an excellent or good job providing these services public safety park facilities, recreation programs, library customer service, library programs in general here, really strong majorities indicate they feel like doing a really good job. You'll see that the orange bars, the fair and poor are all really small. For most these items, the people who didn't give excellent good marks tended to fall into the don't know category. They may not be as familiar with the library services. For example, the only couple of items here at the bottom worth noting is just the quality of street maintenance was the only one where we had a pretty significant number in that fair poor category, or 56% excellent good and 43% fair or poor and pretty much only 1% didn't know. Everyone can judge the quality of the of their streets. So that was the one area that I think is I would I would suggest paying a little more attention to able to city's budget management and permitting services mixed results if you look at in absolute terms but pretty high numbers of individuals who didn't feel comfortable voicing their opinion one way or another. And in both the street maintenance and the city's finances, only 10% or 11% have poor responses to those. So most of those people were in the fair category. So I think the big picture takeaway really high levels of satisfaction on city services. A few items that people are less familiar with street mean it's been the one exception where there is a little more uncertainty where we have a substantial portion of the population falling in that category. Now we get into a couple of the finance matters we tested. The first one has a general purpose half cent sales tax measure. Here's a hypothetical ballot language that could appear on someone's ballot. Roughly 75 words includes what the measure would spend money on. What the mechanism would be would last for 15 years as the best case scenario looked at here, and we included an estimate here as to how much money it would raise on an annual basis. We read this two individuals and by a 2 to 1 margin. Voters indicated vote yes on the measure. And a couple of key things we look at here for majority vote measure is obviously, first, you'd like to see support exceed the vote threshold, which it does. And next is a sees it by more than the margin of error. So we're at 63%. We also look at the intensity of support and opposition. Maybe you have a lot of people indicating to vote yes, but the support is really pretty soft in this case. Or definitely yeses are at 28% and outpacing or definitely no's by a ten point margin. And so a pretty decent support here. Those tax measures are also things that people kind of get. Only 6% are undecided. Very few people in that squishy middle category. People understand it. Not a lot of confusion. Your voters were able to pick a side on it pretty much right out of the gate. And by a truly margin, they indicated they voted yes as of last December. We also asked about a couple of different variants here, about some of the accountability provisions that could be included in the measure. And two of the key ones that popped up here, you'll see, is a public review of spending and independent audits where you have upwards of three quarters of voters said they'd be more likely to vote for a sales tax measure if it include a public review of spending and required independent audits. Also, see general support for an oversight committee as well. And the base case that we asked for had a 15 year sunset. And we also asked about, well, what about a nine year sunset? And frankly, there really wasn't much distinction between those. Both cases, you had 58% who said they'd be more likely to vote for a measure with one of those sunset levels. So in this case, the existence of a sunset probably seems to be more important than the duration of it at this rate. Looking at a UTI measure. It's a slightly different set of circumstances here. Speaker 1: Can you tell us what you use to use? Speaker 5: That is a really good point. It is here a utility user tax UTI. Thank you very much. A clarification again, one of the things that people get choked up on and we talk about this in public. So here is a 75 word bal language hypothetical here. Again, talks about a similar set of public services that the tax would fund. Again, this is a general purpose measure as well. So it has a majority vote threshold, but it talks about basically treating tax taxpayers equally regardless of communication technology used. This is because we'll get into this momentarily. People are using VoIP and other types of communication technologies that that didn't exist or weren't contemplated when the annuity was first passed in the city here. Many, many cities up and down the state and vast majority of them have modernize them at this point in time to be more flexible definitions to capture these new types of technologies. This is what would be the intent of this measure. And out of the gate, we saw 52%, a very slim majority expressed support, 26%, no. And the two things that I pointed out in the sales tax, a highlight here, too, is the intensity of support and opposition and the number of undecideds. So here they definitely yes, is only at 17% and just about where the definitely no's are at 14%. I see pretty equal intensity on both sides, although frankly not a lot of strong opinions one way or another. But yet that 52% is relying upon a lot of tentative supporters to get to that majority level. And that undecided level clearly stands out at 23%. About one in four of the people we asked on the phone, we read that 75 words, too, and they said, I don't know. And in fact, we gave them two bites of that apple. If you said your first instinct was you don't know, we asked, are you leaning one way or another? And they couldn't even say that. So this was something that was throwing people off a little bit initially. However. Being clever pollsters that we are. We anticipated this having done a few of these surveys in the past, so we decided to read respondents a bit of an explanation about what's going on here. So here is the language. It's a little hard to read, I think, in the room, but talks about how the original tax was established back in 1995, what types of services it applies to, and what this measure would do. It would extend it to services like voice over IP, not changing tax rates at all, though. Speaker 0: So I before you move on, because you actually explain what this is for. I don't think you should spend a little more time on that. What is this, u u t. What would that be? Speaker 5: The utility users. Speaker 0: Yes, yes, yes. You're right. We can't read it. Tell us really what is. Speaker 5: Oh, it is a tax that you see on your on your various utility bills. And we have actually more well versed experts here. But essentially for I think your city has it for electricity, natural gas and cable. And the the rub here is that if you you're telling if you're telephone services now using VOIP voice over IP , so you're using Skype or some technology like that instead of a traditional landline, then those are not covered by your your city's utility users tax. And so the city is now losing revenue over time as people transition to these different types of technologies and replacing them with other technologies. Speaker 0: But people with a landline pay a tax that if you don't have a landline, you're not paying. And that goes to the, quote unquote fairness argument. Thank you. Exactly. Speaker 5: So after we went through that explanation, opinions changed somewhat dramatically. We went from 52%. Yes. To 68%. Yes. And those undecideds went down from 23 to 10%. So a pretty marked change there. The intensity of the yes is still, you know, falls a little bit short of where the intensity of the rest of the yes vote comes from. So there's still some some softness there. This suggests, though. It's a concept. And the fairness thing, I think, is the mayor pointing out here, strutting, struck a chord course and respondents reacted to that. I get it now. But they need to have it explained to them as I'm doing inarticulate job of doing here right now. I think it was probably an indication that this is a complex issue. But when voters have a, you know, someone to sit down and talk to them about it, they get it and they feel more and more responsive to a measure. Modernizing your your tax. Over the course of the survey. We have the side by side comparisons here where we went through some arguments in favor of the measures, arguments opposed to them. We wanted to see what would happen. Where's the ceiling? Where is the floor? And at the end of the the surveys, both of them ended up in roughly the same places. 61% indicate they vote yes for a sales tax measure after an exchange of pros and cons, 64% for the US measure. And so they're both sort of in that low mid-sixties range for support after protocol argumentation. This is just a little bit of a summary of some of the concepts that we tested here in terms of the arguments in favor and with slide arguments opposed. Some of the arguments were a little bit different for the routine, the sales tax. The U.S. obviously had a much more nuanced sort of argumentation for them because it talks about the fairness issue and the fact that the rate would not be increasing, but basically talked about some of the ways the money could be spent from these measures park maintenance, fixings, farm dreams, public safety, helping the city's general quality of life and fiscal preparedness for the next recession. And then we went through a series of arguments opposed to these measures here, and they're a little more visceral, right? It's the city is going to waste our money. We don't need this stuff. We can't afford our taxes. But also some things that are a little more specific to these measures, the fact that there was a sales tax measure that was rejected here in the city not too long ago, and the fact that maybe that the US is a little bit of a trick in terms of. Of achieving the tax rate the same, but broadening the base of services that are being applied to. So. The last measure we looked at here was a Parks personal tax and again went through the 75 words that would hypothetically appear on a ballot. This was a we tested a $25 per person tax, but raised about a half million dollars annually. I'll pause here momentarily. But we talked about a lot of the maintenance that this type of measure would support, but also talked about opening and maintaining new parks. So it was a it was a mixture, leaning heavily on the maintenance, but also did mention a little bit about opening new parks. And unfortunately, support at that level for that measure was was far lower than for the other measures. And keep in mind that this is a special purpose measure. It has a two thirds vote threshold. So the 49% is a just little herrell lower than the majority vote threshold. But this will require a two thirds vote threshold. Um, I think I just have one last set of data here to get through. And we did ask a series of, of ways that money from a potential general purpose measure could be spent. And we asked respondents indicate how important it was that was spent on this particular type of service scale. Use was important, extremely important, which is dark blue bars. Very important, which is light blue bars. Somewhat important, which is the I guess it looks like here it's kind of looking a little light orange. And the dark orange is not too important. A couple of slides here to go through, not the entire list of them, but pretty much every voter thought all these things were at least somewhat important. None of these services were dismissed out of hand. So in cases like that, we tend to try to focus on the intensity of those reactions. Those who said something was extremely or very important. I think, generally speaking, Alameda voters feel like all these things are vital services for the city. But there were some differences in intensity here. And on this first slide, things that generate much more strong intensity here. A lot of them were public safety oriented response times to a variety of different things violent crimes, property crimes, but also a couple more generic, bigger picture of things overall, maintaining the city's quality of life and the financial stability. So you see a pretty big public safety and general infrastructure concerns there, as well as maintaining and repairing storm drains. And I think keeping pollution out of the bay where our our belief is were a pretty critical component of that. The next series, next slide here we have on it were items that were in the sort of sixties, low seventies range in terms of extremely, very important. Again, very few people, very few items in the have dark orange bars. Everything here are seen as at least somewhat important looking at the extremely in various to try to sort them out here you start to see more infrastructural items come up where the storm drain might come on the prior slide. But now we see street repairs, maintaining parks, things of that nature popping up here as well. The other item here that actually generated a fair amount of intensity was addressing the cost of rental housing in aggregate. It didn't have the same intensity as some of the items on the prior slide, but not a lot of people are dismissing that as an item, a spending priority. We have two more slides in this series, if my memory serves me. And so now we're getting to much smaller blue bars here, roughly in the 50 percentile range for all these items on the slide. Again, the dark orange bars aren't particularly big, but we're getting into other types of services libraries, tree trimming, safe space for streets, for bicyclists. Pedestrians. Economic development. Most people feel like these would be nice things to spend money on. They just aren't generating the same intensity as some of the other items. And the last slide is one of the few that we actually have any big orange bars on and particularly reopening city hall on Fridays. 53%, a majority said that they didn't think that would be a great way to spend tax dollars from new meaning new revenues. So in the final versions here, it looks like both a sales tax and a utility user's tax. Both are viable here in the city. Now, there's big caveats and distinctions between those two sales tax people kind of get, you know, a pretty strong majority and more than three and five indicate they'd vote yes for this. Every time in the course of the survey until the users tax, though, it appears to have a slightly higher ceiling than a sales tax. A lot of confusion out of the gate. And if you were to pursue something like that down the road, it seems like this is something you need a longer runway. Spend much more time educating the public about what's going on here and why this is needed. Generally speaking, it seems like the types of services that people want to see additional dollars spent on tend to be public safety oriented, focused on bigger picture infrastructure issues. And finally, the last thing in terms of a Parks parcel tax here at this point in time, particularly to personnel, the two measures, it doesn't seem like it's viable, particularly with a two thirds vote threshold. At. Oh. Speaker 9: Oh, yeah. Well, go on. So that actually concludes the presentation on the polling. And then we're going to go into just kind of some discussion about moving forward. But if you'd like, it's at the council's pleasure whether or not you want to ask Kurt questions now or if you want to wait until the end. Speaker 0: Council. At my desk. It looks like you may continue. Thank you. Speaker 9: Okay, so I will continue. Thank you. And if we have questions before we back up. Okay. So as Kurt said, the sales tax measure does seem to be viable and requires less voter education. But as we talked about, I think back in October, we've reached our statutory cap of 9.5%, which is a state cap. Speaker 1: Can you explain that a little bit more maybe? Speaker 9: Yeah. So the state sets a threshold for nine and a half percent that cities can levy a sales tax. And we actually are at that nine and a half percent. Other cities have actually exceeded that cap. They're at 10%. There's four other cities in Alameda County, but they exceeded that cap because of a variety of reasons, but primarily because Measure B, which got special legislation, allowed them to go over their nine and a half cap and now are sitting at 10% in order. So we because of the polling information, we did a little bit more research and we could, if we wanted to pursue the sales tax in November, pursue a special legislation at the state. But that would require a two thirds vote of the legislature. And just talking to our lobbyists, they said that's very unlikely that that will actually happen. The other cities and measure b b that did get the special dispensation, I guess you could say, to go to 10%. They all pursued that with a simple majority, 50% plus one from the state. We could do that, but we need more time to do that. Speaker 5: And. Speaker 9: We'll talk about that a little bit later. So we actually right now are we actually don't have the authority to go for a sales tax that has been confirmed in 2016. That could we could change that. It is sales tax. From from a financial perspective, from a fiscal stability perspective is very attractive because it generates three and a half million dollars a year to the city, which can go for a lot of things, not the least of which are those parks that we all love but nobody seems to want to pay for which we've noticed. On the lack of support on the parcel tax. So the utility users tax also appears to be viable. It lands at 64% after the education. And unfortunately, that doesn't raise as much money. It's 1.6 million to the city's general fund. So it's not insignificant. But obviously, it's not as it's not as compelling as the sales tax argument. But unfortunately, that's off the table. So our recommendation actually to you is to pursue the utility users tax in November 2016. But obviously that's going to take a fairly significant voter education component. We'd also like to suggest that you move forward with trying to secure that special legislation, because we're starting now, and it wouldn't take effect until 2017 or 18. You'd only need that 50% plus one threshold at the state state legislature. And then that allows you that opportunity if you wanted to do it in 2018 or 2020 or 2022. It's not a huge work effort, but it allows you that ability sometime in the future. So this is sort of two recommendations that we're saying go forward with the November 16, but also direct staff to to pursue the special legislation at the state level to exceed our cap to 10% on the sales tax. So if you are amenable to that tonight, this is what we would be doing. Staff would begin the formal community engagement process with our consultants. That would include putting together 2 to 3 different mailers that would go out to the community. And those mailers would be information mailers. As Curt said, this is this. The utility users tax obviously needs a lot of education. And so those mailers would be talking to the community about what exactly we're trying to do here. We would do speaking engagements, online surveys, social media and website activities. And that cost would be primarily $65,000, mostly for education material, which we actually have already budgeted. Knowing that we were there, there was a likelihood that we might be doing this. And then in May of this year, we would come back to you on the work that we've done to date, sort of what are the stakeholder educations that we've done? What were the information materials that we put out we would bring to you the draft resolution that the ballot measure and about ballot measure language. And then we would discuss the next steps. And then on June in June, we would ask you to adopt the final ballot language. And. Okay. That actually concludes our presentation, so I'd be happy to take any questions. Speaker 0: And first, I want to confirm we don't have any speakers. Correct. All right. Councilmember Ashcroft. Speaker 1: Just a quick question on the staff report. Thank you, Ms.. For Madame on page four, talking about should the staff direct should the council direct staff to pursue the utility user tax, the modernization ballot measure, community engagement would begin quickly. It will also include direct door to door resident contact. And my question is simply who would be doing that door to door residential contact? Speaker 6: As. Speaker 9: Oh, right. Yes. Speaker 1: Yes. What? Speaker 0: Okay. Remember his comment was us. That's what we're like. Okay. Speaker 9: That would probably become that would come later. Later. But most of the what the work that the staff would be doing are the is the educational material. Speaker 1: So the question was who. Speaker 9: Is to be. Speaker 1: Determined? Is that to be determined? Thank you for the here. Speaker 0: Any other questions or comments from Council member Desai? Speaker 3: The comment that I have to share is I think, you know, I, I recognize the fact that the way in which our telecommunications activities are conducted now has effects on the amount of uut that we've been gathering, utility user tax that we've been gathering, meaning that as people shift away from landlines to cell phones, we've seen corresponding decline in UTC. So I get that. But I think, you know, the question that I would always have is as we're seeking to generate revenues via these changes or even down the road, additional sales tax revenues, I think the first thing I need to know is, you know, what is the underlying problem that we're seeking to solve ? I think in the big picture of things, we all know that at Alameda that we are in a structural deficit and we've always been that way, meaning that it's baked into the nature of our cake, that our expenses go beyond what our what revenues we collect through the the normal channels, i.e., property taxes, sales taxes, etc.. But oftentimes the way that you deal with structural deficits is by changing your economy, encouraging the private sector jobs, business sales tax, etc.. So it's just I just need more information as to the nature of the problem that we're gathering. And I do suspect also that the nature of our labor relations are such that, you know, whatever whatever we gather, some amount is already. Some amount is already constrained. So I. Yeah. That's my comment. Speaker 0: Any other comments by council vice mayor? Speaker 4: I agree with the. Assessment of sales taxes is out. Although I. Do think the direction to pursue the legislation that will allow us to go over so that we're at least where some of our peers are. I think it's a good a good direction to give. I think the use of utility taxes is antiquated and it does need to be brought up to to the current utility use. That's a question of fairness and it's a question of changing means of our utilities are are delivered. And we need to. To avail ourselves of that. Speaker 0: Member Ashcraft. Speaker 1: I'm in support of staff's recommendations. Speaker 0: I'm ready. Speaker 2: I'm in support, too. Just to be clear, the the analysis of the likelihood of this getting through the assembly was obtained through our lobbyists, correct? Speaker 9: That's correct. Speaker 2: Okay. Just to kind of. I just want to make sure that was clear. But I do want to point out, you know, the the struggle that this might even have if we didn't need a two thirds vote to get it through the legislature when we did the Measure B B authorization in the assembly, it got 43 votes . So 41 is the magic number, only got 43, even though there was a two thirds Democratic majority. No Republican Assembly member supported it and a number of moderate Dems stayed off. So. They want to make sure where we go in managing their expectations. And we make sure that our our lobbyist understands that this is our priority. Speaker 0: So I do support staff's recommendation as part of the update. I'm going to want to know. So we're going. If we end up. Well, actually, I think there's a more basic question to begin with, what percentage of our meetings actually do not have a landline? If you have any information on that, that's something we know. How many homes? Okay. So I am. I actually would like to know, you know, what this 1.5 million is based on where we're going to capture that money. We have. Speaker 5: Yeah. My name is Donald Maynor, and I work with the till to use your tax ordinances. Speaker 8: About half the homes now. Speaker 5: Don't have landline there solely on. Speaker 8: Wireless or VoIP. And what the problem in your with your ordinance, you have no definitions and it invites. Speaker 5: Companies to interpret the ordinance different ways. So you're missing most of your money's missing because of wireless companies the way they interpret it. So by adopting about 90% of all the utility in California now is voter approved with modern audiences. So you're just catching up to the rest of the communities by adopting the modern audiences. Speaker 8: And it'll take away any ambiguity as to how old you are and and supplies. But most of that money that you're missing is going to come on the wireless side, part of it's prepaid wireless, which comes about as a result of a new state law. Speaker 5: But there's one or two major companies that are interpreting your ordinance in a way that they're really under collecting. Speaker 0: Sir. Did you. Are you with them or happened to be here in the audience? Speaker 9: No, no. Speaker 5: I'm sorry. Speaker 2: I represent your city. Speaker 9: Yes. So we introduced I introduced him. This is Don Maner. He works. He's under contract with the city. He's an attorney that helps cities up and down the state on their utility users tax ordinances. It helps. Speaker 5: It was modernized for the plane the Warriors just won in overtime. So I was like. Speaker 0: Okay, thank you very much. So and so that's good to know. And then in regards to the additional money, assuming this passes, how that could be spent by council, what that really looks like and this would be indefinitely, then this doesn't have a it's not like nine years or 16 years like the other. This is a change in the definition. It just goes on and on and on. Is that correct? Right. And I see heads nodding yes. Speaker 9: I just want to put up the slide. This is our utility user stack. So it's not like we're going to it's not unlike it's not like the sales tax where our sales tax continues to go up. And then if we pass the sales tax tax measure, it would continue to go up even further. This is a revenue measure that a revenue that is just continuing to decline. So it's not even it's just trying to keep ourselves whole. It's not actually trying to buy us more. It's trying to keep us whole. And this falls into the category of fiscal sustainability. Speaker 0: All right. And then I also want to just share in regards to the the negative or not a strong positive comments on the parks connected to parcel tax. And I actually think that that is the issue, as opposed to the public not being willing to pay additional money to support our parks. I think that there is a concern in regards to so many parcel taxes and who pays the parcel tax that that makes it so it's more complicated than not necessary supporting paying for our parks. And I actually think our community is very supportive of financially supporting our parks. Speaker 3: But it is is it is correct to say that. Well, let me ask is it correct to say that the uut is part of the re formula? Speaker 9: Yes. Well, you two is part of the brief, so you. Speaker 1: Have some definitions. Speaker 9: Balanced revenue index, which is a formula that's used for the salary increases on some of our employees. Speaker 0: It's well, can you name can you specify the sum? Speaker 9: It includes all of the public safety employees, and it does not include our employees at Alameda Municipal Power. So those are excluded. They are the employees at Elmira Municipal Power do not have their raises tied to the Balance Revenue Index. Speaker 3: Which is an interesting question and not to be answered tonight, but I mean, that doesn't trigger any legal issues in terms of the ballot balloting numbers. Speaker 9: No. The use of that, the use of the your funds. This is a 50% plus one, which is a general tax. You can use that money however you choose. Speaker 0: So this would and I also want to just clarify this point. We're just asking staff to come back with these. But if we were actually going to put this on the measure, council would have a lot more input and we would vote whether or not it's at some point we would actually vote whether or not to put this on the. Speaker 9: Back so that you have to vote. So we're going to bring the actual language to you in May. And then we we expect that in June, late June, we'll ask you to formally vote to put it on the ballot in November. Speaker 0: All right. Any other vice mayor? Speaker 4: If there are no questions, I would like to move the recommendations of the staff. Speaker 0: I'll second all those in favor. Hi. Hi. Four in favor. One abstention. Motion carries. Thank you. Speaker 9: Thank you. Speaker 0: Two. All right, next item six D. That one's been continued. Six E. Speaker 7: Final passage of ordinance amending the limited missile code by adding Article 15 to Chapter six concerning review of rent increases applicable to all rental units and rent stabilization applicable to certain rental units, and concerning limitations on evictions and the payment of relocation assistance applicable to all rental units. Amending Section two Dash 23.4 concerning the duties of the rent with the Advisory Committee and suspending Article 14 of Chapter six in its entirety. And determining and. In determining that the talk to the audience is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act and also considering adoption of urgency. Ordinary spending ones in the city of Alameda, a temporary additional 22 day moratorium on rent increases for certain residential rental properties and on evictions from all resident residential rental properties except for just cost. This item requires permits. Speaker 0: All right. And staff. Speaker 9: Good evening. I'm Debbie Potter, the city's community development director. The item before you this evening, there are two parts. One is final passage of the ordinance that was introduced on first reading on February 16th. That's typically final passage is typically a routine action. And if that if the ordinance is approved for final passage this evening, it will take effect in 30 days, which would be March 31st. So that's the first item the staff is recommending that you take action on the final approval.

Regular Agenda Item

Receive Report on Results from a City of Alameda Survey Conducted in December 2015 and Provide Direction on a November 2016 Ballot Measure. (City Manager 2110).

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_02242016_2016-2611

Speaker 1: Conference with legal counsel, existing litigation case named Municipal Auditing Services versus City of Alameda Court. Superior Court of the State of California County of Alameda Case. RG 15755722. Speaker 0: Thank you. Good evening. We actually need to finish up our special meeting from our closed session. Laura, did you all. Speaker 1: Yes, I do have the announcement. The city council met in closed session regarding a case of municipal auditing services versus the city of Alameda and direction was given to staff. Speaker 0: Thank you. So I will now adjourn our special meeting to start at 6 p.m. this evening and we will now start our special city council meeting. 7 p.m.. Please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. Speaker 1: I pledge allegiance to the United. Speaker 4: States and to the other states. One nation under God. Speaker 1: Indivisible. With liberty and justice for all. Speaker 0: Agenda changes. The None proclamation, special orders and announcements. Do we have any? All right. In regards to the announcements at this point, I'd like to share that this meeting, I am hoping, will not go beyond 11 p.m.. When we approach that time.

Closed Session Item

CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION (Pursuant to Government Code § 54956.9) CASE NAME: Municipal Auditing Services LLC v. City of Alameda COURT: Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda CASE NO: RG15755722

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_02022016_2016-2495

Speaker 1: Six C introduction of ordinance, approving a lease and authorizing the city manager to execute documents necessary to implement implement the terms of a five year lease with Dreyfus Capital Partners, a California limited liability company for Building 29, located at 1701 Monarch Street at Alameda Point, the site of requires for affirmative coaching. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 1: Good evening, mayor and council members. I'm Ninette Mchunu in the hire. Thank you for. Good evening, mayor and council members. I'm Ninette Mchunu in the community development and based we use departments. What you have in front of you today is a five year lease for Building 1701 mana of Building 29, located at 1701 Monarch Street. This is an existing tenant who's been in the building since 2009. Currently, there are about 15 employees in the building. There are ten existing sub tenants. The building is used. It's one of our last remaining multi tenanted shop office spaces buildings at Alameda Point. We are in the process. As you know, you've recently approved two large buildings that will be multi tenanted, but those are for the food and beverage industries. And so this is one of the. We also have navigator systems, which has art spaces and other kind of some craftsmen. But this is this building specific to metalworkers and artisans and that and that. Medium. So at our last council meeting, when you approve or the last council meeting, I was that you approved a lease for Google. And many members of the community kind of said that you guys were only interested in those high tech, high educated jobs . And this this tenant provides skilled workers, the steel metal craftsmen, artisans. And so it is consistent with trying to develop a diverse workforce in Alameda. And we believe that the five year term is consistent with the development plans at Alameda Point. And I hope that you will consider approving this lease tonight. The the tenant is here. And if you had questions directly of him, he's open to answering your questions. Speaker 0: And we do have public speakers. Okay. Speaker 4: Oh, this is excellent. Speaker 1: Yeah. Speaker 4: The. Speaker 0: All right. So I'm going to go ahead in any clarifying questions right now, but I'm going to go ahead and call the public speakers. Tim looks like L.A. I asked Tycho and then Wolfgang Brink and then Peter Dreyfuss. You can go ahead and line up and come on up and speak for 3 minutes. You can have up to 3 minutes. Speaker 4: The. Speaker 1: I'm in order. Speaker 3: Good evening, Adam. Mayor Spencer and esteemed council members. My name is Tim. Likes to go and I'm a my day job. I'm a construction manager for the Oakland Housing Authority. I have a small workspace shop at building B29. I'm here for the sole purpose of. Of supporting Peter Dreyfus. And and your in proving his five year lease. Emma Griffiths helped partners with Peter Dreyfus supports small artisans. Craftsman. Metal workers and doing their work. That's something that doesn't go on. I have a shop out there just to keep me sane. As I said, I am a professional construction manager for Oakland Housing Authority. As my day job and I go out there in the evenings and weekends and practice woodwork and other metalworking machinery restoration. You know. I can say a lot and I won't. But again, Peter Dreyfus, I don't think anybody out there is getting rich, but they do provide a lot of resources for the community and artists and and artwork and craftsman style work and ask. Another thing I want to point out, Dreyfus Capital Partners provide provides for a reasonable and affordable rent. And I think if you look at the facts, you'll see why he should be given a five year lease. Thanks. Speaker 0: Thank you. Wolfgang Brink. Speaker 3: Hmm. Good evening, Mayor and city council members. My name is Wolfgang Brink. I'm a tenant building 29, and I've been Alameda resident for. 16 years and I've been out at the point. With Peter Dreyfus for the last ten years and we've. Speaker 8: Been sort of hopscotching around. Speaker 3: Because, you know, the clean up and things were going on. With me. We started out on one end of the seaplane lagoon, and we came to the other side and. Having having to move is very disruptive. I remember the last big move we had. We had huge machinery lathes and all kinds of stuff. And for for a small business person that's very expensive and disruptive. You know, if you make a move, if you don't do anything for two months. So set up again. So having a five year lease. You know, it's very critical to us that, you know, and and as Tim said. Lot of our small. Artists and artisans and craftspeople and. Small businesses operate on pretty narrow margins and having reasonable rents which rivals. Company provides us with is very critical to us and. And if. We have to move in two years or you know, it's it's there aren't a whole lot of places to go. And we have a. Wonderful community out there. And I think we do make a contribution even though we're a small group. Speaker 4: Yes. Yeah. Just so what do you do? What I'm involved in. Speaker 3: I'm a I'm a builder and. Of traditional Arctic kayaks. And I also teach kayak building. And one of the reasons one of the things that attracted me to the location out there is the proximity to water. So. And I've gone up to Alaska to teach kayak building at native culture camps. So yeah. So I just appreciate the opportunity to be out there. In this beautiful environment. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 3: Hope you approve. Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Our next speaker, Peter Dreyfus. Now, did you. You could wait and be the last speaker you could go. Now it's up to you. And we may very well be calling you back later. All right. Go ahead. Speaker 3: Madame Mayor. Council people. Wolfgang Brink is just way too modest. If you Google him, you'll find 86 pages. World famous man who wrote the book on Illusion Native Arts. Thanks for this hearing. I signed a lease for a five year renewal out there at Building 29 about two and a half months ago. And I. Speaker 9: Thought I would show up tonight. Speaker 3: And just see a rather pro-forma signature by the city attorney. But as it turned out, about 28 hours ago, I got a letter. From The Net saying that the Sierra Club was a little bothered by our continued presence there for longer than two years. Now I could go on and on and tell you how great the building is and what we all do there. I personally am a steel sculptor. If you come out and I invite you all out there, you'll see my sculptures out in the sculpture garden, etc., etc.. But most of the guys there actually make a living doing high tech, very precise cad cam engineered machining work. And in the letter that I distributed, you'll find a list of the clients who go from MoMA to the new Giant Stadium in Santa Clara to Clorox, etc., etc.. Speaker 4: I'm sorry. Speaker 3: I'm sorry. Speaker 4: If you still haven't. Speaker 3: Visited. Oh, terrible. So I just want to rebut the letter that the Sierra Club issued, and I assume you all have a copy of it. It makes an argument that the Raptors. Our crouched on our roof and gobbling up the valuable birds. But if you follow that line of reasoning. Because of our location next to the wetlands. We must then demolish all the buildings on monarch that face that way. And that's not going to happen. My biggest regret is that the early master planners of the future development out here, the redevelopment of the point. Just erased our building. We can't redraw our self into the map. Unfortunately. I accept that. But I would beg your indulgence for five, seven, ten more years. And why? This is a unique building that the Navy left. It costs 18 or $19 million. It is a deluxe facility with. A lot of beeps and overhead cranes. And it's a it's a wonderful machining building. And a few of my colleagues will tell you a bit more. Speaker 0: Thank you for your probably have speakers for you and you know so if you could hang around. We will be asking you. Thank you. Questions of thanks. All right. Andrea, Joe Hansen and then Thomas Bianco and then John Bouchet. Speaker 1: Hello. My name is Andrew Johansen and I represent a business that is in Building 29. It's called Alameda. Speaker 5: Of Wooden Trailers. Speaker 1: What we do is we create small recreational vehicles. Speaker 5: They're actually teardrop trailers in that traditional woody sense, and they are small enough and light enough to be towed behind a motorcycle. I'm an Alameda resident. My kids are here earlier, but. Speaker 1: Unfortunately, bedtime hit. My father is, uh, Thomas Bianco. Merlin. He's the other half of the business. Speaker 5: I'm the business side. He's the engineering side. And we love Building 29. It's been a wonderful opportunity to meet other artisans to hand our steel off to another part for specialty work, to look at the techniques that other woodworkers are doing. And it's been a wonderful environment. So I just would encourage you to do let us keep that amazing collaborative environment. Thank you. Speaker 0: Mr. Bianco. Speaker 3: Council members. I'm Thomas Bianco. I am the other half of element of wooden trailers. Peter Dreyfus. And I bumped into because somebody said the only thing we might have would be 5000 square feet of shop space. And we don't have any of that. We need 40,000. No, we build a trailer that will literally fit on top of that table. I'm building three of them right now in about 400 square feet. The ability for Peter to say, You know what, I like where you're going. And this looked like fun to me. We found a real home in 29 in the community. It's out there. Peter Dreyfus made it very easy for us to do what we hoped to do. If we're going to do this, we do it in Alameda, we create a business in Alameda. We go by all of the rules, all the numbers. I've been aerospace, manufacturing and engineering for 40 years. I have worked on or engineered. Just about everything you can think of somebody uses in a military. This is what I'm having a really fun time doing. I came off of a five year, five and a half year road trip. I had retired and we decided to do this here because we both love Alameda. I don't know if I'd have done it anywhere else if we had to go off island, because when we expand, we would hope to expand it. Not a whole lot. We don't want to be a major. We build a very custom product. We are artisans. I never thought of myself as that before, but I've got a particular way I want to do it and I sell a product. We try to sell a product that's the best we can because that's what we're proud of and that's one of the things we hope to continue. And when I start to bring in artisans to finish that work because I want to go play on the road, they're going to be in and out of this community, not just building 29, but the island. Thank you very much. Speaker 0: Thank you. Joan Bouchet, Kris here and I son. And then Sean Cronin. Speaker 5: Hello. Speaker 0: Hello. Good evening, Mayor Spencer. Speaker 1: City Council Member. City Staff. I'm John Boucher. You met my. Speaker 5: Husband earlier, Wolfgang, and I love going to building 29 because there's a rich craftsman culture there. Speaker 1: And people who have. Speaker 5: A reason to visit there. Speaker 1: Experience something wonderful and rare in our Urban Bay Area 2016 world. They get to be with the makers. They get to hang out with the people who are proud of what they're making. Speaker 5: Potentially for the. Speaker 1: Visitor. Hmm. Our building. 29 craftsmen like their neighbors in. Speaker 5: Spirit Alley. Speaker 1: Offers something meaningful to our Alameda community culturally and economically. And as someone who supports slow and well. Speaker 5: Contemplated growth for Alameda. I am here to request that unless you have. Speaker 1: A specific plan in progress. Speaker 5: For developing that site. Please don't hasten to close down Building 29. If the question tonight is whether. Speaker 1: To give them two or five years more. Make it five. Thank you. Speaker 0: Chris. Speaker 3: In the evening. Mayor Council members. My name is Christian Eisen and I have a company called Vector Pickle and I'm one of the tenants of Building 29. I am I don't consider myself an artist, but I am a craftsman and a manufacturer. I've been involved with industrial design and building things for pretty much all my life, and I run a business that out of Building 29 that is my livelihood and also employs other people, mostly on a part time basis at this time. But as as I need them. My clients include many names that you guys have heard, both locally and nationally, from Artemus Racing to Facebook to Old Navy. A lot of large and small customers and also a lot of local designers that are doing cutting edge work in furniture design and product design. My location in our building allows me kind of a unique perspective on the nature that goes around behind Building 29, which the Sierra Club is referring to. It has allowed me to observe the abundant and ever growing amount of wildlife out there. And I'm I've never ceased to be and may be amazed by how many animals are out there. We have geese, pelicans, hawks, even owls I've been startled by at night out there. Just the other day there were 20 herons standing next to the pond behind our building. Also out there are squirrels, rabbits, raccoons, occasional house cat, even some stray dogs. And they all seem to be thriving very well. There are raptors out there which the Sierra Club has referenced, and they do do what raptors do. And because of all the wildlife out there, that's why they're there. They they do go after most of the things they see them go after are the rabbits and the squirrels occasionally pigeons. I have not seen them do too many of the other birds, but it does happen, I'm sure, and that's kind of the natural way of things. Removing our building is not going to remove that. This is what this is what wildlife is. It's a natural occurrence. These birds nest our perch on our building. They perch on building 25, which is just down from us on the control tower, rock wall winery all down the row. It's it's a virtual smorgasbord for them out there. I mean, I hate to be blunt about it, but and removing our building is not going to change that. And I almost think that, you know, it's it's something that would allow people in Alameda to observe natural things going on. But I also want to say that this is not just a building full of people exploring their lives and doing pursuing their hobbies. This is viable businesses that employ people, that manufacture things for for companies in the Bay Area and beyond that desire our products. And I would urge you guys to please approve the five year lease and and let us stay there at least that long, if not longer. Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you, Sean. And then Irene Deeter and then Richard Baer. And then there are final speakers on this item. If you would like to speak on this, please submit your slip. Speaker 3: Good evening. Their council members. Thank you very much. You pronounce my name wonderfully, Sean Cronin. I am a tenant of Building 29, part of the community. It's it's been a pleasure being out there. I moved in five years ago when we when they moved over from the other space after being relocated. I had recently graduated from the California College of the Arts, sculpture and furniture major, destined to be a full time artist. That's my dream. And I've I have sacrificed a lot to do that as my my community, my friends, my fellow tenants. The building is my my livelihood. That space, that studio space, I make my living out of that space. The point they made earlier, Wolfgang made about relocating. Sounds easy for a big business. It's almost a killer for a small business if you're not prepared for it. Moving at this point, moving two years from now even is daunting. Five years is even scary, frankly. And we've moved into this space knowing that the the the redevelopment plan was in action. And I'm excited to see what's happening and the changes that have already been made. But knowing that my time in Alameda might come to an end, because that's kind of the first thing to go in a big redeveloped redevelopment plan. When I heard the news that that Google was renting the big space right over from us, I was equally as excited as I was concerned that all of a sudden these big companies are coming in and that my MySpace. The days were numbered. So seeing this letter yesterday was a was a surprise. Recently, I've just reconfigured my studio space, which is a small part in the front of the building to have a a clean area, a space where I can actually have regular open studios, as I've had a number of over the years. I'm now encouraging more people to come and see my space and see my practice and the fact that the fact that now, you know, I'm nearly done. I'm nearly going to paint the walls white. And we are looking at a termination or an early termination of this lease. It's just it's just scary. So I invite you all out to see my work, to see what we do in the space and see the community that's out there. That, again, the low rent that Peter's provided in the space has really kept me in the Bay Area, frankly. West Oakland, there's still some spots here and there were small scale artists is the starving artist. I hate to say that, but that's that's what I'm doing. You know, I know a few that can survive right now in West Oakland, but it's happening over the Bay Area that artists are getting pushed out as as as what happens. So. I just encourage you guys to. Extend our time there. Five years, as Peter said, seven years. Ten years. I mean, really, I think the. Thank you very much. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 1: Hello, Mayor and City Council. My name is Irene Dieter, and I'm here tonight to speak on behalf of the Sierra Club. We've sent you a letter which obviously the audience is aware of, too, which asks for us to shorten the term of the lease, to work with the tenant to find another location, and to set aside lease revenues from the building for demolition. And why did we ask for this? It's so that we're not here five years from now going through this exact same exercise. It's one thing for Dave Park to be on a planning map. It's another thing to follow that up with some action to actually make it happen. These tenants will eventually have to move if the city is serious about creating a wetland park there. So taking action tonight in some capacity to send a message to the environmental community that you are serious. It will. It will also show movement in that direction, and it will show funding agencies that Alameda is indeed ready to move forward with getting some grant funding. The timeframe of two years is not carved in stone. It was something that the Sierra Club did talk about very closely. We actually had the tenants in mind. We did it out of support to them because we felt that we wanted to give them first dibs on any available buildings out at Alameda Point before they're leased to somebody else. And we did not want them to be displaced should funding transpire in the meantime? Because I know that the lease, you can pull it at any time within five years. I think that's what it says in the least, that it's can be retractable at any time. And I was assuming that was because of in case funding is available for the to create the park. So we certainly wouldn't want to displace the tenants in a hurry and we definitely do not want to lose these tenants from Alameda Point. So the timeframe that we came up with was strictly in support of the tenants. And we it's unfortunate that it has come out that the Sierra Club is put in an animosity position because that was not our intention at all. It was to be supportive. So that counts if the council has another idea to make the deep Dave Park plans solidified tonight that coincides with this lease. We are of course, open to hear something else. But. But. To continue the status quo without any action tonight will just show that nothing is going to change on the ground . So we encourage you to do something tonight to show that you support De Pave Park. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. And Richard Banger. And he's our last speaker. Speaker 4: I just have a clarifying question was, um, we're not considering Dave Park tonight. Correct. Okay. Just the lease for building 29. Thank you. Speaker 3: Thank you, Mayor. Members of the council and city staff. This area on the west side of the seaplane lagoon. Currently there's a what I would call a conflict of interests. We have an approved plan, but we also have existing tenants. And. I want these tenants to stay at Alameda Point. Small businesses like like theirs. They need help. They need help more than Google does. Google Mcconney. Is gambling with stockholders money that they may have something to sell. The artisans at Building 29 are actually producing products. If people buy their viable business, they're not speculating that they might sell something. So I want them to stay. But the conflict here is that. The plan that was approved in 2014 for the waterfront at Alameda Point. That wasn't. Created by the Sierra Club or by any other single individual or group. It was created by a consultant that the city hired and paid a quarter of $1,000,000 to. So the plan was approved. Building 29 was not part of the long range plan. Now, I sympathize with with the the tenants and the landlord. It's not fun to move. But this, whether it's lease is two years, three years, four years or five years. It doesn't guarantee that they're going to be there five years from now, four years from now or three years from now. Because, number one, there's a clause in the lease that says either party can cancel the lease without cause. Running in tandem with that is if the city is successful in getting grant money to build the park. The approved plans say that the buildings can be torn down when funding is available for the park. So this lease will you if you approve, two years, three years, four years or five years? It's not guaranteeing that these businesses are going to be here in three, four or five years. In fact, if you don't start looking now, five years from now, they may be moving to Oakland, Hayward or Union City or who knows where . So you can't package all this into this lease. But I think it is a good time right now to start thinking about how are you going to make a positive step to start implementing Deep Park? And some people may say, well, just. Focusing on this one building. You're doing it piecemeal. Well, that hasn't stopped us from starting piecemeal with the sports complex. We're not going to wait till we have another $15 million to start sports complex. You know, there's $5 million coming from the developer side, and we're going to start that very soon. So we can take a small step here. And I hope you would figure out something that would get us on that path. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you very much. All right. So he's our last speaker on this item, council members and vice mayor. Speaker 3: I think the. Speaker 9: Two things that I want out out of this is one as I want the businesses to stay in Alameda point. And two is I want the park. And the park is in. The plan is a plan that was approved by this city after numerous public hearings and council approval. And it doesn't include Building 29. So one of the things that I'd like this council to consider is and I think the five year leases is appropriate for what might have to be done to accomplish both of these goals. When I was looking at the revenues that this lease would generate. It's about $250,000, give or take, over those five years of the cost of demolishing. Building 29 is about $300,000, give or take. And that's a key step in getting grants and paving paving the way for the park, the park opening the opening the process up to establish the park. That being said, I don't want to lose these businesses or this community from Alameda Point and there are other buildings at Alameda Point that could take this, but it's not an insignificant effort to move an operation like this. And that won't happen two years. So I think two years is an unrealistic time timeline. I think the five year lease gives us time to do a comp to do take steps to accomplish both of those goals. So I'm asking staff, oh, what would be the appropriate vehicles to to accomplish both of those goals with the goal number one, of moving the community to another location? Number two is removing Building 29. Setting the stage for expanding the wetlands and working on that southwest section of of this Pave Park. Speaker 4: Can I just ask a question that follows along with that? We've been talking a lot about or hearing a lot about Dave Park, and as I understand from Ms. Wooldridge, who is both interim assistant city manager, but also the director of Recreation Parks. That's a park that is under her department's jurisdiction. Could we just hear a little bit from her about the funding and just to enlighten all of us in making her decision. Speaker 0: A good that. Speaker 3: Until you hear the. Speaker 0: Answer, I think it's appropriate to let the vice me. Speaker 4: Go. Okay. I think it's all related, but sure. Speaker 9: But I would like to take this in steps. And one of the things that I'd like to to understand is because one of the thoughts that occurred to me is, is the lease revenues that come from this building and be set aside for the demolition of the building. Speaker 0: So I'd like to focus first on Mike Tyson shares comments. I think it's important to let the. Speaker 1: Yes. Okay. So two questions. One, about relocation of existing tenants. And I'm going to refer that question to Ms.. Marcano about what is available out there. And I'm sure she's been thinking about this, the removal of Building 29 and the proceeds. I would like to speak to that. I'll let her talk first. But I think it is related to vice mayor or excuse me, Councilmember Ashcraft question about other things we have in our list of priorities on parks. But I'll reserve that until Mr. McConnell is done. Speaker 0: And I really want us to focus on the vice mayor's comments. Questions first. We can take them in order. Thank you. Speaker 1: Good evening, Annette Mchunu from the Community Development Based Fees Department. So relocating the existing tenants, that's always a priority for staff because it's the best economic strategy is to retain businesses versus going to try to recruit new businesses. I'm. They're currently in our stock. There probably isn't a building that would meet the this this use. However, we are negotiating with a tenant a a developer who does exactly what these leases creates these creative spaces. It's not a food and beverage focus. And so there might be opportunity to do some sort of transition from building 29 to this new tenant if that lease is approved by the council. That would be the only thing that could potentially, I think, meet the needs. I mean, the thing that most people think about allow me to point is that, oh, we got all those buildings. But we are actually in the process of moving people out of buildings to make way for development. So. So our our stock is shrinking. And also these these tenants need they have a specialized need with overhead cranes and and also the ability to locate these uses next to each other. The requirement of the structure has to be just right. So because building 29 is this big concrete thing, it works for them. And so it is a priority for us to think about trying to relocate these tenants. Vice Mayor. And it is something that we will we will continue to make a priority and. There's some other things that we're trying to do to create more spaces at Alameda Point, more creative spaces, but I don't know quite the horizon for that. It's not it's not next year. It might be in the next five years. Speaker 0: Vice Mayor, did you have. Speaker 9: No, I think Ms.. McConnell's last comment about the five year time frame. Is is two years is not enough to accomplish what? It would take to meet that goal. It would take something more perhaps in the next five years. Thank you. Speaker 0: Okay. And then you had questions for. Speaker 1: Right. So the second question, which is about removing Building 29 and and taking the proceeds over over the five year period to demolish Building 29. So I'm sure those proceeds are spoken for and I'm looking at Miss Ott. But I think the larger question is really for us on staff, and I think this is where Ms. Wooldridge can chime in here, which is we have some already some significant priorities in the area of parks and just to name a few, Jean Sweeney Cruise Park, which has been on the drawing board for a very long time . We have estuary park, we have internal boat ramp. Those are all things that are already have we've already been directed to make sure those things are happening. Adding on to that now is Deep Park. Now does it mean that we are not permitted to be D Pave Park? But there's only so much that we can do in the time that we have and with our limited resources. So I'm just putting that out there to this council. So you recognize we have a very serious plight not only to construct parks, but then to maintain them there. Speaker 9: Yes, and I understand that. And I think the horizon for executing D Pave Park in the Wetlands is a long one and we have to take steps to it. And I don't want to I would rather apply the logic that we did when we. I spent $1,000,000 to buy the Beltline and invest the million plus in the legal costs to get us in the position to buy that. Even though we were strapped then because having 22 acres of park in the middle of the city was worth it and it's a long horizon. We're also it's not a question of whether staff is committed or this council's committed. Our plan commits us to this park. And unless this council or a future council changes that plan, we're committed. So I'd like to get the ball rolling and. Make sure that we've got real milestones that that put us along the path to get us to the park and the time that it will take to provide the time that it will be needed to provide money to maintain the park. It's quite a ways out. But unless we start putting the pieces together, just like the acquisition of the Beltline property that sets up Jane Sweeney Park, the act was the execution of this plan depends on that building going away. Speaker 1: So what I would recommend, because we're talking money and money does come into your conversation soon because we're going to be doing, starting in March, our mid-cycle review for our next fiscal year, $250,000 is a significant amount of money. And so I think what we can do is I can ask Ms.. Ott and Ms.. Marcano to take a look at that. But I mean, that means that now that money is not going into the base reuse department. And so there are other things that will have to come off the table. So that's something that this council has to decide if that's a priority, and we can bring it back at that time. All right. Speaker 0: Any other council members member. Did you want to speak now? Speaker 7: I'm just not sure if we're ready to have that discussion today as part of the lease. I mean, I think I'm happy we should consider the lease, you know, on its own, within the four corners of the lease, and then kind of defer that that discussion to another time without making any commitment. I mean. The exact number is 258 to 4708. Just because I did add it up. Tony sorry to do it, if that's okay. But, you know, I see nothing that I've heard today that would make me want to vote against this lease. I mean, I think these are the type of jobs that we want to not only create in Alameda with our maker spaces and our incubator spaces, but these are the jobs we want to keep in Alameda. And I haven't I have yet to hear a plan. Mr. McConnell. You said we don't have a space for for these businesses now. So I mean. I'm perfectly happy with going with the five year lease and ready to vote to approve it. Speaker 0: Member de. Speaker 2: SAC. Thank you. The question before us tonight is whether to move forward with the lease or not, whether to move forward it as is or or not. And in a modified or in a modified fashion, I think the answer to that question stands on its own. I think this is a valuable project. I think the type of activity that's there is the type of activity that not just here in Alameda Point, but in the United States that we want to encourage in order to encourage small, artisanal craft manufacturing. You need to build the appropriate space for for such activities. It's very difficult. And fortunately, at Building 29, a number of like minded entrepreneurs found a place where they can work with each other and as indicated by the homemaker, you know, work with nature as well. So I think for me, the answer to the question is that we should move forward. I would encourage vice mayor, Battery City or I don't know if you or council member Ashcraft, if they're so interested on a parallel track separate from this, to move forward with some kind of council community referral as to how to begin to implement the DE Pave Park. But at least, you know, we would have started this. So. I'm ready to move forward. Speaker 0: Remember Ashcroft? Speaker 4: Thank you, Mayor Spencer. Thank you for all the speakers. Whenever I'm out and about and this week, I've had an opportunity to visit some other job sites in our city and the main island. Not at all made a point, but it was really intriguing hearing from all of you. And I am going to Google you, Mr. Brink, but the we have a lot of talent here in Alameda. And I do think that added Alameda point, we have a rather unique situation when you just think of all the creativity that's going on from the high tech to the Spirit Valley and the food and beverage purveyors and these artisans and craftspeople. And we I know a number of us on the council are concerned about the loss of jobs in the face of development. This is a little bit different because, yes, this is the future site of a park, but I don't see the D paved park plan and a five year lease for Building 29 is mutually exclusive propositions. I spent a little time talking with Jeannot this week is the zero added Alameda point and and I also talked from to Ms. Wooldridge from time to time. We, we definitely have this park and many others on the horizon. It's another conversation for this council to make if we're going to take away money from the parts that are already in the queue. But Ms. Wooldridge is also quite a genius at getting us grant funding and perhaps the Sierra Club can be out there beating the bushes too. I don't know what all the opportunities are for funding, but the point is that the work will most likely be done in phases when it comes to doing the park and there's nothing that says the first phases can't take place farthest out from the building. And so at this point in time, I, I prefer to follow the recommendations of our staff. They're out there on a daily basis. They know the situation. And yes, our lease revenues are spoken for. If we decide to defer divert them for some years, that's a council decision, just not before us tonight. But at this point in time, I could not support eliminating jobs and lease revenue. And again, these are unique uses that are have found their their way to Alameda point it's it's recycling it's free use of existing buildings and so I'm going to support this ordinance in the five year term. And then I just want to add a little footnote. This is directed to you, Ms.. And Ms.. Mercado. You know, you've done a couple of really cool tours out to Alameda Point. We did a bicycle tour one time and we did a walking tour maybe a year ago. So maybe the next time we do a tour, if we could. And if you all would be willing, it sounds like you'd be willing to open your doors and have the public come in, because I don't want you to be the best kept secret in town. I think not only our local residents, I think folks in the in the surrounding Bay Area would be very interested to see see what you're doing out there and maybe become your customers. So that's that's my ask. Thank you. But I'm prepared to support this. Speaker 0: So when you look at Deep Park, I have a question. So I think it was last council meeting, we had the speaker come and say that I think this is the area where they want to drive back. This is the area where you cut through the. Was it here it is right here. Okay. So this so personally, I would like us to try to take steps. While the building is there to make this area more accessible to the public. Speaker 1: We're in the process of removing the pedestrian gate to allow cars to go through. Speaker 0: Okay. So I think that's a big step. So I appreciate that. And then we'll be able to take pictures to that because that was another complaint that we've heard periodically. Speaker 1: Currently, people can walk through there and this was the area that we put the fencing in to try to prevent vandalism, car shows, things like that. But we hear the public and we hear from you. We want to make it more accessible. So we are going to to make it car accessible. Speaker 0: Okay. So I appreciate that. And that's important to me and I think it's important to our public. And so stop thinking that we have to demolish this building in order for the public to have access to this area. Is is not true. We are working on giving this area more accessibility, you know, giving the public more accessibility to this area. And I think that is a big step in regards to this building. I've never been inside this building. I appreciate Member Ashcroft's idea. Maybe it could be like an open house or something. I don't even know that the city has to be involved in it, but I know that I've been there are open, you know, open studios throughout town, different artists have. So maybe it's more like just like an open studio or something like that. That doesn't necessarily have to involve staff in regards to staff's plan of our steps moving forward with this park. I think that that's. Separate issue, and I don't know when that will circle back. But I do know that and I that we have many other parks, that we have a lot of work to do, significant work and. This is just one of them. So I think maybe it would be appropriate at some point to show us what the plan is. But there really is a plan. And not only is it limited money, it's also limited staff time. And we really do want the parks to be done well. And so I don't think you can doing all of them at once, as much as we'd like to have that done. But that doesn't mean that we won't get to this just like it doesn't mean that we're never going to get to cruise the park even then, I think, which is where I live near. We've been waiting since my kids were little and now they're, you know, in their twenties. So sometimes it takes a while to get to these parks. It doesn't mean that we're giving up on our parks. It just means that for us in this manner, you know, we have so much staff and so much money. So I do plan to support this and I appreciate trying to open up this area so that the public can have access in the meantime. And I'm confident that this doesn't that moving forward with this lease doesn't mean that we're not committed as a city to Deep Pave Park. And I am concerned about trying to find new space or these tenants. I think it's very important, as you've heard from other council members and I'm sure you'll hear from our community, we like having these craftsmen here. And so that to me has to be part of moving, trying, trying our hardest as a staff to accommodate them somewhere so that we don't lose that part of who Alameda is. But I do think that's real important. So I appreciate staff's effort, too, and trying to help them figure out how to relocate. And then I think it I think that they can stay there until we need them to move. I don't think we need to demolish the building way ahead to being able to do anything else. And I think we can. Get access and improve access while the building is there operating supporting our craftspeople. Yes. Speaker 9: So a question to staff, maybe the city attorneys. How do we get that? That sentiment, the sentiment that that building is not going to be there forever. And at some point people are going to have to leave people who we want to have at Alameda Point. How do we get that high on the priority list so that there's a report back so that there's progress toward that goal? We have a five year window with this lease. So I personally am asking the question if we have this five year window with this lease. Speaker 3: How do we. Speaker 9: And I and from Mitch McConnell said it's going to take five plus years. How do we get that so that it's it's not just something that slips to the bottom of the pile, but is something that we actually accomplish as a goal. Speaker 0: I think you do counsel referral because at this point I'm not. Speaker 9: Asking the staff. Speaker 3: To give direction. Speaker 0: Yeah, I'm sorry. Would that be in the form of a council referral? But because I don't think you really I don't think there's necessarily three councilmembers that want to prioritize demolishing the building ahead of being able to help it with the paperwork. Speaker 1: It doesn't sound like that's what the vice mayor is suggesting. I think he's just suggesting he wants to make sure that the tenant he just wants to make sure that the tenants recognize that at some point, you know, we won't be renewing their lease. Is that. Speaker 9: That's correct. Speaker 1: Right. I think that's just want to moralize that. Speaker 0: But I think that's already in the plan. No, I don't know. Speaker 1: Let me just. Speaker 5: A comment was made about being able to terminate the lease. There is a provision in the lease that either party on 12 months notice can terminate the lease. But so that I understand. But I think the point is that they have heard you. They've clearly heard you. They're all here nervous and telling you how nervous they are. So I think the tenants understand you've heard this Mchunu tell you how she's working with trying to come up with a plan on where to move these people. So my recommendation would be not to try to do anything different to the lease, but go forward in approvals and that you will hear back from staff. And I think what the city manager was suggesting is we don't necessarily need a council referral. We heard you will come back and report in leasing, leasing program and projects how we're. Speaker 3: Moving forward with that. Speaker 9: Oh, okay. I, I understand that. And I think the five year lease is something I support. It's though I want the parallel track to be a little bit more than coming back and reporting to us. I'd like to. I'm asking you what it's going to take to make it a priority and a priority, among other priorities that's ranked somewhere. Speaker 4: And just for clarification, that the priority you're speaking about is the paved park. Speaker 9: It's related to the paved park. It's more directly related to Building 29. Speaker 0: That is demolishing the building or is it figuring out where a deep park is in relation to other parks? Speaker 9: We know. Speaker 0: That's what I'm not sure what you're speaking. Speaker 1: About. Speaker 9: It's demolishing the building. Speaker 0: Okay, so that's what I thought they might get about. But let me. So that's the first I want to clarify. You're really asking, how do we prioritize demolishing the building? Speaker 3: Mm hmm. Speaker 0: Okay. So that's why I said earlier that I don't think that we necessarily have three votes to prioritize demolishing a building ahead of coming up with when we're actually going to need the building demolished. In regards to how does that fit in with the building of the paved park? Because I personally would not want to demolish a building just to have it be demolished when we haven't figured out when we're going to be able to do bigger improvements that require that. I think there are things that we can do to make that area more accessible. And we have a lot of other park work we're doing. So so that's why I was saying that. I don't know if that's the ask, how do we prioritize that? I would think it does need to be a referral. Speaker 9: It backs it back up a little bit from that because. If we have five years of five year lease and at the end of that five years we have no plan for what happens, then it kind of rolls out and the part gets rolled out with it because. That that building is right next to the wetland. And part of the removal of that building is a key in getting outside funding to expand that wetland. So I think that it's not as simple as I just want the building torn down. That's its that's not it. I want to make sure that when the building is ready to be taken down, we don't have a problem with losing tenants. Speaker 5: So Vice Mayor Matt, R-S.C.. I think the mayor is actually right. We are now veering too far off of what we have on the agenda. Speaker 9: And there'll be a council referral. Speaker 0: That made that yes member. Speaker 7: I'd like to move approval of the ordinance approving a lease and authorizing the city manager to execute documents necessary to implement the terms of a five year lease for the Dreyfus Capital Partners of California LLC for Building 29, located at 1701 Monarch Street at Alameda Point second grade. Speaker 0: Any Council comments? All those in favor. I. I. Motion carries unanimously. And it's just this is require a second reading. I'll come back, right? Yes. Speaker 9: To second reading. Speaker 0: Now settle. Come back. All right. We are moving through this agenda. We've made it to item six tonight. Speaker 4: By. Speaker 1: Regulation recommendation to approve the AC Transit Service Expansion Plan, Buena Vista Avenue Line 19.

Regular Agenda Item

Introduction of Ordinance Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a 5-Year Lease with Dreyfuss Capital Partners, a California Limited Liability Company, for Building 29 Located at 1701 Monarch Street at Alameda Point. [Requires four affirmative votes] (Base Reuse 819099)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_02022016_2016-2507

Speaker 1: Regulation recommendation to approve the AC Transit Service Expansion Plan, Buena Vista Avenue Line 19. Speaker 5: Good evening, Madam Mayor and members of the City Council. I am Gayle Payne, the city's transportation coordinator. And this agenda item is pertains to AC Transit Service Expansion plan and we are in a fortunate position and that AC Transit can fund one additional bus line in the city of Alameda. And they have provided us with three options. And the city the city staff, as well as the Transportation Commission, recommend city council approval of the Buena Vista Avenue. That's one of the three routes. And we had Transportation Commission. They actually approved this last week. And so verbally, we're providing you with their responses. And the second bullet and the third bullet pertained to two additional requests for your approval. And one has to. The second bullet has to do with funding. Should stay local. If in the future AC transit were to cut and a bus line in Alameda. Then those savings should be placed into an addition. And only within the city of Alameda. The last bullet has to do with transfers between bus lines are no longer free. And so to cost out what it would take to have free transfers for Alameda is for clipper card holders. So those are the two additional requests that the Transportation Commission requested last week of you. So I'm giving that as a verbal. And so I just want to step back a little bit and just provide a brief a brief overview of the service expansion plans, goals, AC transit. With this expansion plan plan, they want to increase frequency, increase reliability. And keep in mind that back in 2010, they were forced to reduce bus service because of the economic downturn. So now we are in a very fortunate position with the passing of Measure B in November 2014, it increased the transportation sales tax from half cent to one $0.01. And so that allows this service expansion plan to occur. AC Transit staff drafted a plan. They held community meetings, one in Alameda in October of last year and then in November held public hearings. They were going to AC Transit Board was going to be requested to approve this plan in December. They did postpone that until this January. And it turns out they did approve the service expansion plan. However, they did vote to postpone the three Alameda alternatives to allow for the city of Alameda time to provide our highest priorities as a formal votes for a transportation commission. They did that this week, and that's what we're asking you to do tonight. And then the transit board, they will approve in spring. And then this additional bus line will run either starting in summer or in December. What is he transit board did do? They did approve the service expansion plan. A few items did pertain to alameda. One is to maintain the existing line o alignment on santa clara and also to modify line 31. And this map shows that line 31, which is the west end line would. Travel in Alameda landing. And it also would be changed to go to Lake Merritt Bart and Laney College. And that allows for students traveling between College of Alameda and Laney College to just take one bus line to get between the two schools. And that happens quite frequently. Students take classes at both schools. The third change for line 31 is now it goes directly to Highland Hospital, and that's our trauma center. So that's really important here in East Oakland. So that's that would be. City of Alameda is one and only direct bus line to Highland Hospital. Back to the postponed alternatives. There are three alternatives options that AC transit has presented us. We need to choose one and the first two pertain to across island connections to the Main Street Ferry terminal. The second one pertains to restoring line 19 along the northern waterfront property development area. I was going to go real quickly through the three maps. This alternative number one is the first Main Street ferry terminal Cross Island connection. And it starts will start here at Main Street Ferry Terminal. It goes right. It would run down stargell, Webster Street and then go by with school in the shoreline area where the dense housing is. And then Fruitvale Bart. The second Main Street Ferry Terminal, Cross Island Connection. Again, it would start. Main Street Ferry terminal. Instead of going stargell webster. It would go. Main Street. And by the academy. And in front of internal high school and central. And then loop down to Fruitvale. Bart. The third and last alternative is the Northern Waterfront Alternative Restoring Line 19 along Buena Vista Avenue. And it would start instead of Main Street Ferry Terminal. It would start in downtown Oakland, where the downtown Oakland BART is run along Buena Vista Avenue to Fruitvale Bart. No staff and Transportation Commission. We we do recommend city council approval of the alternative number three, which is appoint a Vista Avenue alternative. We feel like it has more potential to relieve congestion because of all the connections in downtown Oakland, Easy Transit connections as well as downtown Oakland BART. And there's also partnership opportunities with the developers. So AC Transit has they have enough money for a 30, 30 minute frequency with potential developer contributions. During peak periods, we can increase that frequency to say 20 minutes. And so that's a true public private partnership and that's much better we see than a bunch of different private shuttles that only are are meant for the individuals living in the new developments and for the street crossing shuttle right now. STAFF We go after grants every year, every other year to keep that shuttle running. It's we're really cobbling money together. It's not a long term solution to a better long term solution, we feel, is to hand pass the baton over to AC Transit. We do support the creation of a Cross Island connection to the Main Street Ferry terminal. We do look forward to continued partnerships with AC transit as well as the ferry folks, the Water Emergency Transportation Authority, to continue to look for revenue sources and to really figure out what that route should be. Because there's we've had several requests from the Academy School and Tunnel High School and would school to have a Cross Island connection. And maybe there's a way to to meet all of their needs. The budget comes from Measure B, B and potentially developer contributions. If we can get that frequency up during the peak periods, that's that's how that could happen. And then the city would pay for the cost of restoring those bus stops and also making them accessible. And again, the recommendation, city staff recommendation, along with Transportation Commission requesting city council approval of that Cannabis Two Avenue Northern Waterfront development route with the additional Transportation Commission requests to have the funding stay local and also to cost out free transfers for Alameda. And that's the end of the report. If you have questions. I also wanted to say Jennifer. She is the management staff on this has been supporting me as well as Andrew Thomas. So we've been working together as a team on this effort. We have Robert Del Rosario of AC Transit here in the audience. He is available to answer questions. He's the planning director. Thank you. Thank you. Speaker 0: A staff, do we have any speakers on this? All right. I have. Speaker 9: A question. Speaker 0: Vice Mayor. Speaker 9: A a question on the BP moneys that are funding this extension or this addition, are those Al Alameda City designated moneys? Speaker 5: Okay. So district wide, what AC transit has is enough money for a 14% increase district wide. And so what what that provides in the city of Alameda is one additional bus line running at a 30 minute frequency. Speaker 9: So it's not that funding wasn't specific for Alameda, but the proportion that the money provided in additions. This is our portion of that. Speaker 5: Correct. Speaker 9: And this will start, if I understand correctly, in the summer cycle when they make the route change. Speaker 5: Early in the summer cycle. And then it could be. Speaker 9: And that's why we have to meet now, make the decision now so that they can hit that window. Correct. And not defer it to the fall cycle. Speaker 5: That's that's what we're trying to do. Speaker 9: Thank you. Speaker 0: Real quick. As my understanding, the vice mayor and member de SOG are council members that serve on this committee. So they were able to weigh in on this plan. Speaker 5: Right. And so we do have an inter liaison committee between city council member representatives, as well as the transit board member. And we've had a October meeting and January meeting. We talked about this item. Speaker 9: Yes. And Madam Mayor, just to fill you in, because I think you were on your way to Washington. I gave the report. Is that councilmember disorganized? And I were both at the liaison committee when AC Transit made the request to Alameda to make a decision on the three options and a staff had. Had arranged it so that the Transportation Commission could do their review and make a preference so that it could come to us before that deadline that AC Transit had of March, so that we could get in the summer cycle because they do route changes in the summer, in the fall. And if we missed that window, we would miss out on our 14% of Measure B money for like six months. So without it. Speaker 0: When you're speaking says, is this something that this is what you wanted. Speaker 9: This is what we. Speaker 3: Would be asked. Speaker 9: To take back to this this council to make this decision? Speaker 0: Yes. So this was your because I know you go to these meetings. This is why I want to just confirm that this was the last one. Speaker 9: Yes. Speaker 4: All right. Speaker 9: 19 council member days. Speaker 2: Well, thank you. Right. Let's see. I just want to begin by saying a big thank you to AC Transit staff member who is here, Mr. Dela Rosa Rosario, as well as the board members, Mr. Chris Peoples and and and Mrs. Ortiz on the board on inter liaison on board with Alameda and AC Transit. And I also believe, I guess officially winter the water transit is there to or at least to attend the meetings. So we really appreciate them giving us this time to go over these three items. Back in, I believe, late fall staff presented this issue earlier, the recommendation of which was to go with the the bringing back the 19 line. At that time, I felt that I agreed with staff. And let me just make sure to say that tonight I still agree with staff. I recognize that residents would like to see the two lines that go towards the shuttle. But my understanding is at least one of the lines isn't a new line altogether. But it's it's it's an enhancing a line that that's already there. But it's just, you know, change, maybe modifying the route and giving it more frequency. But nonetheless, we wouldn't be taking away that line. But the challenge, though, is along the northern waterfront, there was a light line 19. And in my opinion, this is an area that is underserved when it comes to bus transit. In addition, as we all know, development is contemplated in that area and we will need to have reliable transit solutions. So on that note, two quick two related questions is one is. The 19 lines. Should it be re re done? Will it altogether relieve the developer of, say, the Del Monte Project or its now terminals or any other projects in that area? Relieve them of providing a physical shuttle, but instead have them contribute towards this new line. 19. A And the related question, follow up is B. I see that you're you're referencing a 20 minute headway, which is better than a 30 minute headway. But is there any calculations as to what it would take to get us to a 15 minute headway on 19? If the 19 is to be renewed. So thank you. Speaker 5: Okay. So let me take the first question about the developers and that they have requirements, transportation demand management requirements, program requirements. Each development is a little bit different in the northern waterfront area, and yet they all have a transit requirement, so to provide some type of transit. And so the idea is that instead of providing their own shuttle peak period shuttle, that they would contribute to an AC transit and improve the AC transit route and to be in partnership. And we think that for the money that they're providing for the shuttles and it's just during their district wide peak period and that they we can get up to 20 minute frequency and and this they still would need to work with AC transit and now together with a memorandum of understanding with them to do that. But they we do have one letter of support from Tim Lewis and that says that we look forward to partnering with AC Transit to make this line a success. So we and they're the developer for the Del Monte Warehouse Project and it's an all terminals property. Speaker 2: Let me just quickly say, while I would love to see a 15 minute headway, I'm not tonight going to suddenly, you know, demand that we have a 15 minute headway. But I just want to know that that that perhaps that's something to consider if there's a funding or when it comes to negotiating further with the developers. The final question is the maps that you had as the night. If the 19 is to be renewed, does it go up Webster Street after cutting through or does it go up constitution? Speaker 5: So we're that's one request that we did provide to the is to AC transit is that line 19 we would want it to restore to go through marina village and so that we could try to capture more potential development monies and developer requirements there. And that's also where Calder of Alameda they have an annex and so to try to connect keep the connection between valley MI two annex and college of Alameda. That would be a goal as well. Speaker 2: Thank you. Speaker 9: We were cautioned. We were cautioned that we're not tweaking these plans. This is not a hearing to redesign the route. This is a hearing to pick one. Speaker 0: Member Ashcraft. Speaker 4: Thank you. And so I think you may have answered the question that councilmember did suggest that. I notice that on page eight of the staff report talks about an opportunity exists to pursue a partnership between AC transit, the city of Alameda in the northern waterfront PDA developments whereby the developments would provide operating funds for the line to increase frequency to 20 minutes. So that's what you're talking about, which I think is good. And also, when you talk about Marina Village, we all heard the exciting news recently that cost Plus is moving its headquarters from Oakland in about a year from now, I think, and bringing with it 400 jobs. And so, you know, presumably some of those folks will be will be riding the bus. I hope they'll decide to live in Alameda, too. Or maybe they already do. I you know, this is one of those items where you wish there were more money because all of the alternatives sounded good. However, I place huge stock in what our transportation commission, our council members on the liaison committee are recommending. I know that, you know, if there were more money, it would be nice to be able to serve some of these school routes, the ferry terminal, certainly. But I do recognize that the Northern Waterfront and Buena Vista are are not currently served by busses. And we do have new development already going in there. A long way to Vista. So I think that this can help alleviate some of that traffic. And I also want to just extend a thank you to AC Transit staff, Mr. Del Rosario and the two AC Transit Board members, as Ortiz and Mr. Peeples, who came to Alameda several times to meet with the different council members and answer all of their questions. So I am certainly prepared to support this this recommendation for the staff's choice and Transportation Commission's choice of the Restoring the Line 19. Thank you. Speaker 0: Everybody. Speaker 7: Thank you. Just a couple quick questions for you. So can we where can we clarify with this encompassing the existing estuary crossing shuttle service actually means to the estuary shuttle? I mean, is it going away then or. Speaker 5: Right. So right now it's been in operation since 2011 11. Speaker 7: Yeah. Speaker 5: And it goes between Lake Merritt Bart and West Alameda and it turn it and Marina Village and it turns around at Wind River. Wind River does contribute 20,000 a year towards that shuttle. And the majority of that money, which is about 200,000 a year budget comes from grants. And it's it's always we're always cobbling together to try to fund that shuttle. And it's been a great way to close the gap in that area and to provide better service for bicyclists because there's ten we retrofitted the bus, so ten bikes can be on board at one time. And yet it's. It's not the best long term solution and that the air district is no longer looking to fund shuttles as much as they have in the past. And that's where a lot of our moneys have come from. So this line 19, the route would be very similar and on the west part and within we're hoping within Marina Village. So it would capture those riders that are currently using it and the Wind River monies would go into increasing the frequency of that restored line 19. Speaker 7: So are they going to have a goal that the 20,000? Is that a commitment or is that a maybe or. Speaker 5: For Wind River, you mean? So that's a special situation that happened a long time ago. That Wind River is required as part of their transportation demand management moneys to provide us about 20,000 a year to the city directly. So it is up really up to us how we want to use that money. Yet we want to work with Wind River. So we we want to sit down with them and see if they want to maybe be part of a of an upcoming transportation management association and maybe have their moneys go to that entity that would then fund fund to improve a. Improved peak service, AC Transit, peak service and restored line 19. So that's one option or it's or the city could provide those monies directly. So there's there's options moving forward with that money from winter. Speaker 7: So I think I understood from my colleagues that questions that there would be contributions from the developer to help with this line too. So it doesn't hurt overall this line 19 restore cause less for AC transit because if you put wind river money in there if you put. Speaker 5: Right so all these developer that's a that's a good point is they have enough money in transit to fund one additional bus line at 30 minute frequencies. If we have developer moneys that would improve that and we're thinking for peak periods, say up to 20 minutes is what we're hoping to achieve. So that's what the developer money is would do is to improve the frequency during peak periods. Speaker 7: And one more question. This is more for AC transit, because one thing that concerns me about this alternative recommendation is that we're not servicing the ferry terminal. So, I mean, there's kind of a wishy washy, washy comment in the staff report that we asked them to continue to commit staff resources to plan across island connection to the main street ferry terminal to make what what is AC transit willing to commit on that today. Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 3: Good evening, Robert De Rosario, Director of Service Development. So all these you translate has that we can't commit financially is to the additional one route for shall be can't commit to two other things but we're happy to explore funding. Speaker 8: Options with city of. Speaker 3: Alameda with we to look at different policies that we can encourage more revenue to be generated maybe from parking or some other revenue sources. Speaker 7: So I mean, not to be harsh or anything. So then staff request that you commit staff resources on transit side to plan. I mean, is this basically. Sorry, we don't have the funding and we're not going to do that. Speaker 3: I mean, the operating funds. Speaker 9: Do not exist for easy transit to do. Speaker 3: Although we love all three options, we do not have the revenue right now to do all all three. So we are asking the Council to select. Speaker 7: One or even two to continue to plan this Cross Island connection. Speaker 3: Oh, we're constantly in coordination with Alameda staff on planning efforts. So yes, we would. We are committed to actively, actively planning and refining plans to figure out a way that we can serve the free, but we don't have the operating dollars to actually provide the bus on the road. Speaker 7: Okay. Thanks for clarifying. Speaker 5: I mean, just add to that is that we are trying to come up with some funding options and one of which on us is how to generate money, additional moneys. And so we're we're looking and that's what we're brainstorming right now actively with them. And one could be charging for parking to try to generate that revenue. And and then we can brainstorm a little bit more about what else to do on that. Speaker 7: Okay. But just that should be a priority of AC transit if we're going to adopt the restore of line 19. Speaker 0: Everyday. Speaker 2: So two quick points on the very interestingly on my office after the farmers market on Saturday, this past Saturday, I have the last Thursday of the month at Blue Danube Cafe on Park Street and also at the Saturday following Saturday. Interestingly, there were four separate occasions when persons approached me about the ferry and and for the most part, I guess for whatever reason, there's a really big concern about the ferry down by along the estuary about parking. So that seems to be a hot button issue. And in talking about busses, not everyone, but I think two of them mentioned that their experience with busses in the past is that sometimes the busses are on such a tight schedule. I mean, it is just the way it is. And sometimes it doesn't necessarily work for the or the persons there. So if there were to be busses that go to this to the ferry, that one of the things that needs to be considered is making sure that bus drivers kind of understand that ferry people don't just come on and go off. And so so but the second issue I'm. Speaker 0: Sorry to interrupt, I need to make have this motion made before 1030 and that clock is actually wrong. 1031 So, so we need a motion to consider. We actually have these remaining items 60 for the environmental cleanup, 6fa conveyance, six g rent and then we have two referrals and we need four affirmative votes. We have a motion moved. So all those in favor of. Speaker 7: How many of these are mandatory? Speaker 0: Correct. And I appreciate that. How many of these do we need to have heard tonight? Speaker 1: So we have existing. Speaker 4: That could be. Speaker 1: Moved. We have a guest on 66 F is. Virginia. We need to do that and we have to do rent stabilization. If you want to continue on the 16th and the referrals are probably the only thing that. Speaker 0: What about the referrals. Speaker 1: We can we could, we know. Speaker 4: Use a. Speaker 2: Referral. Speaker 3: I. Speaker 2: I, i. Okay. There we. Speaker 3: All right. Speaker 2: The second point that I want. Speaker 0: To mention, Karis, thank you. You know, unanimously. Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you. Speaker 2: The second point that I want to raise is that in mentioning the bus going up Webster Street, it wasn't because I, you know, want to see a redrawn route for the 19 if it's to be adopted. I was just wanting to mention that, you know, as many people know, one of the things I've been doing since August is kind of tracking how long it takes to go through the tube at various points in times and videotaping it. But one of the things that that works incredibly well is the bus lane. I mean, for example, you know, if you get to the intersection of Atlantic Avenue and Webster Street and going towards the posi tube at 755, more than likely it's going to take you 10 minutes to go from there to to get to the highway onramp. 880. But as you're in the lot, the largest part of your wait is really not through the tube. It's really queuing up along Webster Street in the direction of the tube. So it does work when suddenly you see the bus go by. And and for those persons who are taking mass transit, I think it's appropriate that, you know, they're getting the this benefit. So that was the reason why I was mentioning Webster Street. Speaker 3: That's a good point. Thank you. Speaker 0: And I have a question. We received an email in regards to. Having the busses connect to BART or Ferry and will this route connect to any of those? Speaker 3: Yes. So it will connect on both ends on the southern southern end or eastern ideal connected through our station, then in northern western. And it'll go into downtown Oakland. Connected to Wall Street by station. Speaker 0: And actually I kind of misspoke because their question went went to why does the line have to go all the way across the island? Can there be other busses that are shorter taking you up Broadway, for instance, or down, down Webster as opposed to having to go across the island? Speaker 3: Yeah, I saw the email as well. It's I mean, I think when you think about the the planning of of routes within Alameda, you're probably most efficient ways to go from east to west because you can capture so much of the neighborhoods and so many of the neighborhoods and then get and get the passengers off of the island or to other destinations. I think if we did it the North-South way, we'd probably have to have a bunch more routes and it'd be less efficient. Speaker 0: Okay. So I appreciate that. And then in regards to connecting to the ferry, I thought there was discussion at some point just as trying to figure out as a city how to connect to Webster is something to connect to the ferry. And I do think it's important that we try to figure out a way to offer the bus service of the ferry, because that also connects to the shortage. We have not enough parking spaces. Um, so I appreciate that too. That being said, I also want to commend our council members who serve on this. I appreciate you representing representing our city there. And we have a motion. Speaker 3: To move. Speaker 1: That recommendation. Speaker 0: All those in favor. I motion carries unanimously. Thank you. Speaker 3: Thank you. Speaker 0: Next Item six. Speaker 1: EA Presentation on Status Report of Environmental Conditions and Cleanup at Alameda Point. And I'm sorry, I get your paraphrase. That's all. Speaker 11: Right. Good evening, Mayor. Councilmembers. I'm going to make a quick introduction. I know we're have a big agenda. This will make this quick. But because we're coming with the conveyance item, we usually every year also come to the council and to the community to give an update on the environmental program. And I'll make the point. So we're going to make it fast. And I guess the good news and you'll hear from our expert, the city's independent consultant, Peter Russell, that, you know, we are starting to we made the Navy's made a lot of progress and we're receiving a lot of land. And so there are the issues that are left to resolve are diminishing, which is good news. But the ones that are left are some of the harder ones, too. So Peter Russell is here to give you a quick update to answer questions. And then our next item is on the conveyance of phase two. So they are somewhat related as well. Thank you. Speaker 0: Very much. Wonderful. Thank you. Speaker 3: It evening mayor spencer city of alameda council members and it is peter russell. I'm an environmental consultant for the city. And I my job is to engage with the Navy and the regulators in the decision making for the environmental cleanup. Mm hmm. The the interest they have in working with me is that they want to know well in advance the ramifications of their decisions on cities ability to reuse the land. In addition, since I started working on this project in 1997, I've been there longer than any of the regulators and any of the Navy people that are working on it. So they usually give me a call when they don't know where to find something. And then finally I have the experience and the education to work on it. I have a Ph.D. in environmental engineering from Berkeley, and I worked on other large bases in Tustin and Fisker, Ford and other large, obvious projects like Mission Bay in San Francisco and the rail yards in Sacramento. So I am going to breezed through this rather quickly without reading every word because of the late hour. If you want to slow me down or ask questions, I guess that's fine. But the outline of the presentation is to go over the background history of the base a little bit and then discuss the various but the two important environmental programs that are being used to clean the base up. The status of the clean up and the transfer and land use covenants to restrict the land where that's necessary, where

Regular Agenda Item

Recommend Approval of the AC Transit Service Expansion Plan’s Buena Vista Avenue/Line 19 Alternative. (Public Works 310)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_02022016_2016-2493

Speaker 3: But the outline of the presentation is to go over the background history of the base a little bit and then discuss the various but the two important environmental programs that are being used to clean the base up. The status of the clean up and the transfer and land use covenants to restrict the land where that's necessary, where there's not unrestricted use. And then I'll touch briefly on the long term stewardship of the land. Next slide, please. I guess I can do that. Speaker 1: I can. Oh, I went the wrong way then. Speaker 3: Okay. So just so you know what Alameda used to look like in 1915, the Alameda point basically wasn't there. So. I guess I don't have a. Speaker 1: There's a laser. Speaker 3: There is I don't think have a battery in this either because they didn't advance it anyway. So. And the figure in the left, there's a North-South rail line or it looks like a road that's roughly where Main Street is today. And you can see there's very little land that is. Yes. So this is the only land that was original part of the island. From time to time, people would say, well, why doesn't the Navy just go in and clean it up the way it used to be? That would essentially involve removing Alameda Point, which nobody really wants. During World War two, the Navy started operations here. In 1940, they bought the land from the from the army, and they have expanded it considerably since the current outline over here goes something like this. It's roughly a third of the city of Alameda. The Navy did everything from soup to nuts here. When they were here, they did refueling of aircraft, refurbishing of aircraft maintenance, had a large residential operation, automotive repair. But a fuel handling. The total acreage is about four and a quarter square miles, but 2700 acres, about 40% of it's under water. The Feds decided to close the base in 1993, and the Navy actually left in 1997. So just for comparison of size, very briefly, on the left is a picture of like Merritt. On the right, of course, is me to point. Which is about 17 times the size of Lake Merritt. This. This is a little washed out, but this shows the. Various cleanup areas at Alameda Point. So what the Navy did originally, along with the regulators, has reviewed all the documentation that was available for Alameda Point, interviewed all sorts of people, decided where the potential to were problems and they investigated them, decided what to do about it if it wasn't clean. And then they have implementing the cleanup. So there are two parallel programs to clean it up. One of them is Superfund. The longhand name for it is Cercla or Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act. Where they have. We call it Cercla, but Cercla does not cover petroleum products. Congress specifically excluded that, but the state of California oversees the cleanup of the petroleum issues that at Alameda Point. The circular part which is the non petroleum had 34 separate areas that were suspected needed to be investigated. Few of them needed no work whatsoever. Some of them need a little work and some of them needed a lot of work. The decision making on how to investigate it and what work to do is carried out by BCT or the BRAC cleanup team. BRAC is an acronym for Base Realignment and Closure. It's the Navy, EPA, Etsy and Water Board and I attend these meetings as well, which I think is fairly unique among any Navy bases that that there are. The Navy's come to accept that it was a little tough at the beginning. We have a restoration advisory board, which is a formal community participation with community members on the board and the BCT members also tend. And participate. Petroleum Cleanup has 23 corrective action areas, which are generally collections of issues such as a tank farm or whatnot. Here is an area where there was a rather large underground leak, and this is the cleanup operation. It has since been successfully finished. Both the both the California and EPA have lots of support people both on staff and as contractors. With the state important roles are handled by. Not only the water board and ETSI, but also CDP, which is the California Department of Public Health, to deal with radiological issues and then see Cdph and California Department of Fish and Wildlife . So the cleanups, the strategy for the cleanup should Alameda point are to use innovative technologies whenever possible ended up as quickly as you can and they usually are able to clean it up. If it's only soil contamination at 1 to 5 years, they can clean it up. If it's groundwater contaminated as well. The initial active remediation is 1 to 5 years, but there's sometimes a tail where there's some residual contamination that gradually gets treated further over time, and there will be generally land use restrictions until that is completed. They were also selecting a remedy. They're mindful of the energy impact. The majority of the base is being cleaned up to residential standards. That's unrestricted. The Navy has spent over half a billion dollars out here so far. That's supporting various regulatory agencies, their own efforts, their contractors. Is the amount that they're spending that they have strictly spent and what they expect to spend. They. They also do some local hiring for their cleanups. A lot of the people who do the work are highly specialized and are not from Alameda. But they still stay at Alameda and they eat at Alameda while they're doing the work. So it's it is does have some economic silver lining to it. So the status quo in property transfer. Initially, the city leased about 1000 acres. A little over 300 acres were had been transferred before 2011 because of the term one, which was an area that had only been leased, Navy never owned it, which is down south easternmost portion along the shoreline, east housing, Coast Guard housing, all that was transferred before 2011. About 1400 acres were transferred in the phase one in 2013. The Veterans Affairs got a large chunk of the runways. Four years ago and about 200 acres are going to be transferred this spring. It's in the phase two. So here's another washed out figure. So the the blue is the part that's already been transferred to the city. The white the large white part is the is the vai. The white to the north is the sports complex that was also transferred the the pinkish, which includes Seaplane Lagoon and the and the the piers and a few other areas around there are going to be transferred that spring. There's a small portion out on the runways as well that's in that transfer. And then the the red and purple or parts are going to be transferred in the future over the next. Five years say. Another show, the environmental sites. We're going to talk about a few of them that have been particularly active lately. By the way, many of these have been cleaned up just because the colors there doesn't mean that is still a big problem. Okay. Here's our site, one, which is a former landfill. It's the original landfill that was at Alameda Point and it's in the northwest corner of the runways. When they needed to expand the runways, they essentially dug it up and moved it to the southeast corner, which is seed for that landfill. But at any rate, this this landfill had quite a bit of soil and groundwater remediation work that needed to be done. The groundwater work, as it looks like it's mostly done. There's a little bit more testing to confirm that. And except for revegetation, which is going on now, the soil cleanup is completely done. So the Navy is really proud of that. And they ought to be because they spent a huge amount of money doing it. Seaplane Lagoon has had its remediation essentially completed. They dug out contaminated sediment in the northeastern north west corners that had become contaminated from from material that came down the industrial waste lines from building five mainly and contaminate the sediment. And the Navy moved about 100,000 cubic yards, tried it, tested it, disposed most of it out. Is part of the remediation landfill. Some of it got hauled off site. In the process of doing that, they found 51. Very small items embedded in the sediment that had radio luminescent paint on them like on it, like on a Timex watch or something in the old times. As a result of that which no one knew about when they did the original cleanup decision making, as a result of that, they are amending the the official cleanup remedy to require that any future dredging there be conducted consistent with a sediment management plan which is currently being drafted. An approved. And this is the third site that I want to talk about that is that is actually is active now just for reference. Seaplane Lagoon is is over. People going is here. Main Street is here. Atlantic is here. This is the oval with the airplane right there. So this this blue feature here is groundwater contamination that came mainly from these brown. Hotspots, which is what we'll say, which are where solvents, mainly degreaser, is from. The Navy's operations largely related to this building 3060 got into the groundwater and very slowly migrated over to Seaplane Lagoon. And Navy is has done considerable cleanup there. They are going to do quite a bit more cleanup above this line. Is land that's going to be transferred this spring. So there was that there was. Some saw contamination there, which the Navy has successfully cleaned up. There is one small area here that has cobalt in soil that is unacceptable for residential use. So it's going to be used for a park, completely fine for a park. The only other area where there is soil contamination that requires a restriction upon transfer is the small area right here. In both this case and this case, the reason why the Navy isn't digging it out and hauling it away the same as they did up here is because it is underneath buildings. If it ever makes a difference that this contamination here is actually quite shallow under the building. It would not be a huge effort to clean it up. Anybody want to do that? But since you're going to put a park there, it doesn't matter. See, this is the. I guess we're talking about four sites tonight. Sorry. So this is this is building five. Which was this along with the site that we've talked about just before, or neck and neck for the most contaminated sites at this point. And that's why the ones that they're still working on. Low hanging fruit has been already addressed. There is groundwater where these. Blue Circles are that still needs to be cleaned up in order for it to be acceptable for commercial use. Once that's done, the entire footprint of the building will be acceptable for commercial use but not residential. Same is true for building 400 right here. Those slabs will have to be maintained intact because there is contamination in the soil under them, which is not a problem as long as these slabs are in place. But because they used to drive airplanes on, slabs are over a foot thick. So nobody's really going to get to it. If anybody has to dig through it, they can get permission to do that so long as they, you know, provide a work plan that shows how they're going to do it safely. Then restore the floor. Related to this building is an industrial waste line that is shown here. So is building five again. And again, in Building five, they used to work on radio, luminous radio luminescent paints for refurbishing dials and stuff like that that clean their brushes in sinks. And before the Clean Water Act that all went out in the storm sewer and got routed down to Seaplane Lagoon where it contaminated the sediment. And as they told you, they cleaned that up for. So as a result, is the potential that these lines also were could have been contaminated. They've done a lot of testing on them and they have shown that the contaminant levels are much lower than where than what they had feared initially. And we're looking at some use restrictions so that if they're all on the streets, if anybody ever digs there, they have to follow certain procedures. Decision making is not quite done on it. So there's land use covenants in a few areas that aren't available for unrestricted use. This is run by Dtsc since after it's closed, EPA generally federal EPA generally balance out and involves annual inspections, at least in monitoring. In some cases, it depends upon what the residual material is. And then ditzy sort of remains involved essentially forever if there if there is any contamination that that remains. For example, they they work with this outfit called Pterodactyl so that if anybody ever. It's a permit to dig in order to dig. You have to if to check with utilities and whatnot, it's he gets a call if that location is within an area that has a restriction on it. And then DTC gives me a call or somebody at the city to see whether they've actually. Whether they're violating the restriction or not. Wherever there is any contaminants remaining, the Navy and the regulators do a five year review just to make sure that the remedy that they have selected remains protective, that there isn't any advancement in science that shows that it's worse than they had thought, or that some other reason, it's just not it's just not as protective as they had intended it to be. This is the last slide. So if people want to participate, I strongly urge membership and attendance to the RAB Restoration Advisory Board. The Navy's website is there. The information repository. This wanted me to point in building one. I think that room number may be obsolete, but I don't know the current one. But staff at Public Works and first floor. They'll tell you where it is in the library across the street also has many of the more recent documents. That's it. Speaker 0: Thank you for the presentation and council comments. Remember Daisuke? Speaker 2: I think the quick comment I just want to say is for the residents of Alameda who are watching or who might watch subsequently via the Internet. This is incredibly important. We, the City Council on behalf of residents, will soon be accepting certain properties. We have accepted, gone through a similar process previously. Several years ago, I think it was two years ago. And now we're continuing that. So this is incredibly important that we exercise our due diligence and make sure to ask a lot of important questions. Thank you. Speaker 0: I swear. Speaker 9: Can I ask if there is a any kind of funding from the Navy? Or Department of Defense just to pay for the sediment management that's now required because there was contamination that was previously not found and not remediated in the seaplane lagoon. I understand that there is insurance or a future development. There's like three levels of insurance that the cleanup. But there's an added burden now of whoever takes that land, which our next agenda item is us for having a sediment management plan if we ever want to dredge it. And that's an additional cost over and above a standard of. The regular bay restrictions that we have so can address. Speaker 11: Yeah. No, no, there isn't. I mean, there's no I mean, the institutional control that was changed in the plans of Peter was talking about was to essentially require this added layer of review. I mean, so there and potential a work plan and approach to how we would do it if we were to dredge in one of so that they they are not I mean that's what's put in place is to have to follow those procedures if and when someone does and there is some additional costs related to managing that sediment. I will say, though, that we did as part of our, you know, analysis and due diligence of this whole process for the Seaplane Lagoon was actually had conducted a Bathymetric survey updated one which essentially means like a topographical survey of the bottom of the sea plate lagoon and determine that it is a very deep lagoon. And in working through the ferry terminal, for instance, we know that we can construct a ferry terminal, that dredging that there would be very little, very little dredging, maintenance shoaling, it's called where the sediment comes in and, you know, builds up and then you got to dredge it. Maintenance dredges, very minimal maintenance dredging, very little shoaling. And so we feel there's actually very little cost implication related to that sediment. And I will say if the dredging in and of itself is very expensive, no matter what, whether or not, you know, wherever you're dredging and there are other contaminants and other things in the soil or in the sediment. And so if we did have to dredge at some point, we don't think we will for the fact we're I'm sure we're, in fact, designing the terminal around making sure we don't have to dredge. And we think there's very little maintenance dredging, you know, to extent. There's a project that's unforeseen at this point that has to dredge. It will be it will not be inexpensive. And we want to try to design it to try to minimize the dredging because of those costs. Speaker 3: But um, yeah. Speaker 2: That is an important point though, because. I thought I saw somewhere where the married is there reviewing their options, particularly with regard to the matter of dredging. Since the marriage, ships have to be ready to move on a certain notice and that would then have ramifications to the city of Alameda since marriage ships are such a large customer of of of of amp. So I think. There's a lot of interrelated moving parts. And that's why, you know, a presentation like this evening on this is incredibly important. Speaker 11: And just because it's important as two tier two differences. One is that the shipping channel does show pretty significantly. And so that is part of the problem is that it does the sediment comes in and builds up and then it has to be dredged pretty regularly. And then the second issue is the Marriott ships are very big and require a certain depth. And so what we foresee occurring in the lagoon we have one benefit is it doesn't show very, almost very little falling to none. And then second is that we don't anticipate that those types of ships in the lagoon, we anticipate ferries and recreational boating and things like that that don't require that same sort of depth. So we have two benefits in the lagoon that are very different from the the shipping channel and the marriage ships. Speaker 2: Great. Thank you. Speaker 0: The other comments, I want to thank Mr. Russell for your service. You've been doing this for 18 years for our city. You also attend the Restoration Advisory Board meetings, and I would encourage community members to attend the meetings. You don't have to be a member to attend. It's open to the public. They're very educational. And is there any chance you happen to know when the next meeting is? You guys just have one January 14th? Speaker 3: Yeah, it's pretty. Speaker 0: Every two months. So it'll be sometime in mid-March. And there is a Facebook page for community members to find it on there, too. Thank you very much. Speaker 3: Thank you. Speaker 0: All right. And that's just a presentation, so we don't need to vote. However, it's almost 11:00, so we need a motion to continue our meeting. Speaker 4: So moved. Speaker 0: Second, all those in favor I motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Now we're on six f. Speaker 1: Adoption of resolution authorizing the city manager to accept on behalf of the city certain surplus federal property into accept, execute and record conveyance documents in substantial conformance with certain fees to property conveyance documents from the United States of America acting by and through the Department of the Navy to implement the Economic Development Conveyance Agreement for the former

Regular Agenda Item

Presentation on Status Report of Environmental Conditions and Clean-up at Alameda Point. (Base Reuse 819099)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_02022016_2016-2526

Speaker 0: Okay. We're going to take a short break right now. I'm going to. Over real quickly, what we're going to be doing. We're we're coming back to the rent issue. Staff has a presentation that should take about 10 to 15 minutes. I'm going to ask all council to hold their questions on that. Then we have our 2829. We have one more speaker now. 29 speakers One more. Okay, so we're at 30 and we're going to limit those to 2 minutes each. And if someone else like when you're standing up, if there are a lot of people that you think are going to agree with you, you can always say anyone that's an agree with me, please stand if you want. Do something like that to try to make it. So maybe some of you don't have to speak for the full 2 minutes. Obviously it's already 1120 and then it'll come back to council and we'll be able to ask our questions and go through that part of it. So thank you very much. Speaker 6: Good evening. I'm Debbie Potter. I'm the city's community development director. And this presentation and this item this evening is a follow up to the January 5th meeting, city council meeting. At that meeting, the council made a lot of progress in reaching consensus on a number of key points that would be going into the proposed ordinance and was able to give staff some really good feedback and direction as we move forward in crafting that ordinance. However, there were several key items that staff either felt we didn't hear consensus at the meeting on January 5th or that we wanted to come back tonight and get specific direction from the council. And I would like to run through each of those issues and then following my presentation and the public comment, then come back to the Council and receive direction from the council on each of the issues. There was consensus on the part of the council at the January 5th meeting to require the offer of a one year lease to prospective tenants. There was not consensus about offering that one year lease to in-place tenants, and at the meeting on the fifth, staff suggested that we go back and take a look at the City of Mountain Views ordinance, which recently went into effect regarding one year leases and based on a review of that ordinance. And we did see that Mountain View was requiring the offer of one year leases for both in place and prospective tenants. So staff is recommending that that the ordinance reflect that one year leases be required for both in place tenants and prospective tenants. There were several issues, one being the program fee and the other being the capital improvement plan that were not discussed. On the fifth. At the meeting of the Fifth, the council asked that staff table the discussion about program a program fee and directed us to to do more analysis about what the cost of the program would be once we had the program more fleshed out. So we are doing that and we anticipate coming back to the Council on the 15th with with a program fee proposal and we don't have any additional updates for for this meeting. In addition, there was consensus on the part of the Council that there be a requirement for a capital improvement plan that would be approved by the city prior to terminations for substantial rehabilitation. But as staff had been saying during this process, we had not yet been able to put together the policies and guidelines for for the CIP that is actively in progress now. And we will have those policies and guidelines, a resolution for the Council to consider at its meeting on February 16th. No cause eviction protections. There was consensus on the council that no cause evictions would be permitted in the city of Alameda under any new ordinance. However, those no cause evictions would have several limitations. The first limitation being the requirement to pay relocation benefits. And then the second limitation would be capping the maximum allowable rent increase that would be permitted for for the the next tenant who would move in. And the purpose of these limitations is really to discourage evictions. That would be solely for the purpose of evicting tenants to raise rents up to to the market level. And in addition to having consensus from the Council about permitting no cause evictions with limitations, there was consensus about capping the rent increase that would be allowed for the new tenant. So only a direction that we're looking for this evening is what the amount of that cap would be. There was some discussion at the meeting on the fifth that it might be 5%. If that was going to be the threshold amount for triggering the rent review process, maybe that was an appropriate cap for the new tenant. There was some discussion that perhaps it should be zero just to reflect the disincentive that the Council wanted those provisions to be. So we're looking for feedback on what that cap should be. In addition, there was consensus that there should be a cap on the number of no cause evictions that would be permitted in any given year. And initially in the three draft ordinances that staff presented on the fifth staff was recommending a cap that would would set four buildings, for example, with 15 or more units. The cap would be set at no more than 50% of of units being it being able to serve no cause notices on up to 50% of the units in a year and no more than 25% for buildings with four or fewer units. There was discussion at the meeting on the fifth that perhaps that cap was too high, that if a if a property owner were patient in two years, they could empty out their building with a cap of 25%. And we did hear some discussion about reducing that cap down to 25 for a maximum of 25% of units receiving no cause eviction notices in a one year period. We just the minutes did not reflect that there was consensus on that issue. So we just want to confirm that the council was agreeable to capping the number of evictions, no more than 10% a month or 25% in a year for buildings of five or more, and then for buildings with four or fewer units that it would be capped at one unit a year. There was a lot of discussion, but no consensus about the issue of mom and pop property owners. And I think and whether or not they should be exempted from requirements of pain, relocation benefits, which there was consensus that relocation benefit should be required for no cause and no fault evictions. And then the discussion was whether or not mom and Pops should have some sort of an exemption. And the first two bullets on this slide are really to kind of frame the the the discussion or the the issues about this. You know, on one hand, it's the ability of a mom and pop property owner to pay the relocation benefit. Would that be a hardship? Would they, you know, maybe not have the cash on hand? And then on the other kind of on the other end of the discussion is that if you exempt mom and pops from the payment of relocation benefits, is that it does that create a disparate impact on tenants who, just by virtue of living in a smaller complex, they would not get the same rights and benefits as tenants living in a larger complex so that those kind of the first two bullets kind of frame this issue. And then there was the discussion about, well, and if we were to look at doing some sort of exemption, whoa, how would we define, you know, a mom and pop property owner? And so staff did. You know, we did take a look and see if we could find ordinances that had definitions of mom and pop property owners . We didn't find a lot of examples. Los Gatos has rent control and Los Gatos is rent control. Ordinance applies to projects that are three or more units. The city of Los Angeles has a definition. It's a very narrow definition. Their definition of mom and pop operators is narrowly in their muni code for relocation benefits that are paid for owner move ins. And their definition of a mom and pop is you can't own more than a single family home. And then for four units in the city of Los Angeles. So those were those were kind of what we could find looking at, you know, over the last month to see if we could find a definition. Because if the council is interested in and if there is any consensus on on whether or not there should be an exemption, you would need to define what a mom and pop was. And so staff would want feedback. And I do apologize for that typo up there about defined honors be defined. So I apologize for that. And and the other thing I wanted to point out, it's in the staff report that there was there's been some discussion that perhaps if there was a desire to kind of acknowledge that pain, the the cash relocation benefit could be a hardship right now. And what we had talked about was relocation benefits would either be in the form of cash or additional time, and that that would be at the choice of the tenant if the council were interested in exploring potentially an idea where mom and pops once again having to be defined and their option, they could choose the cash benefit or more time. And that might deal with the issue of whether or not they had the financial wherewithal to to pay the relocation benefit. So something to think about and that's talked about in the staff report. Another issue that there was a little bit of discussion about was was there sufficient discussion afforded to to the council and the community about whether or not a rent increase cap was that a consensus was reached regarding the issue of a rent increase cap? What staff heard and what staff believed the consensus was on the 5th of January was that there was that the council there was not consensus on setting a maximum allowable rent increase or, you know, that basically there was no consensus on having an annual cap on the amount of rent increase, which is what that's traditional rent control , is that you have a maximum allowable rent increase. And if you want to raise your rent beyond that maximum allowable annual rent increase, you go through a petition process, a hearing process in the alternative. Or alternately, what we heard is that council wanted to establish a rent increase threshold which was set on the fifth at 5% above which a property owner would be required to initiate the rec hearing process. And then. Layered on to that would be the requirement to provide what the slide here says, a binding arbitration appeal process. And I just want to talk about those two words. Binding arbitration. Binding arbitration has a legal and a technical meaning that we are not proposing under the the ordinance and the program. Typically in binding arbitration in kind of the strictest legal sense is that the two parties waive their rights to a judicial you know, they say we do binding arbitration and we agree to go with the arbitrator decision and we give up our recourse to to that to the courts. We explicitly say that if somebody doesn't like the hearing officer's decision, they could take it to the next level, to the courts. And in addition, the rules are much stricter with binding arbitration, and the rules would not be kind of technical and strict. It would be a little bit more informal than technically binding arbitration. So we're actually calling it a binding hearing process. So that was my short cut. But I just want to clarify that we're. You will not see binding arbitration going forward, appearing anywhere in any of our documents. And then I just wanted to this was the the ordinance this was the flowchart that we showed and shared with the council and the community on the fifth. The only thing that is different about this is that when we had presented this on the fifth, we were working with an 8% cap. And we we've revised this to reflect the 5% which the Council had given consensus on on the fifth. So that what it shows is that right now, under the current ordinance that went into effect October of 2015, the landlord has to notify when the landlord increases the rent. They have to notify the tenant of the hearing process the availability of that process under the proposed ordinance. Now, you would not only would you notify your tenant of the availability of the right process, but if you are proposing a rent increase in excess of 5%, you must the property owner must file that notice with the the staff and start that process. And then if the rent increase is 5%, under 5%, the tenant can request a hearing, but it's a more optional process. When the racketeering is scheduled, the landlord must attend that. That is also provided for in our current ordinance that went into effect in October. And if a landlord doesn't attend the hearing, the rent increases null and void, and the rent cannot be increased for another 12 months. That's already on our books. The one kind of nuance to this is that with the hearing process under the proposed ordinance. If you've raised your rent, if you're proposing a rent increase 5% or more or above 5%, add someone with an ownership interest must participate in the racketeering. So that's another kind of piece that just kind of taken together with all of the other requirements is really intended to incentive incentivize property owners to keep rent increases at 5% or less. You go through a non-binding process if the parties agree. Great. If the parties don't agree and you are and you are in a unit that is subject to Costa Hawkins, is subject to rent control. You can go forward with the binding hearing process and if you are in an exempt unit, a unit that's exempt from Costa Hawkins, your appeal process would be to the City Council for a non-binding. Review of the Iraq decision. And then this slide just shows in a little more, you know, kind of going the next step if you end up if one of the parties requests. The binding hearing process that which would be available for rent increases above 5% for units that are covered by Costa Hawkins. You can go through the back and go to a binding hearing. You have the hearing with the hearing officer. The hearing officer's decision is becomes the imposed rent. And you. That's your rent. Unless you. Decide to go onto judicial review. So that is just kind of a recap of the the process charts that we had presented on the fifth and that we. Believe. There was consensus on that. And so really staff is asking that that that that direction be affirmed for us. And then lastly on the data collection, the council felt very strongly about the importance of data collection. And we just wanted to clarify that because we're focusing on increases of about 5% or four tenant initiated cases, that that's where we would we would be requiring data for those increases, and we would not be requiring property owners to notify staff of increases that were less than 5%. And this is really kind of striking a balance about the amount of work and the cost versus the effectiveness of of the data collection. So with that is staff's presentation. I will sit down, take public comment and then happy to return and talk about. Speaker 0: Thank you. I appreciate that. Okay. And I'm going to call out names and if people could line up and then you have 2 minutes and you will just keep it moving. Okay. I really appreciate that. It'll be Eric Strimling, maybe you, Kevin Yi and then Keith White, Whiteson and then Amanda. It looks like. Like. So you could line up on this side and then approach. Let's go, Eric. Thank you, sir. Speaker 3: Good evening. Waste is not good morning this time. Speaker 0: That's right. Let's try to get all these through the evening then quickly. Speaker 3: So very interesting meeting. I just thought along the meeting, the people who are getting the community development block grant, how many of them are renters? How many of them will be able to afford 5% rent increases? How much of the money that we're trying to get to these people will be taken by rent increases by landlords? How many of the artists in on Alameda Point would be able to afford a 25 to 30% increase in their rent over the next five years, which is what a 5% per year increase would give them? They have a fixed rent. That's why they can afford to be there. It's why they can predict and build their business. I think tenants in Alameda should deserve the same favor. On the one year leases. The real question is at the end of that lease, is that an eviction? Standardly a lease ends and it's the end of a contract. And you just say, I'm not really doing a lease and goodbye. If that's the case, then offering a one year lease is a trap. If you don't take it, then you get all of the protections of eviction control. If you do take it, you're out after a year and you get nothing. So I'd like you to please explicitly put into your ordinance that termination of a lease is an eviction and subject to all of the controls. Whatever controls you do choose to put on to evict on to evictions. I'd like to point out that 53% of our maidens live in rental units, or 52% of housing units are rental. More than half of your constituents are who you're talking about here. Landlords constitute maybe 2%. So it's a lot of people and they're living with a 30 day. I mean, they're living with a 60 day possibility of eviction all the time. If you keep the four months, do the math, you're going to get a lot of evictions on December 31st because six months from then is the end of the school year. Parents will choose to stay in school and lose the money in order to keep their kid in the school. Thank you. Speaker 0: Maybe you. Maybe you. All right? And I need you guys to keep going. I'm sorry. We are. You only get 2 minutes. Speaker 3: This is quite late and I'll try and keep. Let's see. Or with 2 minutes. And there are so many things we all want to talk. So I don't envy you guys. You have to weigh the delicate balance between apparently 53% of their constituency are tenants and maybe only 47% of their landlords. So what I invite you to look at is, is a. That were mom and pop businesses. I mean, sure, there are. There are a handful. I think someone earlier said Don Smith had some security concern. Well, there are not a lot of Don Smith. Most of us are mom and pop. My wife and I have lived in Alameda for 15 years. We we saved up our life savings and bought a property. We rehabbed it, spent literally two years because we bought it in foreclosure and spent hundreds of thousand dollars, including the foundation, made it we made it habitable where it was not before. So we're increased the housing stock but for Alameda and it was a Victorian home. So so it's got a nice statue on Lincoln Avenue. And so. The concern that I have is the controls that you're putting that you're considering putting in place prohibit us from being comfortable about being able to sustain our business. You say, well, this tenant, if it's greater than 5%, will. The the normal landlord tenant relationship is to take care of the tenant because you want a long term tenant, you're going to do the repairs that are necessary. And because a vacancy is is a big no in our industry. And so you're by putting that 5% threshold in there, for example, what you're doing is you're telling the landlord community to every year raise the rent by 5%. I don't want to raise it by 5%. I'd rather most times leave it at zero or 2% or something like that. But I'm going to need to keep up with the because I don't know what's coming down the road. I might have a bad tenant who destroys something. I might have a leaky roof or an earthquake that I can't fund without. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 3: 2 minutes and that's as much. Speaker 0: Appreciate it. Thank you very much, Phoebe. Maybe you? Speaker 1: Yeah. My name is Phoebe. You. Good evening to Mayor, Madam Mayor and the councilman. Thank you guys for staying so late and hear us out. Well, it is there are more than 50% of all Americans are renters. That means less than a little bit less than 50% of all Americans are homeowners. I'm not sure 2% or 7% or any percentage of them are landlords. But I've heard enough of landlords telling their stories, just like the gentleman before me. So Alameda has a very tight community. Sorry to. Speaker 0: Interrupt. I need you to lower your sign so the people behind you can see or you can go sit in the back row so you're not blocking anyone. Thank you very much. All right. You may continue. Speaker 1: Thank you. We have a very tight community here in Alameda and it shows by one example are a measure a parcel tax was voted by 68.1% of the voters in Alameda to pass. The special assessment to only the property owners, which we all voted yes. So we will pay $0.32 per square foot by the properties that we own to support our school and our school district. And that means for a property owner who owns a 2000 square foot property, they will pay $640 more property taxes per year. And for some landlords who owns about 10,000 square foot, maybe eight units are rental property, they will pay extra 30 $200 per year. That's a little bit too short in 2 minutes, I think. Can I finish? I'm just. Speaker 0: Sorry. We need to keep moving along. Speaker 1: Well, you were. I were interrupted. Speaker 0: All right. All right, go ahead. Go ahead. That's right. That's right. I appreciate that. I don't know if you gave extra time. Right. Speaker 1: Thank you very much. Thank you. So we voted yes to way more so the majority. Another example is if you are studying the thesis that our HCC has been reviewed for unreasonably increase rent, there are only a handful of landlords does that. The majority of the landlords in Alameda are very reasonable. By strictly rental control in one format is going to penalizing mom and pop landlords like us. So another point I really, really would like to make is the reason, another very valuable reason why we love Alameda is because we have all these historic homes. You know, they are in the styles of or different. Speaker 0: I appreciate that. We have 20 some more speakers to go. So thank you. Next speaker Kevin, you. Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Kevin. And then it'll be Amanda and then William, if I can. Okay. And then Franny and Mark. Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you, Major Spencer. Speaker 8: Mayor Spencer, council member of staff, city. Speaker 1: Staff for being here, just like hearing us out. My name is Kevin Yi, and I'm here on behalf of all the all the moms and pops owner in Alameda. Speaker 8: Like many, you know. Speaker 1: Small landlords. For years, my wife and I, we weren't able to refinance due to the market value at the time when the rental market was extremely low. And for many years, my wife and I, we were always in the red when we had to go into our own funds to pay the bills. And it wasn't until one or two years ago that we were starting to break even. I mean, one of the main reasons my wife and I decided to invest in. Speaker 8: Alameda is because is a small towns, a close knit community. And, you know, like life was. Speaker 1: Simpler and there was no rent control over. Speaker 8: Here. Speaker 1: And what I see in bigger companies, corporation or owners that were thought to have 20 to 100 units in a same building. Speaker 8: You know. Speaker 1: They're having to pass, raise, rent. Speaker 8: Substantially or evict with no with no cost. Speaker 1: I mean, everyone knows that in general, cost has been increasing and still increasing everywhere from property tax, property insurance management fee, utility repair and maintenance. I mean, the 5% increase is quite low for small owners that have less units to work with. I mean, just recently because of the storm, I put up a 20 foot fence with two gate and that cost almost $2,000. And I have several estimates I made that were from local, you know, a handyman. And I compared it with the estimates I had with the licensed contractor. And they were like 3500 to 4000 for the same fence. I mean, and to get a plumber or locksmith into your place is like $80 just for them to show up. I mean, this is just showing that costs are still increasing and repairs are expensive. I mean I mean, I'd just like to also mention to know just cause I mean, with my eight years experience that says land or I encounter like tennis that just aren't compliance with the building rules and no matter how hard I try or how do we solve this? Speaker 3: I think all. Speaker 1: The tenants I mean, all the landlords had experience, like with tenants that are just noncompliance with the rules that everyone's lives miserable. And because. Speaker 3: Of this. Speaker 1: No, just cause it helped us out tremendously. I mean, I just want to say, you know, that your meeting is on February 16th. I just hope that my next speaker. Speaker 0: Amanda. Okay. Let's go. And then after your manabe. William and then Franny. And then Stephanie. Speaker 5: Good evening, mayor and council members. I'm here to represent the small mom and pop landlords, and I just wanted to give you, like, my my perspective of this as a property owner from mom and pop standpoint is hard, like Kevin mentioned and the previous owner, that landlords try to do their very best to accommodate everyone. And so it's not in their intention to increase rent or anything like that. But when. You know, things that come up, for example, just the basic of mortgage payment and property tax, you know, that increases every year, plus just homeowner's insurance that left alone. But when something happens, like your roof breaks down, that's $20,000 of replacement cost right there. And then so I mean, just to bring up something like that, refrigerator cost replacement is two 500 plus stove a repair is $200. So the list goes on. And so just to bring that up, it is hard for someone like that. So that 5% is kind of difficult to work with. I just I would just wanted to bring attention like, for example, like mom and pop struggles to, for example, I recall when we had to borrow to it, I mean , financial aid for my daughter to attend college. And it wasn't an easy task, but luckily she was approved the financial aid and loan because of budget. But that's do because the rent did not cover the expenses that we had to incur. And so we didn't mind making the sacrifices. We knew what we were getting into and I and I'm happy about that also mentioned about the refinance it was it is difficult when you are going under the market, the value and your rent control. It doesn't when you're trying to refinance a loan, they're going to decline you and then that's a possibility of foreclosure. So I just want to bring that to your attention to as well in terms and then I think somebody mentioned about she put on a slide show about the 5000 dollar moving expenses. I like that option of perhaps considering relocating for 4 to 6 months instead of paying that 1500 dollars rent. If that's a consideration, the Times is up. So anyway, I guess that's about oh, like one last thing, but the mom and pop, she did statistics about it. I just want to bring like Mountain View in like Los Altos is a whole different market. I mean, the rent is outrageous. Speaker 0: So thank you. Thank you very. William is there. William, when you went home. Okay, Frannie. Speaker 1: We are not I'm not the time. You really are not. He get up 5:00 in the morning to go to work. Speaker 0: All right. And you're Fannie and Freddie or thank you. And then after Frannie will be Stephanie and then Don SC later. Go. Speaker 5: Evening, everybody. Good evening. I represent a group of small property owners in Alameda City. We are looking at a proposed rent ordinance. We did not see any exemptions, so we would like to respectfully request that if there's any proposed rent ordinance, there will be clearly defined exemptions. We have night requests. Number one, new building after 1995. Second, substantial. We have dilatation of the 1995, especially the historic building, because when we restore them, we get to keep the outside and we do that foundation after the inside is extremely costly. I have renovated two buildings like that due process. I spent $500,000 in each of the building. I'm a rent is about $3,000 a month. And historic home because we believe that under the California era Mental Control Act, historic home cannot have rent control without clear study and approval and special approval request exemption to single framing, home and due process. Because a lot of homeowners, elderly, family, they live in one in Alameda and the rent out the other. It's very common to rent a one unit of a due personnel I mean that to supplement the retirement income. House share situation. A lot of men and their relatives live the house. When a couple rooms subsidize the income, tenants own property within 100 miles of Alameda should not have a rent control apartment. I have a tenant works at Google making $103,000 a year and he rents one room from me. I can tell you that in two years we'll be buying homes in other cities in California. So rent control should be income based. And finally, if the tenant refused to cite another lease, same length as a current lease should be exempt. That's it's the same as the San Francisco rent ordinance. And then. The Labor and material concession calls in the last four years doubled. I got a call from a licensed contractor doing four steps of Stairway for $5,000. So 5% is way too low. And we do not have a lot. Speaker 1: Of evictions in Alameda when there's no rent. Speaker 0: Control. Q Is there, Stephanie? No. Stephanie. All right, Don Celotto. And then Katherine Pauling and then April ceded her time to Catherine and then Malcolm Leigh. Speaker 3: Good evening. Thanks for your time and thanks for working so hard on this. Just a brief explanation of our situation. We are a mom and pop landlords. The biggest property we own has three units. Most of them are single family units. We do own several units. We've invested a lot of money because they're older homes and maintaining them with roofs and in foundations and so on over the last few years. But most of our tenants, we try not to raise the rent. We're very small and make very small rent increases. Just because they're good tenants and we'd like to keep them there. And usually if they leave, then we'll worry about market rate. They leave voluntarily. I have a couple of questions for you, though. How much is this whole rack process going to cost? And we did discuss it at one of the prior meetings. It seemed quite large. And then how are we going to pay for it? Are the landlords going to pay or the tenants are going to pay? Are we both going to pay? But I think we need some clarification there from you. And then what happens when we have to sell the home for whatever reason? We'd like to be able to get the market rate for that home, whoever is buying it, if they want to continue to rent it out. We're going to have other issues. So is there anybody thinking about what's happening there? You know, please take it into consideration. That's all I have. Thank you very much. Speaker 0: Thank you. Katherine Pauling. And she has someone saying a time to her. So it's 4 minutes. Speaker 5: I have two people sitting time to me at this. Speaker 0: The other one. I have April and Malia. Thank you. Okay. Speaker 5: Thank you. Katherine Pauline, leader of Alameda Renters Coalition. Thank you. It's not quite. Good morning. We sent a letter responding to the staff report and I understand there was difficulty opening it. So I want to use the time to actually read our position. We went over it very carefully. We have a number of questions and a number of concerns. Dear Mayor and Council Members, the Alameda Renters Coalition respectfully provides the following for your consideration regarding rent increases and evictions in Alameda. We believe there are important principles that must be emphasized and kept in mind during your deliberations. They are that the ordinance regarding rents and evictions must, in the first instance, serve the dual purpose of keeping rents stable and keeping residents in their home. Recall that it was renters. The majority of Alameda residents who brought the issues of excessive rent increases and unfair evictions to the council in 2014. Why do we say this? It's because too much discussion has focused more on landlords right to a fair return rather than on rent stabilization and tenant protections. I will have to point out that that Debbie spent quite a bit of time expressing concern about how mom and Pops could pay even the small allocation allowed, and only a passing reference on what it might be like to be a tenant with none of those resources. And that is to the core of this. This is becoming kind of a landlord protection act. 20. She she really she went on and on and on about the mom and pops and only a passing momentary reference to tenants. The rent crisis was not created by the tenants, but by excessive rent increases and unjust evictions by too many Alameda landlords. Again, we ask that you keep this in mind. Regarding the cap on maximum allowable increases. Without a cap on rent increases, rents quickly become unaffordable and rent stabilization is not achieved. We have consistently called for a rent cap of. Speaker 0: 65% of the Bay Area CPI. Speaker 5: In line with numerous other California cities. Despite this, staff has never provided data indicating why it is not possible for landlords to make a fair return, with rent increases capped at 65% of CPI, nor even addressed it as a reasonable option for Alameda. Neither staff nor council have provided a rationale for uncapped rent increases, nor provided data regarding the cumulative effects of uncapped rent increases. Uncapped rent increases this threshold that you mention do not stabilize rents and ultimately lead to displacement. Similarly, the proposed 5% rent increase threshold to trigger a mandatory review by the Rent Review Advisory Committee rank is not related to any economic metric. Such as the CPI. And again, no analysis of the cumulative effect of 5% rent increases is provided. Cumulative 5% rent increases show after only three increases, which can occur within 25 months, that on a $2,000 apartment will cost $2,315 within 25 months, a 315 a month rent increase with a 5% cap. And after five rent increases and when Don Lindsay did some of his stats, he showed that the average tenant stayed about five years and in an apartment. And then there was a natural move. After five rent increases, it would be a $552 a month rent increase. These are not affordable rents and increases like this do not achieve rent stabilization. The title of your proposed ordinance, on the other hand, rent increases at 65% of CPI so that a $2,000 a month rent amount increases to $2,098. It would be a $98 a month rent increase. After three increases, it would go up to 2160. Oh, excuse me. I read that amount increases after a 98 a month after three increases 165 a month after five rent increases at 65% of the CPI. Stabilize rents and protect tenants from economic displacement. Meanwhile, the average income growth has been 2% per year, meaning that Alameda families with a 5% cap would be falling behind. To truly stabilize, rent increases must be limited to 65% of the Bay Area Consumer Price Index, which currently at 2.4% would make 1.6% the allowable increase. We've been dealing with double digits now for year after year and the council chose, the landlords chose 10% and indeed that's what the RAC was imposing time after time, then arbitrarily 8% and the moratorium now arbitrarily 5%. It's still almost three times what is reasonable. Somehow this disconnect where property owners, homeowners have twice had more than twice the income of renters, there is a disconnect here. So I'm going on with my second seed capital improvement plan. Speaker 1: It's now 6 minutes, so that it was 6 minutes. But one more person has offered this time. Speaker 0: You have another. That was 6 minutes. I'm sorry. At that time. Speaker 4: Because two other speakers said they wouldn't speak and let her speak. Speaker 0: But. Okay. So then I'm going to propose. Speaker 5: 2 minutes to kind. Speaker 0: Of wind it up or you can come back around because I've got another 20 some speakers. I understand. Thank you. Speaker 5: Okay. So there's also the capital improvement plan. And we do not believe landlords should have should be able to evict tenants just for substantial rehabilitation. We've talked about this before. People stay in their homes when they do it. It should be a temporary relocation. What should the expense should be covered? No cause protections. An ordinance that allows no cause evictions does not provide tenant protection. A cap on the number because we oppose all no cause evictions. We cannot of vision in circumstance of multiple evictions being acceptable relocation assistance. The current amounts mentioned are far below. It costs me 8000 to move the last time by the time you do first last deposit and the cost of moving. I'm 67 it's and my friends with their bad backs. We can't do a U-Haul and do it anymore. The amounts of money. 1500 for moving. Are you kidding? Relocation assistance. So the benefit, the rent increase process and the rec individual, when you have 55.3% of households in Alameda are renters and you're going to do it individually through a mediation and arbitration process. And renters have to pay. Speaker 0: Where I resolved. Speaker 5: And withdrawn. Speaker 0: I freaked out contact. All right. I'm sorry. Speaker 1: I actually don't have a gavel to gavel. Speaker 0: I don't count it out. Speaker 1: I'm sorry. Speaker 3: I'm quiet. Please. Speaker 0: Thank you. I don't. I. I'm okay. I'm sorry. Speaker 1: We're going to take. Speaker 0: A short recess. Thank you for taking a recess. I don't have a dog, and I. Yes, we're taking a recess. I'm sorry. I don't have a gavel. I need to calm this down before you can take. And you even hear me that I'm taking a recess. Did we take. Speaker 1: Ah. Speaker 4: Easy way to get the gavel. Is that. Speaker 0: The big. Speaker 4: I think maybe it. Not seed time, I think, you know, the the stalwarts. Well, just in case anyone was thinking of doing that. Well. Speaker 0: Otherwise, I don't think. Speaker 1: And I think. Speaker 0: Okay. So he's. Speaker 7: Going to change the rules because of intimidation. Speaker 4: Midstream. Speaker 7: Okay, that seems okay. Like Rule of riot. Speaker 4: Well, actually, Ms.. Ms. Wooldridge just pointed out that we probably can't change procedures that we announced at the beginning of a meeting. Speaker 0: Actually, something so. So we were on recess. Now we're going to resume the meeting. All right. Speaker 4: Member Ashcroft Well, I, I would favor not seeding time, but I understand some people might feel strongly about that, just that, you know, those of you in the room are the the stalwarts who stayed. So you should be able to have your 2 minutes. And then just a tip to all of you speakers, just launch right into your remarks. You don't have to greet the mayor, the staff, everybody else, because that's eating up your 2 minutes. So just go straight to the heart of what you want to talk to us about. Speaker 0: Okay. Any other council comments. Thank you. All right. So after Kathryn, I have Leah Vella, then Malcolm Lee. She ceded her time to Katherine to. All right. Now Malcolm Lee and then Tony charr yet it looks like. And then c h unchr. I am a yes. Speaker 3: Let me just cut to the chase. The a lot of folks, if you are not a homeowner, you don't understand. A lot folks will not understand this. It's not to blame them. But you when I'm a homeowner, I also am also a landlord. Now, the when we collect rent, on one hand it goes out as a mortgage. Property taxes maintain the big ticket items, even maintenance. And a lot of us are all working class the homeowners. So what happened is this we go to work during the daytime and we stay working now. The so the at the end of the day, we go to the building, we went to head of maintenance crew and sometimes we get where to head off the service people to clean up the cleaning crew. So as we go along some years, we have good tenants until we don't. And someday we have a good economy, someday we don't. So let's just go back a little bit from 2006 all the way to 2010 and 11. Randall Market is very, very soft and is very hard for us to keep our buildings full due to that load at low occupancy during those years. Who is out there to help us? No one is. We have to struggle extremely hard so that we can keep afloat. Otherwise, if we can't collect rent or if we have too much vacancy, then our we won't be able to pay the mortgage. So what would happen? Foreclosure and lose. Just two years ago. We have a we have a chance to catch up and now we have this rent control imposed of us. Just like all my colleagues mentioned earlier, the the maintenance costs, everything goes up on top of that. One thing that I like to point out to the council members is this. Recently we got some letters from a garbage company. They said you have to have compost and if you don't separate them, if your tenants do not do that, you as home owner, you will get dinged for it. So we got caught in both ends. This is not right. So I'm completely against Franklin trial. Speaker 0: Thank you, Tony. Speaker 3: This discussion started at 8%. I was okay with that. Now we're dwindling down to 5%. Landlords have a lot of expense here. We have property tax insurance. Maintenance on the properties. And, you know, there are rumors the Federal Reserve is worried that we'll might be going into a recession. And if we do go into recession, I can tell you a lot of landlords will have a hard time when these tenants are not there and buildings are vacant and we have 20%, 30% vacancy rates. They will have a hard time. And, you know, forecast is that at the end of the year we will be in a recession and things will not be as nice as they are now. What are you going to do for the landlords? What do they do? Are we going to be supplemented in any way? Who can we take? Give us a break on our property tax? No, the answer is no. Will the banks give us a break? No. They'll foreclose our properties. So please have a little consideration. We really come out like the bad person here trying to gouge everybody. It's not the truth. And you all know that we have a big financial responsibility and we're just trying to stay afloat. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. And I want to clarify, we are not talking about a 5% cap. We are talking about a 5%, what I'm calling a trigger that if a landlord wants to do more than 5%, that they would go to rack. But we are not talking about any cap. And when you compared it to the 8% that was during the moratorium and that was a cap 8% during the year that this proposal is has no cap. However, the landlord would have to come to our rent review advisory committee if they want to do more than 5%. And then that's when the the landlord would have the opportunity to share. But you're speaking of these additional costs or whatnot. So I just want to clarify that. So you're. You're welcome, Tony. I'm sorry. That was Tony. And now it looks like Cenci. And then Greg McConnell. And then Mimi. Speaker 3: Good morning. So I guess you heard the latest news, Yahoo! All 1500 last week. We were. And then before that, GoPro, Twitter, IBM, HP, all announced layoff. No new IPO for a while. Chatter about Apple and Google have a hiring freeze. Last quarter GDP point 7% or this number indicated basically economy inflection point is actually closer than many of us think. So actually when you made a decision, think about it. When you go through a downturn, you basically, as the Lord shared the responsibility to shoulder the responsibility that's no market economy, whatever, you know, free reign, one month's free reign for the tenant. Okay, you go ahead and do it. Nobody help us. But when the market is good, the economy's good. Then we have to go to some sort of control economy. So basically you have to have a cap. That's not fair. And then number three, I wish that the console can be a little bit more creative in terms of thinking outside the box. Like Redwood City, they actually have some sort of incentive for the landlord. If you offer volunteer rent control under certain limit, they give you some sort of incentive. I think there's something creative way you can think about it. And also single say they are considering rent control. They hired a consulting group to study it and the finding, you guys can also attend a meeting as well over there. Basically, what they found is really interesting. From 1990 to night, 2014, the 24 years, actually the rent increases for the unit that under rent control are higher than those that are not under rent control. So if you think about it, it really makes sense to to actually allow the market economy to do its work, don't mess around with it. So if you have interest in it, you can get a report from sellers they are willing to share with you. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. I just. Speaker 5: I'm Debbie. Debbie Porter. Why don't you. Speaker 1: Thanks. Speaker 0: All right, Greg McConnell. Maybe. Is there a mommy war? Ah. Oh, there's like RH. Ah. Lester Cabral. Speaker 3: Is he? Anyone else come up. Good evening. Manama City Council. Let's talk about resident of Alameda and a property owner. Been here for many years. You know, it's only been less than 30 days since we met on this issue. And all of a sudden we've got all kinds of new things here. You know, 5% was 8%, you know, and these little notations and stuff. You know, with rental business. There's a lot in into doing rent here in Alameda and anybody that's if you studied the state real estate guide you'd notice there's quite a few there's quite a bit of information in there. I think we're acting too quick on this here. We need more time to really get into defining what's going on here and the best avenue. Like I said at the last meeting was we do have a rent for review committee here. Let's utilize them. You know, you get into 5% and all these other little things, you know, they're just little tricks on there. It's really not going to work. We need to go case by case. They say there's better than 50% of the housing here in Alameda is rentals. Okay. That's a lot of people, you know, and not everybody is getting hit with hard rents. There are some out there. Sure. Those need to go before this rent review committee and get ironed out. But the majority of it out there is not, you know, I mean, that's just where it's at. I've been in the business for over 50 years, you know, and seen a lot. You know, the market is from supply and demand. And, you know, you have to really look at that emphasis. You're going to put us little guys out of business. You know, that's just what's going to happen. The mama papa clause here, nobody can define it. Come on. Anybody that owns less than five units, you know they're a mama. Papa, because they can't afford ten units. That's just way out of bounds. But anyway, we need to do a lot more work here. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you, Dan Wang. And then Minha Yang in a yang. And then Tristan Schmidt. Speaker 3: And even he won't want me there. Yeah, I just wanted to echo the comment. You know, especially concerned about a court of arbitration. Is that taxpayer or a landlord? Landlords or renters. So, you know, wish that I chatted with real estate agent and he told me is that this will rent control will have a very negative impact on society in the city and especially in terms of income. And he predicted that the investors will have much less interest in buying rental properties and that and the value will drop. And as a household now I'm concerned about that. And also to the as the number of transaction in real estate sales are drop, this would reduce the income from transfer tax and the property tax and consequently we reduce the funding for schools and the public. So is I really like Alameda as a very charming city and a school system? And, you know, I'm really concerned about that. I do want to our children, you know, they need to have early release because of lack of funding. That is really not good. And at that point, you know, I would like to echo that. You know, I have experience. I have a plumber who charges $200 for 40. Speaker 8: 40 minutes. Speaker 3: On clogging. And we have some guy come to change the tank or charge it, you know, $800 for the labor. Speaker 8: And, you know, who is going to cap that. And so, you know. Speaker 3: So in short, you know, cost is there. And, you know, once economy is not good, there's nobody protect the landlord. Thank you. Speaker 0: Minor, Mina. I'm interested in Schmidt and then Rosalind mcCorvey. Speaker 1: Hi. Speaker 5: Good morning. Mina Young. Um, as a mom and pop owner, we really need things to be flexible because we all to ourselves, I mean, we take care of. Speaker 0: The parties ourselves. Speaker 5: And we have parents to take take care of. Speaker 0: My dad has. Speaker 5: Dementia and then, you know, we have to take care of him and have to take care of the properties. And so, I mean, whenever something happens, we have to take time off from work and take care of it. So either take care of the work or take care of the parents. So it's very important that we be flexible. And so by having more laws and more restrictions, it's very hard to run the business. So a lot of times we would rather not run the business, just not rent. And so you'll get less tax revenues and then we'll get less income. It's very hard to do that. And so and we are owners and and tenants and I mean, we are roommates sometimes with our tenants. So it's is very important that we be able to, uh, to work with the tenants directly, freely. So by having more restrictions, it's not going to help and you'll you're going to take more units out of the market. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. First, Linda Corby. I'm sorry. Tristan. Tristan Schmitz. Next. Sorry. You're right. Speaker 1: My husband and I have been mom and pop tenants in Alameda for 20 years since 1996. My husband's a teacher. I'm a childcare provider. I see a lot of classism going on here, a lot of implicit class values that are discriminatory. My husband's a teacher. I provide childcare. But the gentleman back here who told me to get a job at 20 years of employment experience, have a master's degree in psychology. And I'd like to know why the police don't respond to this kind of thuggery when innocent renters stand in the hallway and get sent to Santa Rita classes . Okay. That's what I see here for the last nine years, before I got evicted by Gallagher, Lindsey, my mom and pop landlord never once came by. I had a leaking pipe for nine years. I had a crumbling wall. We had two heaters, neither of which rarely, hardly ever worked. We had gardeners come in between grass of Tony's left cigaret butts all over the place and mowed down the tulips we planted. This is not market value service. How many of these landlords who claim to be mom and pops actually live in other towns? How many actually have other jobs? Other incomes? How many have properties in other towns? One of my landlord has a very lucrative restaurant business. Another one was a car dealer. We need to take into account the fact that just because somebody already has money, had enough money to buy a property does not mean that they are guaranteed an unlimited raise every single year. The economy has tanked because we had to bail out the banks. Okay. The economy is not getting better. I am not going to get a 10% or a 5% raise every year. I provide a valuable service here. Speaker 4: I do a lot of volunteer work. Speaker 1: Money is not my first priority, but my next home is going to be a tent. And you know where you go from the tent? The police come and take it away. Why? Classism. Speaker 0: First, Linda Carvey. And then Lawrence Quintero. Speaker 1: Good evening. I'd like to see if we can get exemptions for mom and pop landlords. We are small business owners, just like you were saying about Alameda Point. Say the small business owners retain them. You have to protect us also. We. This is. This is not a hobby. This is our job. We are responsible people and we do the best we can. And as far as, uh, having rent control on the small, say, 5 to 6 unit buildings and under. I think it would be unfair. The. We don't have deep pockets like the larger investors. I personally know people that are in rent control units in San Francisco. They're laughing at the bank out there. They're planning on staying forever in these units. They they earn each $150,000. They're married. And, you know, they're going to stay forever. And it's not fair that they're able to stay. So this rent control should be tenant income based and it should not be, you know, oh, just everyone. It doesn't work that way. And also, historic properties are a lot more expensive to maintain. And just repairing anything is just a fortune. So that should be an exemption also. And, you know, one has the right to devalue my property when I go to sell this or what, you know, whatever I intend to do in the future that your 5% cap or or possibly more. It's not going to be convincing to the next buyer. So when the appraiser comes out, okay, when the appraiser comes out to do an analysis, they're going to take into all of this into account. So you're devaluing my property, which is not fair. Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Lawrence Quintero. And then Dan Zhang. Speaker 3: I just wanted to. Give you my interpretation of what's going on here. My wife and I have had a three unit place here in Alameda for about 25 years. And in that 25 years, we've had probably two evictions. And they were because of the behavior of the tenants, not because we wanted to get the people out, because most of our tenants stay there, some, you know, seven, ten years. And we treated them right and they treated right, you know, treat us good as landlords. We were always thinking of what they could afford. We try to keep our rents down as much as we possibly could because we wanted to keep them. So as a small landlord or mom and pop, as some of them say, we've had good experiences. And our tenants have a good experience. Now, when we're talking about a place that has 50 or 100 units, that's something else. And I don't feel that. I should be put in the same bottle as somebody who has tenants and mistreats their their tenants. And I just don't think it's fair. I think the rent rent review board has worked well, and I don't understand why we have to change everything because of some people's concerns. I mean, I feel bad if somebody is having a tough time, but landlords can have have tough times also. I just had to put a new sewer ladder. 9000 bucks. You know, I'm not going to go to the tenants. Say you have to give me so much to pay for this. I had to figure out how I was going to pay it. So as I say, the rent review thing, it doesn't bother me. Because if you do right, you're going to come out okay. I just don't like the fact that they're trying to box in with all these others. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Dan? And then Margaret Tong. And then Layla. Speaker 2: I'm here. I just want to express my. Speaker 8: Opinion about the No Cause. Speaker 3: Eviction because. Speaker 8: Alameda is different from San Francisco. Hayward, Berkeley is a way to want to be. Speaker 2: Another San Francisco or, you know, like a San Jose. Speaker 8: Or, you know, you know, Alameda. We have like 4000 buildings outside the historical buildings and study list. And the also we have to see, do you have a soft story list? So for the homeowner, I have to do the earthquake originally, you know, certain type. So some of the job we need to evict, empty the whole building to finish the job. Speaker 3: So if we have the. Speaker 8: The limitation of the eviction, no cause eviction, then how could the homeowner do the job? So why here? So if we have five or four units, that means that the first to evict the one I pay for the, you know, something like the penalty or relocation cause the and the wait empty the unit and the with another year you wait another one and then after four years empty the building. Speaker 2: Then we I can do. Speaker 8: The earthquake a regional fee. So that makes no sense. So that. Speaker 2: Yeah, I just want to say. Speaker 8: That. So everything should be. Speaker 2: Case by case. We cannot deal with it just like it is with. Speaker 0: Margaret. And then Leila and then Daniel Lee. Speaker 1: Well, everyone. I am. Speaker 5: Mom and pop small shop and I'm single. Speaker 1: Mom. I have a big mortgage to pay. I have a historical building. Maybe I have a brick foundation that on which I don't have money to replace. I just spend $20,000 on a roof and replace a roof because of the rain. So I have not increased by tennis rent for the last three years. So I treat them very well. And I if they have a hardship, I can delay their payments. So I think this rent control is really unfair to put us in a hardship. We are responsible owner. We are. He kept everything all the way up here right away. Since the the market baby market is tied to the standard of living people, of income. So minimum wage went up 28% in Oakland in last two years. I have not. I am sub engineer. I work full time. I'm single mom. My rent, my income have not increased for the last ten years, but I still keep up my rent. I'm not. I'm raising my child by myself. So I think this is rent. Speaker 5: Control is not fair for small mom and pop shop. Thank you. Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Layla. I'm sorry. What was your name? I'm sorry. Hey, come on. What was your name? Speaker 5: I live in Alameda for 20 years already. I have a house, a very old and the old house. You know those? Of those houses really near the coast right now. This is a business. Business would be outside. Happy then deal. Right. Right now I feel this is not fair because the the thing is for tenant happy you have one side happy the others are not happy. You don't have a right to stop this business. They leave. We should pay them. And moving fee. Up 5%. We have to file for a hearing under 5%. They can file for hearing. And when they move out, we have pay that we have to pay the moving cost and the month's rental cost. We we pay too much and we earn so little because the slow time, you know, when the business is not not good, the houses empty. Nobody can they can choose us. We cannot choose them because our. Life saver already in there. We cannot move the house away. We have a mortgage we have to pay every month. No matter this business, good or not. So I feel very, very sad. Okay, that's it. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 1: Lila. Before the incident, I was seated by someone. Speaker 0: Okay. Did they turn around? Yes, they. Speaker 1: Did. Masha. But I did it before that, though. So I think that I should. We've all been waiting for over 5 hours. Speaker 0: I'm sorry. I don't have a slip for that name. Speaker 1: Say it was. I thought I did. Speaker 0: Or did I already call it? Speaker 1: I don't know. Speaker 0: Ah, you try to do it in 2 minutes. Speaker 1: I will try. I'm going to be brief anyway. Thank you all. My name is Layla and I'm a realtor and longtime resident of Alameda. I'm here on behalf of myself, as well as clients I have closely been working with this past year who are mom and pop landlords. And I'm here to oppose this ordinance. And I'd like to give you one brief example of why, supported by actual numbers and this is, by the way, obviously one of many cases. My most recent example is the sale of a multi residential property. My buyer purchased this historic property at the beginning of this year for over $1.7 million, which is on par with current comparable home values in Alameda, where we all live. He currently has a longtime tenant and some of those tenants have been there for over 20 years, and they pay right now in amount of $880 a month for an apartment that is over 1000 square feet in a very nice location just a couple of blocks away from Park Street in Alameda. While I strongly do empathize with these tenants and their situation, I empathize even more for these home owners and landlords whose source of income and only source of income for many comes from these rents which they use for their own bills and livelihood. And this economy is has been and always will be extremely volatile. And it's incredibly unrealistic to assume one's rent will remain the same from year to year, let alone for decades. The last time this particular property was sold was for $130,000 with an annual tax of $6,000. The current tax for this new homeowner is over $35,000 a year, with 5000 for insurance, 5000 for water, utilities, and a mortgage of over $100,000 a year. So his total cost to own this property amounts to over $150,000 a year. The way current rents are at that property, he's making an income of under $70,000, which he now is experiencing a loss of over $80,000. This is a strong underestimation, by the way, and I'm almost done. At this time, the Bay Area is one of the most expensive areas in the entire nation. Home values are dictated by the market, not by individuals. And these home values are what govern the rental market. And these home values are also what makes our beautiful cities so desirable by many to live in, and which is what keeps our businesses here thriving. Again, although I do empathize with the tenants, I believe that the city should look elsewhere for solutions. Please do not punish the homeowners who are bringing up property values and paying exorbitant amounts of annual property taxes. Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. And in the future, if you want to have someone cede your time to you, I need that person here so that I know. All right. Okay. Thank you. All right. Next speaker, Daniel Lee. And then it'll be Susan G. O. And then Jeff camera. Speaker 3: Okay. So obviously you will see you have already seen that. How much how much friction we have right now by I go ahead and bring it up this ring control stuff in. In so many cities in the Bay Area. I can see in Pacifica, San Francisco, Mountain View. And the river city in san mateo. Any city. This is a tenant, eva. Gays are fighting for their paycheck. They are not fighting for the tenants. They get funded by the city. They get funded by the state. They get funded by the federal ban. Also, probably. And they get a money from the corporation. So they are fighting for their paycheck. They are fighting for their livelihood. They are not fighting for the tenants. We have a very good relationship with our tenants. So all these rent control is coming in right now is going to create a very, very bad relationship between Lando and the tenants. I won't say tenant. I will say our tenants because they are our customer. They pay our bills. We also have to pay a mortgage as well. And just like my colleagues at one money, one side of the pocket, the money comes in and the other pocket I go still up because of the mortgage as well. No. Earlier, one of the teachers say that she'd get evicted. I think. We do not evict any any rent paying tenants. Have you fire anybody who is doing a good job as your employee in piece? Of course not. We don't. Anybody. Anybody? Any tenant? Any tenants that get evicted. It has to be none. And then rent paying tenants or they are behaving badly. Right. Speaker 8: Oh, thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you very much, Susan. And then Jeff. And then Karen Bay. Speaker 1: I go to work last lastly late. Yeah. I'm a small landlord of Alameda. I'm strongly against run counter run trays made by market, not made by landlord or the government. I'm against it because it. It's not fair. They are poor people too. We'll protect small landlord. By the way, I got the last 20% of my 41k and the savings. I cannot pay my son's college fee. Can you please tell me when we will have a city council hearing to get my money back from the stock loss? I did an increase rent every year before. If there's a rent control, I must increase every year. Do you think gun control policy protect tenant? No, absolutely not. I have a full time job Monday to Friday, such like I have to get up sticks for my work. My husband and I spend much of our night time and the weekend to work as a handyman. I do a lot of work gardening, cleaning, painting, small fix, even toilet fix. I also take my 15 year old daughter to do yard work. I let her come here to do the yard work. She asked me, Mom, why you don't hire a gardener to do this work? I say, Daughter. I want to save money. I want to lower my expense to keep this rental property. Otherwise, I don't have money. I'm pro-people too. However, Pepsi's mortgage water power pigeon ye garbage insurance are all increased. Last year for the mint. For the Mint? Is it for the maintenance? I spend $20,000. I just got my water bill yesterday. This must be increased to 5.8% than last bill. I cannot see till I'm out. I don't have extra money to pay. Sorry. Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Jeff. There's a gentleman there. I did. I call your name already? Are you all right? All right. Come on up. Speaker 3: Thank you. My point is that I think there's not a tendency, not enemy. I think we want to do each other well. And I'm very good landlord. I have to say. Then I. I rent my room. Paul, my tenant. It's only $400 right now. So if I want to improve my. I'll pay my house, then rebuild the foundation. What happened? Think about that. The first. And the second is the. You get on the house and me on the house. I'm retired already and my wife retired. We total income is that lower than $2,000. Okay. So. He would control everything we have to. Foreclosed in my house. The theory is that the only control that then you can do a Home Depot. You controlled the contractor controlled the auditorium through that lets the builder and then you charge it up. Why you don't control them. They come to us. Right. Everybody need to free and then you need to. How many? To living together. So everyday need to talk each other and don't make us strict nor a strict discipline then to who make us a hot time for when to sign and other sides happy. I have to say that my situation in finance is not written in my hand. My tenant. An $80 an hour. You know how much on the highest time. I'm on 40 in an hour and then is lucky. I'm a driving instructor. You're happier. $80 sell them. But they earn each day, each week and each week they then $2,000 each week. And day a week. What happened? So you need to. Consider all the elements together and then make everybody happy. Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you very much. Jeff Canberra and then Karen Bay and then John Klein. Speaker 3: Good morning, Mayor Spencer. Council and staff. My name is Jeff Canberra. I am a. Speaker 8: Community facilitator and have privately mediated numerous tenant landlord disputes. Speaker 3: Over the past. Speaker 8: 18. Speaker 3: Months. I am here. Speaker 8: Tonight to draw your attention to a group of residents. Speaker 3: That the provisions that. Speaker 8: You are discussing may not adequately protect. Our city contains a number of. Speaker 3: Groups of residents. Speaker 8: That would not. Speaker 3: Use the rec. They include families and especially. Speaker 8: Elderly tenants that are. Speaker 3: Fearful of even talking to their housing providers. Speaker 8: And the fear rest in rent increases, even within the limits that you are setting. Service reductions and subtle forms of retaliation that would not rise. Speaker 3: To the level of actionable conduct. This list also includes. Speaker 8: non-English speaking and ESL residents that do not. Speaker 3: Understand the complexities of going through or simply fear Iraq. Hearing undocumented residents, tenants living in. Speaker 8: Illegal. Speaker 3: Units, and tenants that believe that property management companies regularly review the list of RAK applicants and blacklist residents. The raft, by its very nature, is confrontational. A trained mediator working a semi-private. Speaker 8: Environment can assist attended in opening the lines of communication. Speaker 3: With the housing provider in a non-hostile, non-confrontational manner that can lead to a mutually. Agreeable resolution. Speaker 8: This is the method I have used time and again. There are numerous cities using the semi-private mediation process. Speaker 3: The City of Mountain View just passed such a provision. The idea. Speaker 8: Of an optional. Speaker 3: City sponsored semi-private. Speaker 8: Mediation being available to this. Speaker 3: To the disputes would serve the most vulnerable yet vulnerable members of our community. As a city sponsored program, the committee would be able to oversee the mediation to assure that the tenants participated in a process that was fair and level the playing field. A city sponsored programs could still collect the data. Thank you very much. I will give you the rest of the time. Speaker 0: Thank you. Karen Bey and then John Klein. Speaker 10: Good evening. I'm here this evening to represent the small mom and pop landlords. We are going to be the most impacted of all the landlords by this proposed ordinance. If you own 20 units or more, you have the opportunity to spread out the cost. But if you own 1 to 4 units, it's it's it's it's not feasible to spread out the costs without raising rents much higher than 5%. And if you own an older building 100 years or more, the cost to maintain and repair those buildings are significant. I share the same story that this woman told. I'm a single mom again. I've got a brick foundation. I finally the rents have gone up. I can apply for a loan. The loan is 65% LTV. But with your proposed rent ordinance, our property values could go down. We've been told that our property values could be lowered. So this is as if there's an earthquake. I and I need a foundation out of luck, right? To lease the Mountain View ordinance for the leases that terminate. Say that as long as both the tenant and the landlord agree. And I think that that language should be in the ordinance because most tenants are good. But there is the occasional problem a tenant that tries to gain the system relocation assistance. I think it should be means tested. The Mountain View ordinance requires you to qualify for relocation assistance. So it focuses on working families, which is what we need to focus on. That's what this is really about, is the working families. And if they qualify for relocation assistance, can they get it? Finally, I just want to say everyone should pay for the cost of this housing crisis, not just the landlords. It's unfair to make us pay for a regional housing crisis that we didn't pay that we didn't cause. So the Mountain View ordinance create the have a community rent relief fund and they use that fund to help to help tenants with housing issues. And I think if we need to find a way to tax everybody so that we all share the costs, not just the landlords. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. John Klein. And then Rita Hill. And then Maria Dominguez. Speaker 3: My name is John Klein, and Charlie Edwards has succeeded some time to me as well. So the staff report I'm glad to see that it's proposed a and to talk to you about the mom and pop exception. I propose that that mom and pops are comprised of 2 to 4 units. You have over 4600 units. That would be mom and pops. That's 28% of the rental rental units in the city. You are concerned about the large landlords with 50 units or more. That's only 17% of your units. The mom and pops are 28% of your units. The fact that you're considering any kind of exemption for them is why we can't call what you're working on the Landlord Protection Act. It just shouldn't be happening. It just shouldn't be happening. But even so. No one's ever provided any data that substantiates the claims that they can't afford that and any benefits. As a matter of fact, that is that claim is contradicted by experts from the real estate industry. For example, just six months ago, in October 2015, as a research vice president at the National Association of Realtors said in August 2015, rent spiked 3.6% over the same time a year earlier, the fastest pace since 2008. Naturally, people collecting rent are thrilled with the gains they are seeing. Both large part investors and mom and pop landlords are enjoying the best conditions they've seen in years. Similarly, a Zillow economist in an article about the Bay Area titled Best Cities for Small Landlords, the greatest returns are actually in the markets like San Francisco and San Jose, where there are short term monthly losses. But the long term earned equity makes them the best markets to invest in. So we say that Oakland, Alameda, real estate markets are virtually indistinguishable with regard to their profitability. So so these claims that they can't afford tenant protection benefits are unsubstantiated at best and in spurious. So. Really? So that's what I have to say about the mom and pops. But so the data collection is what's important here. Right now you're talking about just collecting data on 5% rent increases. You must collect it all the the the the mom and pops who come in and say, we never raise our rent more than 5% . You don't know that. And you don't even know who the mom and pops are you. And so the data collection needs to be all units. It needs to be by size 2 to 4 units, 5 to 9, 10 to 19. And these categories are out of the bay report that I'm giving to you. So none of the claims that the mom and pops are making can be substantiated unless you do complete data collection for all types of units. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you, Rita. And then Maria Dominguez. Speaker 5: I'm talking about the displacing family and the low rent tenants with rent control. Number one, displacing family. You know, more landlords would only rent to the individuals sharing rooms instead of renting entire apartment to family. B Individuals have a much higher chance to move out due to a change of jobs and family size and etc.. Number two, with rent control and we will spend more money to rehab the property, then rent at a market rent instead. And with rent control we can. No longer help people out and we must rent property out at above market rent, otherwise won't be able to raise rent in the future. And number three, create tension between landlords and tenants. You know, we want to have a good relationship, working relationship with the tenant and also want to lay low. Landlords are human beings. We're not evil. We're not enemies. We bring the business to the city. And rental business, just like other business, is a very good business for the economy. The city too and also know no more long lease. We usually signed two years with a low increase in the second year only a few percent. But now we will only do more one year lease. And that's why rental control does not set there. The rent law is that it push the rent higher. So thank you so much. Speaker 0: Thank you. Maria Dominguez. And then. John. John. Speaker 1: My name is Mario Mingus. I'm an Alameda resident and a renter. I'm a very active member of my community. I'm part of the League of Women Voters, Alameda chapter and a member of Alameda Renters Coalition. I received a 60% increase in November, and I'm here tonight out of self-interest, but also and more importantly, my community's interests, including low income, working class and middle class workers. Are you willing to displace schoolchildren in the middle of the school year? Are you willing to lose schoolteachers? Just today in San Francisco? Tenant protections for San Francisco teachers are being proposed. Why isn't Alameda looking to be an innovator in the Bay Area as well? If you don't do the right thing, you will contribute to increasing homelessness in the Bay Area and creating a less racially diverse alameda. This is Black History Month. Housing is a civil rights issue. Do the right thing and be on the right side of history. Don't let Alameda history repeat itself like ten years ago when hundreds of black families were forced out from the Harbord Island Apartments, a complex that was then home to about a third of Alamitos black population. Today, black and immigrant families are especially vulnerable, including Filipinos, Vietnamese and Latinos on the island. Again, do the right thing and be on the right side of history. Put a cap on maximum allowable increases of rent at 65% of the Bay Area. CPI is reasonable and in line with numerous other California cities. Don't look at San Jose. They're going to change it as well. They're going to bring down their numbers. Pass no cause eviction protections, provide relocation assistance, amend the relocation benefit exemption for so-called mom and pop owners. Mediation and arbitration is not appropriate here. Create an elected rent board that is accountable to the community, mandate data collection for all rent increases and collect an annual program fee so you can pay the costs of the hearings, the program staff, the data collection and all the other necessary administrative and enforcement costs. Do the right thing and be on the right side of history. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. John. John J. I and G. John, are you here? Monte Hyang. And Monty on yours. It has Tristan sitting time to you, but she already spoke. So is there someone else that wants. If you need more time. Speaker 3: I'll talk fast. Speaker 0: All right. Speaker 3: Okay. I'm a 15 year resident of alameda. I pulled off some comments. Brant complaints from facebook. Alameda peeps. You may be familiar with it. This is deni. In October, our day care provider got her rent increased by $750 after another increase of $200 earlier this year. She'll be paying for 4000 a month. Our little one loves her. We were extremely happy with her. It would be great if she could stay in Alameda. This is the day care provider. This is Gillian from January. In writing, I'm writing on behalf of my dear friends who are a lovely family here in Alameda. They are being evicted from their apartment of eight years because the owner is moving in the family and now we are faced with daunting rent increases we all know have caused so much duress here in the community. This is this is Maria from today. We just received a 6.3% increase increase effective March 1st. It was a $90 increase last March and a 100 and hundred dollars increase this March. My husband refuses to go to the rack for fear of retaliation. But I can report the data, so why can't I report the data somewhere and have it matter to anyone? This is Siena for January 31. Got a 8% rent increase notice yesterday. Less than six months ago, they added utilities to our lease. How long was slow response, a service request and poor upkeep of common areas. I feel like they've been holding us hostage because of threats of rent increases, because people are afraid to complain. So when a hired lobbyist comes in here quoting. From a Cheyenne telephone telephone survey. I hope you'll think about people like Danny and Gillian and Maria and Sienna. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. And our last speakers, Brian Maguire. If you haven't heard yours, it's time. Thank you. Speaker 3: Good morning. Didn't think I'd manage to do this later than last time. I'm impressed that after ignoring the buzzer for 4 hours, you managed to you chose to unilaterally give this item in particular 2 minutes only and start cracking the whip. That's seems kind of arbitrary and capricious, if you ask me. But for the people, the landlords complain that 5% is not, uh, functional for them. This is a very different than, say, two thirds or CPI like you see in some of our neighboring cities. If the economy stalls like everyone likes to predict every six months, you still have the ability to catch up at basically double the rate of inflation over recent years. So it's it's a far cry from what, you know, the people are are trying to say what happened with, you know, comparing this to like a stricter voter driven policy. You guys should be championing you guys should be the ones endorsing this all the way. Because like some have said, this is this is going to protect you as far as some of the. Provisions as far as mom and pops, which we hear about all the time. They don't have to evict the tenants if they don't want to pay the relocation costs, if they do need to evict the tenants. They have a pretty nice piece of collateral that they can use to finance that, you know, relatively moderate or minor cost, depending how long the tenants been there. If you can't make that work, you're in the wrong business. And no business owner deserves guaranteed success. Just look at the restaurants out here on Park Street. Property owners. Do not have a moral right to extract all of the income gains in the region from a booming economy. If there are any exemptions considered from this council, I would suggest limiting it to something like owner occupied parcels with two, maybe three units capped. Anything beyond that? You're you're in the business of, you know, providing housing and you're a property manager. But if you were living on that site, maybe there's some some differences there. But thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Any other speaker slips. All right. So he was our last speaker. Staff are going to come back up here now. Now, Miss Potter, do you have, like, a list? How do you propose? Speaker 6: So my recommendation is, if we could call back up the PowerPoint presentation, I would suggest that we just scroll through and we kind of like we did on the fifth issue by issue, if that works for the council, otherwise we can answer questions. Speaker 4: Yeah. You know, we never did have an opportunity to ask questions on the staff report, I assume, just because we wanted to get into the speakers. Speaker 0: So can we ask the speakers as we go through I mean, ask for clarifying questions as we go through the items instead of all at once. You mind if we do it for item. Speaker 4: On the staff. Speaker 1: Report? Um. Um. Speaker 4: I'll do my best. But normally we do have a chance to ask clarifying questions of the staff report. Speaker 0: She's going to be going over the report. Speaker 4: And it's going to be the bullets to it. But Mr. Spencer, she's this is not the standard we're looking at. Speaker 0: See. Where do you want to start? Speaker 6: Yeah. So I am prepared to talk on the PowerPoint slides, the staff report or the principles that were the exhibit to to the staff report. Um, but if we just wanted to start and take them in order, we would start with the one year at least and staff would request a consensus direction from the council about. Um. Mandate and a requirement to offer a one year lease to in place tenants as well as the already agreed to offering of one year leases to prospective tenants. Speaker 0: All right, Member Ashcraft, are you in a position to discuss that or you want to go back to something else at this point? Speaker 4: I'll go with the flow, but I expect you to let me ask my questions at some point this evening and not to get to a point and say, okay, no questions, it's too late. But, I mean, I think we need to now have more council deliberation than hearing staff speak. So. Debbie Ms.. Potter's presented this question. Speaker 3: In the frame. Speaker 0: So she's going to go item by item, and then we can respond and deliberate then at each item. I remember. Speaker 2: So I like it. I prefer just to begin going item by item, asking whatever clarifying questions or any questions we have, and then and having an opportunity to the extent that council members so want to, you know, frame all the questions and comments and concerns. All at once. Speaker 0: Everybody, whether you. Speaker 7: Agree with or dislike, I mean, as you suggested, Madam Mayor, we go through each item, liberate, give our comments and questions, and there's something we haven't done and we want to do a wrap up statement. Then we could kind of do that up there. Speaker 0: Didn't you want. Speaker 7: Them okay with you? Speaker 0: I prefer that. I think it's orderly. I think I was very successful last time doing it that way. Did you want to weigh in by square or. Speaker 9: Yes. I like the idea of going through the points that need the staff feels it needs to get clarification on. But I do think we should be able to have questions or comments on the staff report. Or offer other thoughts at the end of this. Speaker 3: Yeah. Speaker 4: Yeah. And I'm I'm in agreement with the vice mayor if you know. Speaker 0: It necessary at that time. Speaker 4: I beg your pardon. Speaker 0: If we still need you at that time. Speaker 3: Yeah. Speaker 4: Right. But bear in mind, we're doing this cleanup session now so that when we come to the 16th, we'll be ready to move on with the first reading of an ordinance. We most certainly weren't ready to do that coming out of the January meeting. Speaker 5: Remember. Speaker 7: And I believe that we were clear with staff when we suggested this meeting that it would be pretty much limited to these these eight items that, you know, not rehashing what we've already decided. Speaker 1: Absolutely. Speaker 0: I agree. Member de SAC. Speaker 2: So if I could just begin a quick, quick question on the one year lease, if it were all right. Speaker 0: So at this point is go ahead with your recommendation. Thank you. Speaker 6: So there was consensus on January 5th that one year leases be required to be offered to prospective tenants. There was a question about whether or not you wanted to extend that to in place tenants. Two staff's recommendation is that the one year lease offer requirement be extended to in place tenants to. Speaker 0: All right. Speaker 2: Desai My quick question is, do we have, for lack of a better word, case history of how this works in other places, though? Do we know where other places have a similar feature? Speaker 6: Yeah. So Glendale. Glendale is one of the cities that's had a longstanding ordinance regarding the requirement to offer a one year lease. The city of Palo Alto has this requirement and then Mountain View just put put an ordinance. I think it was effective last month. Speaker 2: And do we have any can we provide a 10/2 response as to if we know how effective that's been in addressing whatever their housing issues or. Speaker 6: Well, I would say the example of Glendale is that I'm in Glendale. If you offer a one year lease, you are exempt from all other requirements regarding relocation and all the others. So, so in Glendale, and if you go on to their website, they'll tell you that. You know, their their programing they have. There is very little activity because my guess is that they offer one year leases and they move forward. And that's what Palo Alto has had in place. But we have not researched the the the details are kind of beyond that. Speaker 2: That's fine. That was an interesting point about Glendale. Thank you. Speaker 1: Mm. Speaker 0: Any other clarifying questions or comments on this issue? Speaker 4: So notwithstanding your comment about Glendale, we're not proposing we're not even on relocation benefits yet. Speaker 6: Right. This is, you know, the recommendation to require one year leases was part of the package of sort of additional tenant protection measures. And from staff's perspective, the idea of offering one year leases is to bring some stability and some certainty to the process that if you have a lease, you will your rent will not go up for a while, for 12 months. And it's an opportunity to to introduce stability. The council already said that they wanted to do this for prospective tenants. The only question I believe that's on the table for for for further discussion is that if you extend that requirement to in place tenants and. That that's what other jurisdictions who have this requirement they they offer it to in place as well as prospective tenants and the in-place tenants are only once because the or you know as. The ordinance is going to be effective. And then what we anticipate is that you would offer that the one year lease when either if you have a lease now 60 days before your lease expires or at that time your first rent increase. And it's a one time only. Requirement. And if you've done that, you've you've fulfilled that obligation under the ordinance. And it seems to staff that the you know, it's equitable if you required of perspective as well as for the in-place tenants. Speaker 0: But we had a question from an audience member. If they offer a one year lease, does then become a month to month or is it one year and then done? Speaker 6: We'll roll to it. Typical residential rental leases in the state. Speaker 0: That it rolls. Speaker 6: Yes, roll to month. Speaker 0: But is that a requirement of this then? If there's a. Speaker 1: Requirement. Speaker 6: Is that it be if you have an existing lease and you're going to be offered, you're an in-place tenant with an existing lease and you're going to be offered one lease. It has to be materially the same. So if it rolled to month to month, it would roll to month to month in the new lease to. Speaker 0: All right. Thank you for clarifying that. Remember, it's a quick. Speaker 7: Question. I think we decided last time, if I'm not mistaken, that you get one rent increase per year, right? Speaker 6: That's correct. Speaker 7: So, I mean, if you do opt as a tenant to go month to month and don't accept that lease, you're still going to get one increase per year. You're not going to get an increase every two months or three months or six. Speaker 6: That's correct. Speaker 7: And then we so our is your suggestion that, you know, we do this as a one time stabilization and then everyone whose lease expires and gets an increase within the next 12 months gets an option of one year. And then we just we're one and done. Yes. Some people don't want I mean, this is what February. Speaker 6: Right. The recommendation is one day. Speaker 7: So anyone whose lease may have expired in January, you know, next January, they'd be subject no. But once the right for. Speaker 6: The first time, there's a notice of a rent increase after the ordinance goes into effect. Speaker 0: Okay. So what if they don't do it in the first year? But that only applies to rent increases in the first year after the ordinance goes into effect. Speaker 6: The way we are and the way we've drafted is the first time there's a notice of the first rent increase, whether it's a year from now, 24 months from now, if. Speaker 0: Or any other member. Speaker 7: Oh, I'll go. Speaker 3: After. Speaker 4: Them. Just for clarification, a tenant could opt to, rather than if the tenant had some reason to not want to be held to a one year lease. Job relocation prospects are something they would don't have to accept the one year lease. They could ask for month to month and they wouldn't be penalized. Speaker 1: That's correct. Speaker 0: But they would still have the rent increase then. Correct? Speaker 6: That's correct. Speaker 0: And I remember they it I remember. Speaker 7: Just just to be clear on the policy. So on the rent increase, with the one time a year limit, you know, we've kind of taken care of the rent increase. The stability that we were trying to get with this one year lease was on the evictions because those that were on a month to month lease would then understand that at least for the next year, unless they do something like nuisance or don't pay their rent, that they're not going to get a no no fault eviction or, you know, some Omar or something like that. Speaker 6: Evictions. It's things like provision of a parking lot or access to laundry facilities, things that are that are provided to via a lease that that you would have that kind of certainty or stability for for an additional year. Speaker 7: And then anyone that may, for one reason or another, you know, not have a formal lease or be on an oral agreement on a month to month, which, believe it or not, they're still out there. You know, we'd get them like with standardized terms. You know, one thing we may want to think about, you know, is some type of model lease, but that's a discussion for another day. Speaker 1: Right. Speaker 0: You're right about that. Speaker 1: Yeah. Speaker 6: Well, actually, I might have had some request about coming up with a model list once the ordinance is in place. And that's something I think that staff is interested in working on that would be available. Standard noticing, model list, those kinds of things that that. Speaker 5: Could be helpful. Yeah. Speaker 4: And we're not we're not it's not a gender issue. We don't want to be here till four in the morning. So thank you. Another time. Speaker 0: Every day. Speaker 2: So one last question for me on this topic. So with regard to going back to the Glendale model, are you saying that we anticipate implementing that feature of the model where if you implement a one year lease at the time that the lease is exhausted, if the landlord so chooses not to continue and the per the Glendale model that the landlord doesn't have to provide relocation benefits. Speaker 6: No, we're not recommending that. Speaker 0: All right. So then, are we ready to give direction? So this time we were just giving direction. We weren't actually taking emotion. So. Right. Speaker 6: Right. I think if there's a sense of the council or consensus that the clerk could capture, that would be all right. Speaker 0: So council members, you just want to go around the table. How do you want to do whatever you want? I'm okay. I'll I'll go ahead and say I'm agreeable to staff recommendation. Anyone else want to weigh in? Speaker 9: I'd like to have it the way it was originally. Where it's just the first time. Speaker 0: Nebraska. Did you want to weigh in? Do you want him to clarify. Speaker 4: What's between. Speaker 9: The four? It doesn't apply to existing tenants. Speaker 4: You don't want it to apply to existing tenants. Oh, okay. I'm. I'm agreeable to what's on the screen before us. Speaker 0: To offer the least to existing tenants. I had never talked to. Any questions are going away. Speaker 2: No, I. I think. It's supply it to new tenants. But I will hold off as to whether or not existing tenants. I mean, I'll have to think about that more. Speaker 1: Well, is that an abstention then? Speaker 2: Because we know it just means that for sure and for. Speaker 3: Uh. Speaker 0: So we're going to be able to craft an ordinance to come back to us. This is this is preparing for that. All right. All right, go ahead. Speaker 7: 5 seconds. Yeah, I'm fine with the staff recommendation. Speaker 6: So I would say that that is there's no chances. Speaker 1: To have this work and be a majority consensus. Speaker 6: Majority. So that's helpful. And B will be capturing the concept of the one time lease offer for a perspective as well as in place tenants in place. Speaker 0: It's when there's a rent increase or not. Speaker 6: If they're on a month to month and then if they're already have an existing lease, it will be 60 days before their current lease expires. Speaker 3: Just once. Speaker 6: Just once. Speaker 0: For. Speaker 7: Two years they would. Speaker 6: That's correct. Speaker 4: And just for technical clarification, Ms.. Former Madame. Referred to and b I don't see an. Speaker 1: Inbuilt in the staff report under staff recommendations. Speaker 4: Gotcha. Okay. Speaker 6: Okay. I'm a. So this one, I don't think we're not asking for any action this evening. This was just an informational update. And so unless council had any feedback or input for staff, I'm. Speaker 4: Member Ashcraft Okay, so the direction I would like Steph to go in, in the ordinance you're crafting is that I think. It's important to. Speaker 0: Um. Speaker 4: Not have the tenant bear the cost of arbitration. So I know there's been some discussion in the course of discussion of, you know, both sides maybe dividing the fee. I think I said this before in January, this playing field is not level. If someone is, you know, coming forward saying, I can't afford this rent increase, how are they going to afford the. The the arbitration clause. But I think there is a you know, it's not wanting to throw a wrench into the works. But as I listened to you, Ms.. Potter, explain that we can't say binding arbitration because there's legal implications, and you're right. And then you get into, you know, really having it be rent control. And there's other implications to that. So it's just a binding hearing process. But there's the judicial review. So just stop and think for a minute of how onerous a process that might be. So landlord comes forward wanting to have an increase of more than 5%. First you go to the rack. We all know that's not binding. Then we go to the arbitration process. But that's not binding either because it can still be appealed, so then it can be appealed to a judicial process. So we are requiring in some instances people to go through cross three hurdles. Speaker 0: So it's my understanding that's exactly what the City of Gardena has, and that still counts as rent control. By having this arbitration, it is considered some sort of rent. Speaker 4: Control by the and even it's clear what what Gardena does are, you know, Cucamonga or whatever. What I'm just concerned about is our renters here. And I just stopped and thought about that process, for starters. How long will that take? And and then what's the cost? That what's the cost as a judicial process is this small claims court so parties aren't represented by attorneys or what's the. Can you walk us through that? Because I think we need to consider that. Speaker 3: If you want me to jump in on that. Speaker 6: Sure. Can I just one thing that I want to say about what's being proposed is that for rent increases that are being proposed, that are above 5%, that the rent increases not effective until the the that all of the processes have happened. Speaker 4: So I understand the technicalities. I've read the report, but I'm just saying, what happens if I mean that conceivably a renter and a landlord could go through these three steps? Speaker 6: That's correct. That is that is correct. Speaker 4: And so, Vice Mayor, you I think Mr. Bash was going to chime in. Speaker 0: Well, I'm concerned about how much time we're going to spend on this part. Vice Mayor, did you want to comment? Speaker 9: I just want to comment very quickly on this whole notion of binding arbitration or binding. Hearing. Hearing and thinking about and then hearing your explanation. I'm not. I'm no longer supporting that because I don't think it provides enough benefit for the cost and the problem. We've had a non-binding system when people are avail themselves of it or feel comfortable enough to go to it. It's been fairly successful at a fairly low cost, and there's still judicial review at the end of that process that's available to people. And I think this puts and maybe. A unwieldy and and maybe not beneficial step in between. A mediation. And if I was to say spend the money, I'd spend it for private semi-private mediation in front of the rack. Before it becomes public. I think that has better benefit than putting a binding arbitration at the end of it. Speaker 4: And so with all due respect to and I'm concerned with the time to, but I would still like to have our attorney weigh in on this. Speaker 3: Madam Chair and members of the Council, Michael Rausch from the City Attorney's Office. Speaker 2: The. Yeah. Speaker 3: The agenda report's going to indicate that the program fee will be such that it would cover the cost of the the hearing process. So, in other words, that we make some or certain assumptions that there'll be a certain number of matters that will go to the binding hearing process and that will have a cost. And that cost will be built into the overall fee that housing providers will pay. The the persons or the housing providers who will be subject to that process will presumably pay a slightly higher fee than those that aren't, because those folks won't have the opportunity to go to the binding hearing process. But if it does go to the binding hearing process, once that decision is done, it can be challenged judicially. But I think, as Ms.. Curran has indicated previously, it would be done by what's called a petition for writ of mandate, where basically a a trial court would review the administrative record that was had before the hearing officer would look at the transcript, would look at the evidence, and then based on that, decide whether or not that decision was upheld by by substantial evidence. I think the substantial evidence rule would apply there, not an independent judgment ruled. I don't mean to be talking legalese here, but just for the just for what actually will happen. So the answer is, as staff is going to propose it there, there would be no cost to either the tenant or the housing provider to go to the binding hearing process. But beyond that, if someone wanted to continue to challenge it, it would be on either the housing provider or the tenants costs to do the judicial process. Speaker 4: So there would be a cost to a tenant to to to for the court filing or. Speaker 3: Correct. I think the idea of much like, you know, to analogize it to when the council does a land use decision a person might not like, the planning commission's decision can appeal to the city council. City Council decides that if somebody is dissatisfied and wants to go to court, that person then has to pay the freight or attorney's and other court costs that would be associated with the writ of mandate process. And that would be the way it would be handled here. Speaker 1: Just just a point of clarification, a couple of things. This process that we're talking about right now is not really on the agenda right now. You all decided that process. We're not asking for any clarification on that process. So I would really I mean it with all due respect. Program fee is not even actually on this agenda because we're suggesting that we're going to come back in February 16. Okay. Speaker 4: And that that's fine. Fair enough. But just I was trying to give direction because then when you come back, we may be sending you back again, but. Speaker 1: But that's actually not going to be separate and. That's correct. That's right. Speaker 2: And my question on this subject matter of program fee is simply this. In the case. I believe there are cases that we here in Alameda are probably looking to. Of cities that have that administer this kind of stuff. Perhaps Los Gatos is an example. I'm not quite sure, but I think it would benefit the public and many people if we simply demystify this whole process and in addition to kind of, you know, discussing the mechanics of it, but kind of be able to point at, well, and this is how Los Gatos works for good or for bad, but just the facts or this is how did you say Gardena? This is how Gardena works, how much it costs and blah, blah, blah. So that we get we get the sense that, okay, this is something that, you know, that other places are doing. And so we're not doing something that's so. No mystical. Speaker 6: Well, we were actually focusing on what or what the proposed ordinance looks like and what we think it's going to cost to administer our ordinance. But we we will have flowcharts and lots of information. Speaker 2: Thank you. Speaker 0: All right. Speaker 3: Just real brief. You know. Speaker 7: Personally, I think on a policy level, this is going to benefit tenants. And there's also going to be some some things in there that the landlords want. And I think the only fair and equitable way is to share that cost equally across all landlords and tenants. 5050. That's just my. Speaker 0: So actually, I, I I'm going to hold off because. Thank you. Thank you. That's what I heard you wanted us to do. So honor that. So you could just go straight to the next point that you need us to respond to in order to craft the ordinance. Let's stay focused on that. Thank you. Speaker 6: So the next item is that the council has already indicated that they want to allow no cause evictions with certain limitations. So the the only the only direction that we're really looking for this evening is what the cap what cap you would like to see for the next tenants rent increase if there is no cause eviction or an in place tenant. Speaker 0: All right. So my position on this one is that then the the rent to the next tenant would be whatever they could have gotten if they've kept that tenant. And so if they hadn't given had a rent increase within the past year or if they wanted to do more than that, go through whatever would have been the same. So. Speaker 6: So are you suggesting 5%? Because that's the that's the threshold. Speaker 5: Or it. Speaker 7: Was that. Speaker 5: They hadn't received the rent increase. Speaker 6: But how are we going to. Okay. Speaker 1: So whatever is not clear, sir. Really? Speaker 7: Yeah. I mean, I. I see that it's a split the baby. So if you've had a run increase within 12 months and the new tenant, the old tenant couldn't get a rent increase until the 12 months is up. But if you're evicting somebody at the end of their lease, then you'd be entitled to raise that rent 5%. Speaker 6: So you'd be entitled to raise it to an unlimited amount. Speaker 4: We're not paying a rent. Speaker 1: But if. Speaker 7: The thought was here that you could only charge what you would have, charge the tenant that was staying. Speaker 6: Well, know what that cap is really. The 5% is really equivalent to the trigger that we would require initiating the process. That's what the 5% was it. And in January we had it set at 8% because that was the percentage. Speaker 0: For rent on a new. Speaker 6: Tenancies, rent on the new tenant. Speaker 7: And the whole point of this policy, if I remember correctly, was to disincentivise the rent evictions. That's correct. So if you allow somebody to evict somebody and then charge a 25% increase. Speaker 6: Exactly. Speaker 7: A disincentive. Speaker 6: So that's why we're asking for a direction on a cap. Right. Speaker 7: And I think the mayor's suggestion was. If you if the if they got their rent increase in the last 12 months, then you couldn't. Increase that existing tenants rent if they were on month to month. So that should be zero. And correct me if I'm wrong, but if they were eligible for a 5% increase, you know, we would make at that flat 5%. Speaker 2: What about instances where a tenant tenant a move is evicted for no cause and receives a relocation benefit? So are we saying that the landlord has to pay a relocation benefit and then where the new tenant is kept? Speaker 1: Yes. Speaker 0: Because this is connected to that code section as my recollection. Speaker 6: Where. Yes, that's correct. Speaker 0: Next to that code section. In which case it's. Doesn't start brand new. So it would actually be. If if the code section is correct, if that's what this is, then it's zero. However, there's the next time they could give the increase would be whenever it would have been eligible for the prior tenant. Is it coming? Speaker 6: So I understand. I understand the point about if the rent has been increased once in the past 12 months, you can't increase it again. So that might argue for a zero, you know, allowing for no rent increase. The part that I'm not quite following is that because there is no cap on rents, I don't know if they haven't done a rent. If they're if they haven't if they're owed a rent increase. It's been 12 months. They could do 20%, 15%. I mean, you would have to set a. Speaker 7: Cap purpose of. Speaker 6: I know. So that's why we need a cap hearing. Speaker 4: So. Speaker 6: Right. So we need a percentage cap. Speaker 4: So may I. Speaker 0: Remember? Speaker 4: So I'm going to suggest that we make it 5%. And it's part of the package of what you as a landlord, you have rights, but you have responsibilities. So you're going to come up with this. You want to turn it out. Don't have to give a reason. Don't have to go to court and pay attorney's fees. But you will have to I know we haven't gotten to the relocation assistance, but we've talked about this. You'll have to pay the relocation assistance. You'll have to pay the movie expenses. You can charge the next tenant, assuming they you evicted right at the end of the term or whatever the. What you were currently getting, plus up to 5% increase. And with that, I also expect to eliminate a lot of the arguments I heard tonight about how mom and pop landlords can't possibly afford all these various expenses because we are giving you a cushion is essentially what we're doing. But I don't see how we can. Well, I don't know. I mean, there may be legal ways, but I think if 5% was the trigger that we chose for taking, you know, a below 5%, 5% or below would stand unless the tenant took the the landlord to the rack. It seems like 5% is an increase that we found was reasonable. Speaker 2: And let me ask this question. So going back to real life examples, can you give an example where where such a clause exists? Speaker 6: No, because this is this is kind of this is a good example of the hybrid ordinance that the Alameda is looking at. If most cities with rent stabilization don't allow no cause evictions, they they only allow evictions for just cause. And then if you don't have rent stabilization, you tend not to have eviction protections. So this is something where the city is kind of proposing to do something that is accommodating the request by a lot of the property owners that they be allowed to do no cost evictions, but are willing to put limitations on that to really address the very important issue of sort of the economic evictions, evictions strictly to raise the rent. When a tenant has been paying their rent every month, they've been, you know, abiding by their lease, that kind of thing. Speaker 2: My opinion is simply that to me, while we have. Discussions about the relocation assistance and maybe there are other benefits. To the extent that the tenant. Tenant A is moved and received whatever the relocation. The benefit is in my opinion that landlord, as so to speak, given to the church already. So now we're doing a second penalty where they can't do some kind of rent increases because it's altogether possible that they have to do a rent increase for or some capital expenses. I know. That's just my opinion. Speaker 6: Right. So capital expenses would be a different type of eviction if you were to if you wanted to, to deal with a substantial rehabilitation. And you needed you were going to make a big investment and you needed a rent increase above the 5% that you would. That would be a different grounds for eviction. This is evictions for for no cause where you don't have to show cause. And so the council had already agreed in January to. To doing the cap and to doing the in requiring the relocation. And really what we're focused on is the very narrow question of what the percentage cap should be. Speaker 0: It was my understanding and recollection that when we did this, went through this, we were told there's a civil code section that says that you cannot once you have a city that has rent control, that and that's what this would be then that if you evict for no cause that that next tenant, you cannot increase the rent for that civil code section. Speaker 1: Well, you can rent. Speaker 0: You disagree with that code section that that does not apply. Speaker 4: Very. Speaker 3: I, I think our opinion is that the Council has the discretion if it wants to set that 5% cap, that it does that it. I don't think it's quite as black and white as that as it may have. Self-represented. Speaker 0: So could we set 10%? 20%? You don't think it has any bearing on this at all? Speaker 3: I don't think it does now. Speaker 0: So what do you think that code section speaks to? Speaker 3: Well, I think it speaks to situations. It it's a fairly narrow exception concerning single family residences. And this is going to apply more broadly than that. So, again, I just think that. It really addresses a different issue than than you're really kind of facing right at the moment. So I think if the council if the council wants to make it zero, it certainly can. If it wants to put it at 5%, I think it can do that as well. Speaker 0: So I'm hoping we don't have very many no cause evictions and that's what I think we're trying to contain here. So I would like us to figure out a way that it can, in fact, be that they don't get to bite that they have. I actually don't think this is about evicting someone. And then you could increase the rent all you want for a no cause eviction. And and. But. But should that number be zero 5%? Speaker 4: So I, I feel I mean, I've heard the term split the baby. It's not my favorite term, but I guess it's biblical. But I do think we have to try to address interest on both sides. And what is that? I think there are different no cause evictions. And I'm just going from, you know, a lot of conversations I've had with housing providers. And one is that, yeah, we've seen egregious rent increases where a landlord came back with, you know, a very steep increase after they got charged twice as much or whatever. But I'm also told that there are times when you have a problem tenant that is, the other tenants don't want to testify against him in court, and that's what it would take. And yet it's causing a problem for all of the tenants. And this is a way to get that tenant out. It's also a way to look at it charitably, to not put a black market on that particular tenant's record that would make him or her have a harder time renting a subsequent unit because there's you know, there's all different ways to look at this. So I'm comfortable with having the No Cause eviction allowed. And I know the the landlord organization's really wanted that and they're not thrilled with relocation expenses, but I think that's equitable. But again, I do think that we need to take into consideration ability to maintain property, ability to put aside that reserve that you need for, you know , unanticipated expenses or, you know, expenses going up. But I think then we're being quite fair. And again, the 5% figure, it is about twice CPI, but it's used in Los Gatos, you know, successfully in that well, that's their cap. But I, I, I would argue that we allow a 5% cap. I don't think that's egregious because again, it's something we agreed was the trigger beyond, which is a trigger to to go to rack. Speaker 0: Remember. Speaker 7: I mean, I'm fine with the 5% also. I mean, I don't want to get into a long discussion on the rest of it. Speaker 0: So can I spare them? Yes, Jose. I am to them. There'll be a suggested cap. 5%. Okay. Speaker 6: Thank you. Speaker 2: But there's a double penalty. Relocation benefit was the penalty. Speaker 7: Okay, well, but then you could. Speaker 0: That's all right. Next issue. Let's go. Speaker 6: Got it for next issue, then. Sticking with that, the concept of no cause evictions is to cap the number of allowable no cause evictions in it in a 12 month period. Speaker 4: This is one of my staff report questions. Speaker 0: All right. Go ahead, Amber Ashcraft. Speaker 4: So my question was how? So Mr. Potter in the staff report and this is paragraph number five right now, the cap on number of no cause evictions. And the first sentence is to prevent a property owner from undertaking a mass eviction to renovate a building in lieu of preparing a capital improvement plan. Why would we ever allow a property owner to do anything that involves involved evicting tenants without a capital improvement plan? Speaker 6: We we don't want to do that. We want to prevent that, which is why we are recommending that there be a cap on the number of no cause evictions. So there's not a workaround. And so you're really compelled if you need to evict your tenants or relocate them for purposes of substantial rehabilitation, you will have to go through the capital improvement plan process. Speaker 4: So do you ever envision? So. Okay, so how would I? It's maybe it's the IRA, but how would. Would this first phrase come to pass to prevent a property owner from undertaking a mass eviction, to renovate a building in lieu? You mean to go away to do a mass? No. Cause. Speaker 6: Yeah, exactly. That's why we need to cat. That's why we're recommending that it be capped. And so I think everyone was supportive of that concept and it was really initially staff had recommended it cap at 50% and I think the discussion was 50% might be too high. Staff is prepared to go with it. We're prepared to say we agree that that probably was too high and that 25% probably makes sense for buildings with five or more units in that. For buildings with four or fewer units, it's just one one. No cause eviction here. Speaker 7: You have to fix. Speaker 0: You agree so I. Speaker 6: I'm sorry the. Speaker 7: Fix your math because if you have five or if you have five units 10% a month is. That is one and it's 20% one. So you just need to fix the math. Okay. Speaker 1: We will. Speaker 0: But what should it be? Speaker 3: We have a rounding up or rounding down. Right. Speaker 7: Okay. So because you would get zero if you were only about 10% of one. Speaker 0: So I'm agreeable with staff recommendation with tax return. Parts of this, correct. You're asking for both parts? Speaker 1: Yes. Speaker 0: Okay. I'm agreeable with that. Speaker 2: So this mainly is speaking to preventing mass evictions. Speaker 0: Masquerading as evictions. Speaker 1: Right. Speaker 2: So this. Speaker 6: Is circumvent. Speaker 2: Kind of dealing with the harbor. This would be a tool to prevent Harbor Island happening again or for $0.70 on it. Speaker 7: And it's also a nightmare. Speaker 9: I would prefer I would support this for units, buildings with units of maybe ten or 20 more, because that's where the problem's been. We have not had this problem. Or for the smaller buildings. And I think the we should recognize that difference. In fact, the two marquees that drive this are 30 plus. Speaker 0: So I would say sell it for a price. Thank you. Okay. So I want to speak to that because part of the second part of this, no more than one unit per year for buildings with four or fewer units. So if they have four or fewer units, you're okay with them doing evicting all of them at once. Speaker 5: You don't think anything. Speaker 9: There on the circumstance and and I think. Speaker 2: Hold on now. Aren't we entering into kind of. Speaker 0: Hold on members? They let him finish his comment. Speaker 9: I think those are different circumstances than theirs. That's why I've been pushing for evictions to be within the scope of of Iraq, so that those those type of where there's untrue unfairness, people have a recourse. Speaker 0: All right, remember, they suck it. Speaker 3: Well. Speaker 2: I think we run the risk of having the threshold too low if we do. Or units. Speaker 0: But no more than one unit if you only have four units in your building. Speaker 1: Just so basically. Speaker 2: 20%, 20% conceivable that what you're saying is anyone who who owns a. Speaker 0: Building the four. Speaker 2: Plex. Anyone who owns a four plex at any point in time. Even if it's. They run the risk of doing a mass eviction by definition. Speaker 0: So these are for no cause eviction. Speaker 2: This or even for. Speaker 6: Nothing. Well, this is. Speaker 2: I mean. Speaker 6: They would think this would cap this would cap the number of no cause evictions that you could do annually. Two one if you're doing four or fewer if you were had it for plex or smaller. And it would cap it to 25% of the units annually in buildings with five or more units. The idea. Right. Once again, the idea is that you wouldn't do a bunch of no cause evictions as a way to get get. Get rid of folks and then and not sort of be required to do a capital improvement plan or something else in support of why you're evicting out all your tenants. Speaker 2: But it's completely possible that in a four plex or even a six plex, that you could remove a person following the rules, like moving in a family member. Correct. And and then it's also possible that. Some other thing happens such that you do another no cause evictions that that is conceivably have reasonable grounds that. Speaker 0: The family member be. Speaker 6: Allowed and you'd be permitted to do that because family move in is a different it's a no fault eviction. It's not a no cause eviction. So you could do if you had a four plex, you could do three owner move ins theoretically and one no cause eviction. You could do that. This is this is a cap on the no cause, not the no fault. Speaker 4: That. Speaker 0: There are differences. Do you want her to go over that? Speaker 2: One last question. It's a do it again. Do we have examples of cities having this kind of language? Speaker 6: No, because once again, this is tied to the fact that we're going to be permitting no cause evictions. But we want to protect. And cities either have. Only just cause eviction or they allow evictions without regulating them. So we're really this is this is kind of new, new territory. Speaker 0: I wrote it. Speaker 7: And I think that was the policy. You know, the choice was doing just cause which. It's a controversial issue, but we made a policy decision not to do just cause. And landlords have told us, you know, we do these no cause evictions very rarely. And they still wanted to have the ability to do with them. So this this gives them you know, this is kind of the tradeoff. This gives them the ability to do that. And, you know, we heard landlords here today say, oh, I never evict people. I'm not going to evict people. I want to keep my tenants. But that's true. You know, that's not going to really be a big deal. Right. And, you know, this is kind of the. You get one mulligan, you know, one bad decision. You know, we can't protect landlords from making, you know, multiple bad business decisions. And like one of the tenant people said, you know, if you do that, maybe you're in the wrong business. So you get your one shot. Use it if you need a second one. You go to court. You know, if if you need four or five, then, you know, maybe you're in the wrong business. So I'm fine with the staff recommendation. Speaker 0: Thank you. Member Ashcroft And. Speaker 4: I just want to chime in and say that I object to having any exceptions to this. I think that this needs to apply regardless of what the the size of the unit is. I really don't want to see us start carving out exceptions because we we came to this project to begin with because of the stories we had heard. We're trying to to correct that. And so I just don't want to create different classes of of tenants. And some are protected and some aren't. And again, we're going to do this. We're going to put something together. We're going to have an annual review. We will have a chance to look back over a year's worth of work and see what works better than others. And and, you know, tweak as we need. But I don't want to start. Speaker 0: So this has to pass. And you're okay to march then. Speaker 4: So this is the yeah, I am. I want. Speaker 0: That to be the same. Speaker 4: Because part of what we want to do is also encourage people to take care of their buildings, to maintain them. So if you really have a substantial renovation you need to do, then you come forward with your capital improvement plan, but not just move people out so you can add in, not raise your rent a little bit more. But we're going to do that still. The cap is in place on this. Speaker 1: Tent, right? Yeah. I think we have. Speaker 0: To be aware. You're aware? I support staff's recommendation. Remember? Did clearly remember Ashcroft. You just did. Vice mayor does not remember days ago. Speaker 2: Well, my concern, you know, part of my concern is. You just don't know what we don't know. And. All due respect to. You know our experts here. I don't think anyone is really. I don't know. Has anyone really incorporated such things and understand all the questions and the nuances? And that's. Speaker 0: Okay. So the birds are speaking about no cause evictions, about three of us that are comfortable with it. Let's move on. Speaker 6: And I would just say that in cities with rent stabilization there, not a lot. There are no no cause evictions allowed. So you have jurisdictions where you only can evict for cause. And those requirements have been in place in many jurisdictions for many years. So you do have the track record of not permitting no cause evictions. Speaker 0: So because we are agreeing to permit no cause evictions, we're going to have rules that are a little different than than communities that only. Yeah. Speaker 4: So it's a built in protection is the way. Speaker 0: I see it. Mm hmm. Speaker 6: Okay. So actually on this one, we are looking for direction from the council about whether or not there should be any kind of exemption for mom and pop property owners on the relocation benefit requirement. And if there is if there is a recommendation to do that, and there's the secondary exercise of defining a mom and pop property Speaker 0: . So I'd like to speak to this. When we looked at this before. It was offering additional time because the concern has been that people are being forced out. And then we came up with this thing that they would buy certain months and then it was going to be the tenant's choice. However, my preference is to come up with something that is the same, whether it's a small, whatever you call because mom and pop or a larger one. But I'm wondering what if it's always going to be if you want to do and it could could we do it legally if they want to do any? Any of the situations where this would apply. There's no cause, no fault that it would always be the additional time unless the tenant and the landlord agree that then it's money and or formula or something like that. But it's always the time. The primary default would be the time unless there's an agreement between the tenant and the landlord that it would be, you know, the dollars for each month that they would all down and then have that apply to all situations. Because what I've been hearing is that mom and pop smaller landlords may not be able to afford given it to be the tenant choice, but if we made them all, the default is the additional time based upon how many years they've been there and then they agree to lesser. But so then it would always be the same, whether it's a mom and pop or a larger landlord. Speaker 4: So may. Speaker 0: I. Yes. Speaker 4: Speak to. Speaker 0: That. Actually, is would that be legal for us to have something like that for these conditions? No fault. No cause if we could we do that. Additional time for the buyout based upon how long they've been there. But then if the landlord and the tenant agree that they if for whatever reason, the landlord wants them out sooner than the landlord has to pay the tenant the money based upon the rent that we had that same formula. That we had discussed before. Speaker 3: The the way that the ordinance is currently drafted it, it basically provides that there that at the choice of the tenant, the tenant can extend the time to remain in the unit and give up. Well, let me back up for a second. The way it's currently drafted is that the tenant has the choice of remaining one month for every year that the tenant has been in the unit up to basically four years, four months. But it goes on to provide that the tenant at the tenant's choice, the tenant can remain in the unit beyond the otherwise vacation date in exchange. They basically exchange the month rent for an additional month to stay in the in the unit. So, for example, if the tenant had been there for three years and they wanted to remain an extra month, then they would only get two months worth of additional. Relocation benefits. That's the way it's currently drafted at the council. But you can give direction in terms of how it wants to do that. But that's currently what would be before you if you leaving aside sort of the exemption issue. Speaker 6: And that was and I would just add to that and the reason the ordinance is being drafted that way is because that's the direction staff received on the 5th of January. So. Yeah. And really the only there was there wasn't consensus about doing anything differently from mom and pops, but I think there was a. There was a desire to see if the council did because there wasn't consensus on the Fifth. Was there a desire to kind of revisit that idea of an exemption that. I think it was very narrowly focused on the relocation benefits and it was really around, as you were saying, Madam Mayor, that you have the cash in hand to do it and would time be preferable to cash. And the suggestion potentially is that in the instance of a mom and pop, you, instead of allowing the choice to be solely rests solely with the tenant but the mom and pop, they could make the decision about the cash or the time. Speaker 0: All right, Mr. Ashcroft. Speaker 4: Thank you. So one of my overarching principles for what we will achieve is that we keep this simple and streamlined. And I think the fewer. Permutations the better. But also again, we need to remember why we began this discussion in the first place. Of course, we want to be fair to both landlords and tenants, but bear in mind we are allowing a rent increase that is twice the CPI. The the concept of mom and pop landlords in even defining what that is and then also doing a means test because some mom and pop landlords have on their properties long enough to own it free and clear without a mortgage. We and any business owner has to keep in mind that there are always unforeseen circumstances and operate with some sort of a reserve. I think we're giving the ability to raise rents in such a way that you should be able to create a reserve for yourself. But what we also want to do with this is to make sure that this isn't being used arbitrarily against tenants. And so I think that what we had for what is in the ordinance currently in the draft with the number of. Payments of a month's rent based on the years of tenancy. I think it's perfectly reasonable. I worry that and I wouldn't support leaving it to the landlord and the tenant to work out between themselves because that playing field is not is not level. And if we only give tenants time and not money, how does that help them go to their next? They're paying rent and they're looking around trying to find another place in a tight rental market. But they still have to come up with the first and last month's rent and security deposit. So there's no assistance for them. And the the landlord is not having to take responsibility for their actions. So I would strongly objected to any carve outs of any particular categories of tenants, because that's essentially what we're doing. Yes. Speaker 0: So then leave it at the tenants choice. Speaker 4: Leave it just. Speaker 0: Because that's what we. Speaker 4: Have for. Speaker 0: The tenants choice. Just leave it for everybody. All right. Member Odie. Speaker 7: I'll try to be brief and I kind of agree almost 100% with everything Councilmember Ashcroft said it kind of look at this house. How's it going to play out? I think, one, you leave yourself a huge loophole. So if the landlord knows I can trade for months instead of paying four month's rent, then if you're astute, you're going to say, okay, I want that person out in June. You know, I'm just going to start the process early. And then knowing that I want them out in June and I'll get them out in June, because in these type of cases, possession is king. So you want possession. So the sooner you get possession, you know, the better it is. So you're going to want to. I think there's a lot of room for manipulation. You know, I understand the concept. I understand why idea is being brought. But I think there's way too much room for manipulation. I think it's going to be difficult to define mom and pop because I think we said this earlier, not every 2 to 4 unit is owned by, you know, individuals like we've seen here today. Some are owned by corporations and not every big building is owned by corporations. Some are built are owned by locally owned folks that, you know, have the same challenges that the 2 to 4 units have. You know, they're on premises. They manage their own property. You know, they have a handy person, you know. So I don't know how you can you can draw a distinction. And, you know, I think, Brian, Mr. Maguire said it best. I mean, if you know, if you don't want to do this, don't evict people. And the folks that came here tonight said, I don't evict people. So if you don't evict people, you're probably not going to have to worry about this. And just this is important. So I just wanna spend a few more minutes on it, you know, think about if I do an am I. So you say I'm going to move away? Yes. Speaker 2: Move on and remove it. Speaker 7: I'm sorry, owner. Move in. So I can't afford. You're saying on one hand I can't afford to have a relocation, but on the other hand, you're saying I'm moving in or my son's moving in or my parent's moving in, you know, and. But by just definition, you're taking that unit off the market so you can afford to take the unit off the market and change your cash flow. But you can't afford to give somebody, you know, four months. And the same thing with, you know, this this other type of fiction, this end, there's no cause thing that we're allowing this loophole on where we're giving the landlords. We're saying we're not going to do know cause or just cause because you want a cheaper way than paying an attorney $25,000. So, you know, there's a tradeoff there, too. And then the other one is, if you're taking it off the market, if you're acting it now, you're already making a conscious business decision. I can do without or for some reason I'm not going to be I'm giving up that income stream. So you're making a decision that I can afford to give up that income stream. So in my mind, if you can afford to give up that income stream, you can afford to pay more months relocation . And you know, I understand everything everyone said, but, you know, there was a tenant. And his argument to me is why we shouldn't do it. And he exceptions. There was a tenant, 70 year old man, 70 or 73 year old man. Seven year old wife. Small unit. Four Unit. One of these people that are mom and pop on Clinton Avenue and he got evicted because the owner wanted to move the son into the property. There's one vacancy and another vacancy on February 1st. So two vacancies plus his. And it's like. Mom and pops violate these rules. You know, mom and Pops, despite every good intention that we heard today, there's going to be bad actors, and we have to protect our tenants from these bad actors. Speaker 0: Every day. Speaker 2: A Thank you. I feel strongly about small mom and pop landlords because for the most part they've played fair by the sentiments by Alameda. And we should recognize that. You know, you take a look at, for example, the rent review advisory committee agendas for the past two years, and I've done that. You take a look at the agendas and there's been 40 cases that I bet that have come forward. And of the 40 cases. Clearly the vast majority are apartments. So what that means is that we're not talking about mom and pop landlords. You know, I've heard from them. And, you know, I think the arguments raised about the difficulty of spreading the cost, I mean, they're they are reasonable. Cases, there are reasonable arguments. And I think in Alameda, there's a special place that many of the mom and pops play, particularly in terms of the many of the historical buildings that they maintain. So we're not here tonight or for the past several months because of the small mom and pop landlords. And yet we're dropping the hammer on them, most especially. And they can't deal with the cost in the same way that a ten unit, 15 unit or 20 unit apartment can. So, you know, I think people really should take a look at the rent review advisory committees agenda, take a look at each of the addresses that are there and just Google Earth them. And you'll see that they are by and large. More larger apartments. Now, I think there's a case to be made for for making sure that the small mom and pop projects in Alameda are not are exempted from from things like the relocation benefit. And if they're not exempted from the relocation benefit, that they be given consideration as contemplated here where I'm given. Speaker 0: Right. Vice Mayor, did you want. Speaker 3: To weigh in? Speaker 9: I agree with Councilmember De Saag, and it's not the size of the building. It's the number of units owned by the individual. So that's another complication. That goes into the definition. But I think someone who owns. Five four unit buildings is not a mom and pop, but someone who owns an eight unit building could be. So I think we have to peg it and we kind of did in the previous discussion where there's a cutoff of five units. So I think the number is there and I think there are also financing. You know, how you get your your loans at one point, it becomes a commercial loan. So that might be another way to identify. I'm sure there's a definition there. I do think that there needs to be a distinction because the larger the land owner, the more financial capacity they have to weather ups and downs and to have capacity to wreak havoc as well. Speaker 0: So this is for no cause and no fault evictions. So if you have a mom and pop land, whatever that is, a property owner who wants to do a no fault eviction. So then they go ahead and they evict the tenant. And that tenant doesn't get any benefit because it's a mom and pop. But if you have a land property owner that owns five units and they want to do a no fault eviction, that tenant then does get relocation and everything. And but nothing goes to the tenant that is the mom and pop. Speaker 3: Well. Speaker 9: My what is my stance if you can remember last time was that I think these. The evictions should be subject to mediation and required mediation so that there's accommodation either by finance or time or a combination of both. That's worked out on a case by case basis. Speaker 4: Mayor. Amber Ashcroft, thank you. So the problem I have with citing the RAC statistics is that we've all sat here and listened to people tell us that people were too afraid to go before the market because again and even if it were to be used for evictions, it's non-binding. All you can do is, you know, everybody has to show up and then the landlord has the option to say, yep, nope, I'm I'm doing what I want to do. But to member disagree because I know you've asked several times for precedent of what other cities have done in this regard. In this particular instance, if you'll note on the in the staff report on page four, they're at the top of page four, the last sentence of the first paragraph. Staff has not found a rent review slash rent stabilization ordinance that exempts mom and pop properties from the requirements of the ordinance. And I think that's telling. And it's what the mayor just said, that you would give some tenants the opportunity to have relocation benefits and others not. And I, I know that there's you know, we want to believe that the mom and pops, who are the good guys and the large landowners are the property owners are the bad guys. The first case I saw when I first came on the council involved the four plex and involved four sets of tenants who'd been there from 7 to 17 years, and they got rent increases of 20, 30, 40, 50% and. They really scrambled. So I, I think I think what we put together in the draft ordinance on this is a good one. And again, a year, let's give it a year's chance to prove itself. And at the end of the year, if we found some horrendous, unintended consequences, there's things that can be done. Speaker 0: So you're agreeable? I'm agreeable. You're agreeable. So three of us are agreeable to going forward with staff recommendations and not excluding them. Mom and pop. It's going to be fine. Speaker 7: Thank you for moving us. Speaker 0: Let's keep moving. Speaker 6: Okay. The second to the last issue, is it the issue of the rent increase cap and affirming that there is no cap on an annual maximum allowable rent increase, but there is a threshold amount above which a property owner must initiate the process and that that threshold amount was set at 5% on January 5th. Speaker 0: Okay. Remember. Speaker 4: This is one that I did correspond with staff about because I went back and listen to oh my gosh, the whole meeting that we had in that frigid auditorium. But I was particularly interested in this because we really didn't ever have the discussion about rent caps. So it wouldn't really be fair to say there was consensus about this. However, I am the chair. As I said, I put in my notes. The tape of the meeting reflects that there was no consensus on this issue because there was no discussion. But I'm willing to accept the 5% trigger and require that landlords initiate the process, followed by, I said, binding arbitration. But that's not quite the right phrase. And then review the statistics again in one year to gauge its effectiveness. It worries me somewhat because we are kind of saying there's no limits on what you can charge. However, I've also said in correspondence to staff that we want to make sure that both our RAC members and the arbitration arbitrators that we use have training and understand what the guidelines and criteria are that we expect them to apply . But again, we are charting some new territory, so we're not going to be able to see every outcome. I think there's light at the end of the tunnel, but some of this you have to take that leap of faith or keep doing what we were doing, which is to say nothing, which was having its own negative consequences . So I feel that this 5% trigger is very reasonable. It addresses the need for owners of older buildings to maintain them and mom and pops, whatever they are, to have reserves for relocation benefits and moving assistance. So in other words, I would agree with what's on the slide before us. Speaker 0: Anyone else wanna speak to this? Speaker 2: What about provisions for when landlords had not increased rents in previous years? Are there. What consideration do we have for that? I mean, is it as a straight five, is the threshold a straight 5% every year or in the case of Los Gatos? I think what I read was that if they had not raised the rent for two straight years, then in that third year when they're raising the rent, that the threshold is actually higher. Speaker 6: Right. So that's when you have rent control. But all all that this is is a trigger threshold to get you to the rack. So if you haven't raised the rent in three years and you you notify your tenant that you're going to be increasing their rent 10%, you will then go to the rack. And part of what you'll say to the rack is I haven't raised the rent for 3% for three years. I'm sorry, for three years. And the rack then will take that into account when they make a recommended rent increase. Speaker 2: Well, in the case of those guys, I think what it is. Don't don't raise the rent here. And in the third year, when you propose to raise the rent and it happens 5%. Speaker 0: This isn't a trigger. There's a. Speaker 6: Rent control. Those Congress has rent control. It's it's the it's the greater of 5% or 70% of the CPI. So they have they have rent control, which is 5%. And so you can't raise your rent. So and it's kind of like San Jose with their 8% rent control. If you haven't raised the rent for two years, you get 20 something first, you know. Speaker 2: So the same living plan if you don't. Let me explain. If you don't raise the rent for several years, somehow have to take into account the cumulative effect of that. Speaker 6: That's correct. Speaker 2: That's why, for example, previously what I've always been arguing is that at in any one year. Threshold by which. The rent review advisory process ought to be 8%, with the caveat that over two years it is no more than 12%, so that on an annual basis really 6%. So that's what I'm getting, that there might be some times when. And it is having this hard, fast 5%. Speaker 6: With a hard, fast 5% is a requirement to go to go to Iraq to have your rent increase that over 5% be mediated. Right. So I think the rack would take into account you haven't raised the rent in three years. You haven't raised it in two years. You haven't raised it in five, therefore. We are a reasonable rent increase would be 8%. And if all the parties agreed you would be on your way with with an increase of 8%. Speaker 2: But what I am saying is that if in one year in year one, someone raises the rent by 3%, that means in a year or two they can't raise the rent. More than 7% is three plus seven equals ten. And over two years that averages out to five on average. Speaker 0: Member. You want us on this. Speaker 6: But that's not part of what what's currently being considered. I know. Speaker 2: Right? So what I'm saying is, ah, is it a hard and fast 5% or do we take into account these kind of. But the average there. Speaker 0: Is no our number here. Speaker 1: Is 5%. This is a trigger. I know 5% is the trigger. So I know I want. Speaker 0: To move on to another council member. Member. Speaker 7: I mean, I guess not just because but if if we do a 5% cap and you also want to have some type of of consideration of banking. But if we don't do a cap, then maybe we don't need. Speaker 3: I'm not talking about automatic trigger. Speaker 0: I'm already about to express your. Speaker 7: Let's move on. Thanks. I guess. Quickly. Based on the process that we designed at the last meeting, you know, good or bad, like it or not, it's kind of not a cap driven process. So, you know, I'll keep my opinion to whether I wanted to or not, but I don't know if it fits into the process that we. Speaker 0: So are you agreeable to this? Are you able to use the trigger? Speaker 7: Not a cap. Speaker 1: Correct. Speaker 0: Because I'm agreeable. I agree with member Ashcroft in regards to this. Speaker 4: I'm sorry. Are you still speaking? Mr.. I mean. Speaker 3: You know, the. Speaker 7: There was a trigger on when the landlord had to initiate it and then they could prove that they were entitled to something higher. Speaker 0: Then that's what this says. Speaker 7: Cap. Speaker 0: Right. But that's what it says. And so are you agreeable to this then? I suppose pretty much the summary was the fact that we all spent all that time on last time. It's these points. Speaker 7: I don't know, based on the process. Speaker 0: So that's what this is saying. There's no cap we have. So you are agreeable. Speaker 2: Yeah, I agree. Speaker 7: There's not. Yeah. Speaker 0: Okay. That's what we need to know so we can move on. Speaker 4: So. And I just want to say that I, I, I understand you Christian Council member deserves concerns, and that's certainly something that a landlord could bring to the. I do hope, though, that in the criteria for the rec members making decisions, it's more than just, oh, I haven't raised the rent for two years, so now I want to raise it 15%. I hope there's more. Speaker 3: There's a there's we've identified in the draft ordinance a number of factors that the. Speaker 4: We don't want. Speaker 3: To wreck. Speaker 4: I'll trust you on that but I just. And the. Speaker 3: Housing. Okay. Perfect. Speaker 0: Okay. All right. All right. All right. The vice mayor said he's fine with us. All right, so we're get on this real. Speaker 6: Real consensus on this. Yes. Those to a majority. Okay. Speaker 0: So now we're. Speaker 6: Okay. Yes. So, um, and the last issue is the one of data collection. And I think, as we all acknowledge, everyone is keenly interested in the data collection, the annual review, the check in. And really what we're looking for is confirmation that what we would be proposing is to collect the data for rent increases above 5% because those are the ones that have to mandatorily you know, they have to mandatorily initiate the process. And then because tenants have an opportunity to initiate a process for increases less than 5%, we could also track those, but we're not recommending requiring landlords who are giving increases of less than 5% to report to the housing authority. And in some ways, you could argue that's potentially an incentive to another incentive to keep your rents below 5%. Where your rent increases. Speaker 9: I'm okay with the rent increases above 5% because they'll all be triggered. It will have will have the information. I would say just to simplify this is anything that goes to rack we track. Speaker 0: And that's what this means, actually. Yeah, you're right. You're right. That language is clear. I appreciate that clarification. That's real clean that anything that goes direct retract. Speaker 9: In any way. Speaker 0: But all right. And I agree on that, too. Speaker 4: Member Ashcroft And I think it also goes to hopefully keeping the cost of the program fees down because if we get to to complex was it Byzantine I think was the term is it too late now? So but anyway, we wanted the. Yeah, the. I think that we definitely need the data collection and I think that a lot of this can even be done online when I think there's a process whereby the, the landlord can make this request and do some of this online and maybe even with the license payment, there's ways that you can probably collect a lot of information. And that part of that I haven't. But yes, I'm in agreement with this. Speaker 0: And the other council member, they saw. Speaker 2: Questions, do we know how many rack cases to how many cases come to the rack for 5% rent increases right now? Speaker 6: You have? I don't believe that there have been a lot. I do think there's one case that's coming up, though, that's less than 5%, but there aren't a lot. But that's going to change if the ordinance is adopted, the way the direction was given, that's going to change because it's going to be a mandatory reporting for any rent increase, mandatory reporting and initiation of the process for any rent increase of over 5%. It will on its face. There's going to be more cases. Speaker 0: Not necessarily because we might have fewer rent increases above 5%. Speaker 7: If we have zero rent increases above 5%. Speaker 1: Which would be great. Speaker 7: I mean, just to weigh in real briefly. You know, I think we should, at least in the first year, collect everything. You know, as the tenant suggested. So we have data and that's what we've been asking for. And after one year, we'll have data to evaluate. Speaker 0: You mean everything that goes through Rack. Speaker 7: But we should track everything for the first year. I mean, I don't think there's there's agreement with me on that one, but that's just my thought. Speaker 0: So I think I think the four of us were. Did you say you're agreeable to the tracking number? Just like I'm not sure where you landed on. Okay. Okay. So there's four of us that are limiting data collection to what goes through rec mean. Speaker 7: Can we voluntarily have people report if they want to just so it can be tracked? Speaker 6: Absolutely. Speaker 0: I repeat that separate, though, because the credibility I don't know how you would confirm that. That's actual. Who's submitting. Speaker 1: That? Speaker 0: Yeah. Yeah. Speaker 7: All right. I mean. Speaker 0: Versus right now. All right. What else do you need? Speaker 6: That's it. Somebody. Speaker 0: And we need. Speaker 6: More. So I'm. That's what staff was seeking this evening. The feedback and direction is extremely helpful to us and I think that keeps us on track for being back before the Council on the 16th. Speaker 0: I want to clarify this then we'll be coming back on the 16th based on the direction that we've now been given as a first reading on the ordinance. And at that time, members of the public will again have the opportunity to weigh in. Correct? Speaker 6: That's correct. In the staff report and the proposed ordinance will be published. It's Thursday. Speaker 0: All right. Speaker 4: Member Ashcroft So I did have a couple of comments on this. Exhibit one, the principles of agreement in this party. So the on. Okay. So I do want to see a clear written standards and guidelines for Iraq and the arbitrator regarding what documentation a landlord is required to provide when making a request for increased rent, and probably conversely, when a tenant is making a request for a lowered rent. This will help assure that parties using this process are dealt with in a consistent manner. I think that's important. Um. And then. Um. So then down under the rack process and this was something that one of the landlord associations raised, it's the first bullet. Under paragraph five, it's on page two. A person with an ownership interest in the property must attend the hearing. Tenant or landlord initiated. If not the rent increases void and no rent increase for 12 months. I thought that when we amended the rack ordinance we actually said the owner is somebody with the authority to make a binding decision because. The. It could be that. An owner isn't able to come, but shouldn't a property manager, as long as they had decision making authority. Speaker 0: At that point, that. Speaker 6: That's the way the ordinance currently reads now for for under the current process. I had understood from the Council that there was a strong desire that for the rent increases above 5%, that there would have to be the actual person with the ownership interest. So we are looking at that. And although we you do have to legally you have to be able to make an accommodation if somebody can't do it so. Speaker 4: That a stay they have. Right. Speaker 6: So because we. Because there will be a mechanism for somebody to who represents though who's legally, you know, who's who has a legally binding authority to make decisions if if they can't make it because we have to be able to legally we have to make that accommodation. Speaker 0: But other than that, we would see someone with ownership interest. Speaker 6: For the increases above 5%. If they're under five. We're keeping it as the current status quo where you can send somebody who is authorized to negotiate and come to a mediated settlement. Speaker 0: And then on the did you remember Ashcroft? You want to go through all of your points? Speaker 4: I think I got them. Speaker 0: Okay. I had a question. So at this point, we're reviewing these principles to. The fourth bullet here under the rack process on page to. Speaker 9: Drain from our men. Speaker 0: Ah, I think this was actually the topic. Speaker 9: Our agreed upon was to resolve the issues of staff's lack of clarity, not to. Speaker 4: Um. So it says in the first paragraph set forth below is staff understanding of the City Council's principles of agreement concerning a proposed Rent Stabilization Tenant Protection Ordinance that staff will use as a roadmap for the ordinance will be presented. I think it behooves us to get out there exactly. Speaker 0: Because I think this is going to be part of the ordinance. So we need to get feedback. The I want to clarify. So on the fourth bullet here, it says if the housing provider does not file such a petition. Under RAC. Speaker 3: Okay. Speaker 0: If the housing provider does not agree with the committee's decision unless the rental unit is exempt. The housing provider must file a petition to have a neutral hearing officer consider the rent increase if they are here. If the housing provider does not file a petition, the rent increases void and no rent increases permitted for 12 months. And I think that that should actually be the amount of the RACK'S recommendations. Speaker 6: Right. Speaker 0: That is. I think this is. Okay. So that's that's like a typo or something. Speaker 6: Well, it's turned it around in one day and try to notice. Speaker 0: I appreciate I just want to make sure the agreement. Speaker 6: You are on, whatever. Speaker 0: Your recommendation is, it's not nothing that the landlord gets. They get what the rack had. Speaker 5: That's correct. Okay. And then. Speaker 3: Then. Speaker 0: Go ahead. I think that was. The only thing that I found on that. Did anyone else find any things that they want to clarify on these principles? All right. So then any other comments on this before we move on to the next agenda item? We're good. Thank you very much. Speaker 6: Thank you very much. Speaker 0: Everyone on this. Speaker 4: Staff.

Regular Agenda Item

Provide Direction to Staff Regarding Certain Elements of a Proposed Rent Stabilization and Tenant Protection Ordinance. (City Manager 2110)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_02022016_2016-2515

Speaker 1: Considered directing the city manager to prepare analysis and recommendations regarding reviving the airport operations committee. This item was placed on the agenda at the request of councilmembers. Dave. Speaker 0: All right. Remember days ago, A.D.? Did you want to speak to this? Speaker 3: Right. Speaker 2: Well, thank you. You know, as indicated last time, when the members of the audience came out, the FAA is doing an incredible major overhaul of how. Jets, the flight path of jets moving into a satellite based system. And as a result, that's causing a lot of disruptions throughout communities in the United States, especially along the West Coast . Now, the reason why the members of the public had argued for an Alameda specific committee to deal with this issue, which is on a time limited basis, is because there are other players representing their own areas who are at the table. And right now, the congresspersons representing the peninsula have represented and organized citizens from San Mateo and that area to bring them to the table to discuss matters with the FAA on the proper routes of of the of the. Path of the planes coming in and out. And it's the FAA who controls the air tower. And for Alameda, we need to think about this, especially because there are other cities, especially including Oakland, for example, where their own residents are organizing. And while we as a city are on regional committees that deal with airport issues like the Noise Forum or something called Calk, which monitors the city of Alameda, Oakland Class Airport Agreement. While we are on regional committees like Cork or the Noise Forum, it's completely possible that members in those regional committees might not necessarily understand where Alameda viewpoints are. Specific let me say this at the last noise for a meeting, there were a lot of Oakland residents who came out to talk about the impacts of the altered flight paths. Residents from Montclair, especially, there had to be like maybe 15 to 20 speakers who came out. No one ever comes out the noise for meetings and they're gone. And they are talking about getting their own council members involved. So the question then becomes in working with the our congressperson, hopefully, and also getting this to the table with the FAA. If we go in with Hawk or the Port of Oakland, we have to wonder whose interests are being best served in that way. We have to remember that, for example, that while the Port of Oakland is a quasi independent entity, its its leading members are appointed by the council members from Oakland. So this is an important issue. And the window for this, for this matter, is a very tight frame because this is something that the FAA wants to deal with. And, you know, I and I think the arguments raised by members from class and members from the first know homeowners association made a pretty good sense as to why we need an Alameda specific entity, especially involving those persons who previously served on the airport operations committee, whose incredible knowledge of airport issues is just. Are reaching. Speaker 7: Yeah. Just briefly. I joined Councilmember De Saag in this referral. You know what? I think it's a it's a short term committee, so it's something we can get done and get out of there. You know? One of the reasons I did it is because this is not theoretical to me. I lived for 15 years directly in the flight path, and for those that actually do that, you know, you can argue, you know, you got disclosures, blah, blah, blah, you know about it. But, you know, it is an impact on your your quality of life. And, you know, I want to make sure that, you know, we in Alameda have have a say in this. Speaker 0: I'm. Speaker 4: Rascoff I don't disagree with any of the comments about the impact and and needing to do something about this. I'm just wondering. That, you know, we we pay a federal lobbyist in Washington, D.C. and we do have. As Councilmember re noted, we have a congressional representative in D.C.. He maybe we have some local representatives there right now. But the I I'm just wondering, you know, time wise, how long it would take to get a committee set up and started. And maybe it's a we take a kind of a shotgun approach and operate on more than one friend at a time. But I, I would at least like to know what is possible to be done from a lobbying level, the federal the federal government, because it's I think what we want is to get some make an impact and get some decisions made sooner rather than later. So I just would like to know the most expedited way to do that and effective way. Speaker 0: I swear. Speaker 9: For that reason. For the reason that councilmember disorganized. Councilmember Ashcraft said as well, I would like to support this because this direction is to have this city manager prepare an analysis. And. And a recommendation with regard to stating this. Speaker 3: Committee a. Speaker 9: Once upon a time with action. So I'm curious to hear what the outcome is. So I make the motion that we. Have it looked into as requested in this Council. Speaker 3: Referral. Speaker 0: For a second. Speaker 2: I'll second it. And I might also add that yeah, I think you know, it could all to get it could be parallel tracks of working with the uh, with a lobbyist. But I also think, and I suspect the city manager's staff know it worked closely with people like Walt Jacobs or Dave Needle, I mean, or Barbara to layer. They've got some ideas out as to how we might proceed most effectively. And and they see a table that will soon open up and is and they just want to make sure that in the same way that the FAA has been accommodating people on the peninsula, that people on the East Bay area, that perhaps we join up on that table, that that's been opened up for the people in peninsula. Speaker 0: So I'd like to speak on this. Speaker 1: And so when you're done. Speaker 0: Okay, you go ahead. You want to go ahead? That's right. So I haven't spoken before. You made your motion, but I'd like to weigh in that I support this, but I'm not familiar with what the dormant airport operations committee was. So I would like it when it comes back that it brings whatever, however. But that was how it was composed, whatever documentation we have as to that. Speaker 1: So I did have a conversation with Councilmember De Saag on this matter. But I think from our perspective, and I don't know a ton about this, just what I've been learning in the last couple of weeks, there are about six committees that we monitor, and that's very time intensive for our staff. Doesn't mean that this is not important, and I think it is important. And I think as Councilmember De Saag said, I think we would need to rely heavily on these citizen citizens who have this expertize. And I think absolutely, as Councilmember Ashcroft said, we would probably want to connect our citizens with our lobbyists and our representatives. But I just also want you all to realize there are about six committees that we monitor just on airport noise. And it is, you know, we have limited capability to continue to, um, um, add to that. Speaker 0: And in fact, I want to add when I was in D.C. for that U.S. Mayors conference, we had a speaker come and say that the mayor of San Leandro was connecting with the FAA and she reached out to include me to do that. However, we got snowed out. So what she's tried to do is set up a phone conference to hook up with the FAA and stuff will be part of that. That might be an act for this. Share that. Speaker 4: It just seems to me that it would be logical to probably join it. But and notwithstanding what you said, Councilmember de SAC, about the port having its own interests, but, you know, the airspace that these jets fly over doesn't just go along city limits. And so there is strength in numbers. So maybe we want to look at what San Leandro and Oakland and whoever the you know, our neighbors who are also affected are are doing and, you know, get a little stronger in in. Concert with our our colleagues. Speaker 0: So I agree with that. All right. So we have a motion you want to make. Okay. All those in favor. I. All right. So thank you on that one. The next line be. Speaker 7: Can we move to the special meeting? Is that okay? Let's just move this agenda item. Yes. It's 230 in the morning. Speaker 4: I'll move to do that. Speaker 1: You went under. Speaker 3: February 24th. Speaker 1: Yeah. Speaker 3: Or. Speaker 7: It'll be 230 in the morning again. Speaker 4: I got it. We got a media.

Council Referral

Consider Directing the City Manager to Prepare Analysis and Recommendations Regarding Reviving the Airport Operations Committee. (Councilmembers Daysog and Oddie)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_01192016_2016-2463

Speaker 1: Final passage of ordinance amending Alameda Municipal Code Section 30, Dash 5.15 regarding medical marijuana dispensaries to define and prohibit the commercial cultivation of medical marijuana in the city of Alameda to protect the city's jurisdiction regarding cultivation while preserving the opportunity to have a discussion. Speaker 0: Remember Brody. Speaker 4: I don't really need a presentation on this. I voted no on this when it came to us at 355 in the morning a couple of weeks ago. And I don't think we've had adequate public discussion on that. So I just wanted to vote no this time. Speaker 0: Any other comments member day? Speaker 5: Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a question. Two points. One is my understanding is that we were asked to make a decision on this so as to Trump what is possibly the state making a decision for us? Because at a certain point in time, I believe in March, if we as a city don't make decisions regarding our American medical marijuana practices here in the city of Alameda and the state rules will, will. Super seat, and we know when that happens, problems arise. One example of that, for example, was the massage parlor issue where it was based upon state rules and a lot of local governments, you know, subsequently, you know, had to deal with that . So so I don't disagree with the need to make a vote tonight. But I will say one thing, though, that we as a city need to. Well, I can only speak for I as a council member would like to say that. On the matter of medical marijuana, that it is an issue that cities ought to look at broadly, not just to say no outright. I mean, each council member and mayor has their own voice, but in some respects it could be good in terms of economic development, in terms of personal health. So I don't want my vote tonight to be construed as extending the possibility of medical marijuana coming down the pike into the city of Alameda. But I do want to respond to the issues raised by staff that we need to make a vote, because we if we're going to pursue medical marijuana, we need to pursue it on the terms of the city of Alameda. And at this point, if we don't make a decision, we're we'd be left with pursuing medical marijuana on the terms of the state. So so I'm going to agree with the staff on this. Speaker 0: In short, I believe we can say that it is to protect local control. Madumere member ASHCROFT Thank you. Speaker 6: So I'll agree in part with Councilmember Odie. I am, in retrospect, with the 2020 hindsight and through bleary eyes. We shouldn't have been transacting business at 355 in the morning, but we should have probably followed the advice of our city attorney to not go into our deliberations on the rent ordinance at whatever ungodly hour it already was . I think that's a lesson that was well learned. We don't make our best decisions in the wee hours of the morning, and it's not fair to the public who like to follow our decisions in real time, either in the frigid auditorium or in the in front of a screen in the comfort of their home. So let's keep that in mind next time. However, the title of this particular ordinance does include the the phrase while preserving the opportunity to have a robust discussion about medical marijuana cultivation at a later date. So since this is the second reading of an ordinance, I would assume that we'll do just that after we get this housekeeping detail out of the way. Thank you. Speaker 0: Vice mayor. Speaker 7: You have an if you don't have any comments, I'd like to make a motion to approve the final passage of this ordinance. Speaker 0: But all those in favor, I. Pose. No motion carries 42 one. Nebraska. You voted? Speaker 6: I voted yes. Yes. Speaker 0: All right. That's I thought. All right. Motion carried four one. Thank you very much. All right. Regular agenda item six. And we have any speakers on six eight? Speaker 1: No, we do not. Speaker 0: All right. If possible, I'd like to have six E. Go next, then. There's just not any objection. Speaker 7: I have no objection. Speaker 0: So that I could proceed because six be required requires a vote and I may not be here for it otherwise. And the other one? I'll come back. Speaker 1: Our final maps will come back. But there is the right items. Right. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Can we. Speaker 0: Proceed with 6. Speaker 1: P.m. recommendation to. Speaker 0: What. Speaker 7: I said? I had no objection. Speaker 0: Yeah. Speaker 5: I have no objection. Speaker 4: That's fine. Speaker 1: Okay. Recommendation to award contract in the amount of 395,000, including contingencies to CDM Smith to prepare the citywide transit and transportation demand management plans and to amend the Measure B and base fees. Department budgets for fiscal year 20 1516 by appropriating 100,000 from each of these funds to pay for the citywide transit and TDM plan.

Consent Calendar Item

Final Passage of Ordinance Amending Alameda Municipal Code Section 30-5.15 regarding Medical Marijuana Dispensaries to Define and Prohibit the Commercial Cultivation of Medical Marijuana in the City of Alameda to Protect the City’s Jurisdiction Regarding Cultivation, While Preserving the Opportunity to Have a Robust Discussion About Medical Marijuana Cultivation at a Later Date. [The Proposed Amendment is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15305, Minor Alternations to Land Use Limitations.] (Community Development 2310)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_01192016_2016-2396

Speaker 1: Okay. Recommendation to award contract in the amount of 395,000, including contingencies to CDM Smith to prepare the citywide transit and transportation demand management plans and to amend the Measure B and base fees. Department budgets for fiscal year 20 1516 by appropriating 100,000 from each of these funds to pay for the citywide transit and TDM plan. Speaker 0: Good evening, Madam Mayor and members of the City Council. I am Gayle Payne, the city's transportation coordinator. And this agenda item pertains to the transit and transportation demand management plans. And City staff is recommending the City Council to award a contract worth 395,000 for the CDM Smith team and also to amend the Measure B and base reuse department budgets for 100,000 from each fund. Keep in mind the City Council already partially funded this effort and up to 200,000 from the general fund. To recap, this time last year, the City Council approved Councilmember de Suggs referral on transportation planning. Then city staff took an initial approach to the Transportation Commission and the planning board and then returned a revised approach to you all in April that you approved and then you approved in September a request for proposal, including a work scope for the citywide transit plan and the TDM plan. So here we are today requesting your approval of the consultant team and fully funding this planning effort. And to step back. The reason why we're doing this is we're trying to sustain our high quality of life. We're going through an economic boom. We have more traffic congestion. We're seeing or expecting 2 million more people in the region by 2040. So we want to work on this issue and the key concepts are shown here. And the best way that we can see to tackle these issues is to create a shared vision on how to move forward. And this comprehensive planning effort is really the best way we see to do it. And to recap on the goals, we have two main mobility goals. One has to do with the island crossings, especially during the peak periods. And then the other key goal is has to do with our island community. Speaker 6: Yes, it's a request. So we have folks in the audience and maybe watching who don't know what all those terms necessarily mean. So what are the island crossings that you're referring to? Speaker 0: Yes. So being that island community, we have our bridges and our tubes. So trying to make it easier for people to get off the island in the morning and back on in the evening, since we basically more of a bedroom community, that's where the the peak direction of travel is. Yes. And then the work scopes of these two plans. We have the transit plan, a focus there will be on the transit related services and the infrastructure. Keep in mind that the city we own the public rights of way and so the key question will be asking is how can we make our streets more efficient for transit ? And for the transportation demand management plan, where it will be recommending how to best manage those transportation funds and how to standardize requirements on new developments. And then for community involvement. The. Main special part here is we are going to be doing a public opinion survey. It will be a statistically significant survey with about 400 responses expected. And another difference here with this community involvement effort is that we will be going back to the city council at four different times during the 18 month period, since it's a city council led effort. So that's more than we usually will go back to you with these types of planning efforts. So in the fall in October, the city received four different proposals from four different consulting teams. And then the selection committee in November interviewed the top three that you see here. That selection committee consisted of two city staff members, two staff members from transit transit operators, a planning board member, a transportation commissioner and a developer representative representing Alameda Landing. That's Catullus. And this selection committee picked CDs Smith team. They have excellent qualifications in traffic engineering, in transit planning and team planning. They are a global operation. Yet the key staff will be working with is in San Francisco and they're here tonight. We have the principal in charge as Bill Hurley and Brian Sutherland is the project manager and then Camille Salo is the transportation or transit expert . So we look forward to working with them. They have great experience with our neighbors in the East Bay and also they've done innovative work in Silicon Valley and also worked on the Mission Bay development, which is very similar to L.A., made a point in several ways. CDM Smith is supported by three different sub consultants that are experts in their niche fields. Meg will lead the outreach effort. Kenji will lead the public opinion survey and Wendy Soltani will work on the team efforts and is already helping the city with the Alameda Point Premium Plan implementation. So it will be very helpful. So staff is requesting that the City Council award the contract to the CDM Smith team. We have seven tasks. One of the first task will be this Near Term Strategies Memo that will take back to you later this year. A schedule of 18 months as expected. The budget is expected is at 395 395,000, which is higher than the initial proposal because this one includes contingency as well as three additional tasks. One is pertaining to Councilmember Otis bike share feasibility study. We folded that one into this plan, the team plan part of it, and focus on data driven that you requested that we are going and using a vendor that works with GPS data. So making a more rigorous rigorous data. Emphasis. And then the last two tasks have to do with implementation, trying to make this an implementation focus, and that's an intersection analysis. And then also I guess that was the bike share that I had talked about. And like I had mentioned, city council already partially funded this effort with the general fund up to 200,000. And so we are requesting tonight to fully fund it with Measure B and base reuse department monies. So again, city staff is recommending City Council to award a contract for 385,000 to CDM Smith and also to amend the Measure B and base reuse department budgets for 100,000 from each fund. And we are here this like I said, this consulting team is here to take questions. I'm here and I'm working for Jennifer Ott on this project as well. So she is here to take questions. Thank you. Thank you. Any comments or questions? Nelson Remember? Speaker 5: De Saag Well, thank you very much. I'll just start with the comments. First off, by saying thank you very much to my colleagues for allowing this to move forward. I mean, I think we in the city of Alameda, all of us recognize the difficulty of of traffic movement in the city of Alameda and the need, especially for some ability to tie together the various real estate projects that are going on in Alameda, whether they're at Alameda Point or the Northern Waterfront or other parts, to make sure that the separate traffic transit solutions that are coming out of each of the different real estate projects are somehow kind of combined so that we can coordinate better . But I think in the presentation tonight, really the staff did a great job in laying out clearly the first, you know, what the real goal of all of this is, in addition to the, you know, tying things together, the goal is is ultimately to encourage people to get out of single occupancy mode of travel. And that was, goal number one, minimized, total net new single occupant vehicle trips at the island crossings. And then goal number two in an enhanced multimodal. So these are challenges that we as a city, whether we're residents, future residents at the new projects in Alameda Point or on the Northern Waterfront or even existing residents right now, who all of us who live here right now, these are challenges that all of us have to rise to because most of us, you know, we get up in the morning and we go through the tubes or we go over Park Street Bridge together. You know, it's completely possible that we could just say no to all development and and maybe that that that solves the traffic problem. But in a way, if you think about it, it doesn't. Because even if we said no to all future development. Right now. We still have problems going in and out of the tube in the morning. So. One of the things that we really need to do is we need to have some kind of strategy to get kind of a culture shift, to get people to to seek out alternative modes as transit, especially at the at the key point, at the key AM commute times. So through this process, what we're going to have is my hope is that is that this isn't just a research process, but it is the deliverables are going to be what are the actual implementable steps that are going to make not just a marginal difference, but an important difference in the lives of residents here when it comes to traffic and in alternative modes of transit. And for this reason, I eagerly look forward to this. And let's get to the key question. It is, you know, above $350,000. But at the end of the day, this is an issue of such magnitude that, you know, we need to do what's necessary to get the right answers or right strategies. And if it's 375,000 or $395,000, so be it. Then I'm I'm willing to put my name behind that, because I think we as a city, the only alternative of doing nothing is not an alternative right now. You just have to go through the tube right now. You know, I've been you know, people know that I've been doing these kind of funky videos of my trips through the to once you hit the tube at 7:45 a.m. or 7:50 a.m. your travel time because the tube degrades dramatically as opposed to if you get to the tube by 7:35 a.m.. So we need to move forward and we need to move forward in a coherent, articulate, intelligent manner. And I think what staff has outlined is going to get us there. Thank you. Speaker 0: Remember Ashcroft. Speaker 6: Thank you. I echoed the sentiments of Councilmember De. So, again, I just want to raise a couple of points. First of all, I really enjoyed reading the proposal that the CDM Smith Group put together, and I would recommend anybody. It's on the city's website, exhibit one to this item. Take a look at it. It's really interesting reading and traffic is certainly one of the most prominent issues that we as city council members hear about. And I call it the good news, bad news. The bad news is exactly what Councilmember De Saag alluded to. If you're trying to get off of the island in the morning or back on, it's not as bad coming back because our return times seem to be a little more staggered. But we do run into those problems of just getting stuck in traffic. On the other hand, last week I attended a forum in San Francisco that was sponsored by the Bay Area Council, and the topic was the direction of real estate development in the Greater Bay Area, and that was really the Bay Area as a bag looks at it, nine counties, 113 cities. But Alameda County is certainly a prominent part of that, a large part of the reason that we're experiencing these traffic problems and the housing problems, the rental crisis that we've also dealt are dealing with now is because the economy is so strong, because there are jobs, because employers are wanting to come here. But we can't. And I think most of us would agree that we want a strong economy and we want people to have jobs and not just any jobs, but good paying jobs. But the discussion also turned to the responsibility of transit. And we need help from the state and from the federal government. But also local governments have to do what they can to address their part in all of this. And what I was enthused about in reading the CDM Smith's proposal is they talk about getting to know, you know, the data and getting to know our patterns, but then also being able to apply their experience in other similar areas where they've worked to come up with innovative solutions to our problems and they will come up with solutions for the near term. So even before the end of this 18 month period of the study and all the public input process, there will be solutions that can be put into play and then there will be long term solutions recommended as well. And the the last thing I just want to leave my colleagues with to think about is that we then at the end of the 18 month period, need to muster the political will that it takes to actually say, okay, we're going to bite the bullet, we're going to follow these recommendations, we're going to adopt these innovative solutions. I think that we are going to be greatly aided by what this study is doing in pulling together the various transit providers and looking at different developments across the city to make sure that we're as coordinated and and funding as efficiently as possible . But at the end of the day, this council will need to make some decisions about what we want to move forward with and support, and I'm confident we can do that. Speaker 0: Thank you. And Brodie. Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam Mayor. First of all, I want to thank my colleague, Councilmember de Song for bringing this to the council's attention. Back in January, I think we had one or two meetings discussing the concept and then we had another meeting on the budget and this was like the fourth time I think this has come before us . So and I keep my comments brief. I have to kind of technical suggestions. If you look at exhibit five, the scope of work, I was glad to see that under 3.8 which is TDM plan the east. The memo contents will include reviewing recommendations of existing local and regional plans and policies. I hope that those also include, you know, the work done by Catullus at Alameda landing by Tim Lewis at Del Monte Alameda Point Partners. These are all relatively fresh TDM plans. One of the purposes of the councilmembers referral was, you know, we had these various developments and we had these various teams, but we had nothing bringing them together. So hopefully we can reuse and pull some of that existing research and be a little more efficient. And I also hope that, you know, as staff implements this, we do have a robust community involvement, a process, you know, possibly even some type of ad hoc committee made up of citizens that can help analyze the data and come up with recommendations. So just on the general thing now, has as we as council members either serve in our day to day office or we knock on doors and campaign to get here. You know, we make certain covenants with voters. And when voters come and tell us that traffic is a problem and that we make a commitment to address. Those issues. You know, we make a covenant with the voters to to address these problems. And I think if we ignore them and choose to do nothing, then we breach that covenant. And that's where negligent in our duty. So I'm really glad that we are taking this really strong, positive step towards looking at citywide traffic and the future impacts of all developments on citywide traffic and coming up with concrete solutions. So I applaud my colleague and I'm for bringing this to the council's attention, and I'm honored to keep my covenant with the voters and work on addressing the issue. Speaker 7: I swear I'm ready to go on. This citywide approach is what we need. Speaker 0: So I do I do not support this approach. When this had come just before I had wanted to do. But Oakland is doing in regards to hire a specific person. It is a staff member to work focused on her percent on Alameda. When it came to us before it was about $200,000 from the general fund. Now we're talking 400,000, including 100,000 for measure B and base reuse budgets to create a transit. Demand management plan. Just the plan part with the consult not to actually do any work. I want to respect the voters and I actually want to respect our staff. And I think if we want to really get it done as opposed to having it come back in 18 months and then longer, to get us to go through all the steps of voting on something, I prefer hiring someone, focusing on Alameda and moving forward similar to Oakland. I also have a concern that when we were looking at this at prior meetings, we actually do have one of these that was done years past. Then as exactly sit on a shelf, but pretty much dead. When I asked, had we achieved any of the benchmarks that were spoken that were supposed to have been reviewed during that time period? We did not have the data. We need more than another report. We actually could use the one that we already have, I think. And next and modified. I would prefer with an employee. And then and I do agree in regards to honoring our voters and getting something done. So I appreciate that part. That being said. Now. We're sorry. Just one. Speaker 5: Quick point. You know, the the sewing a. I don't know how you sing the song. The saying about sewing applies here. Measured twice, cut once. So in putting together this comprehensive strategy, it's about measuring twice and cutting once. It might be altogether possible that one of the implementation solutions is to have a stand alone Transportation Department, ala. The City of Oakland. But I think we let's get the experts to help us kind of figure that out how best to approach that. So I'd like to make a motion to move staff's recommendation and move forward with this item. Speaker 7: Also. Speaker 1: Look, you. Speaker 7: Know, I was. Speaker 0: He was waiting for me to finish, but. Oh, right then. Speaker 6: Okay, we have a second. Speaker 0: In a second of although some favor I oppose. I oppose motion carries for two one and. Next item. Okay. It's interesting. 6 a.m.. We do not have any speakers on the side of my other.

Regular Agenda Item

Recommendation to Award a Contract in the Amount of $395,000, Including Contingency, to CDM Smith to Prepare the Citywide Transit and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plans and to Amend the Measure B and Base Reuse Department Budgets for Fiscal Year 2015-16 by Appropriating $100,000 from Each of These Funds to Pay for the Citywide Transit and TDM Plans Contract. (City Manager 2110)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_12152015_2015-2363

Speaker 1: negotiator is this former dam employee organizations are IBEW, EU, a ACA and NCAA and under negotiation of salaries and terms of employment. Speaker 0: Thank you. Now turn to closed. So we are going to resume our revised special meeting from 430 this afternoon. We had met in closed session. And do you want to report out now? Speaker 1: There was conference with labor negotiators and counselor received a briefing. There was public employee appointment hiring and direction was given to staff. And the meeting was continued to Friday, December 18th at 8:30 a.m.. And there were two cases of anticipated litigation with the city acting as defendant, and in the first case, direction was given to staff, and in the second case, counsel was briefed on the item. Speaker 0: And did you specify that we had a date that we were continuing to. Yes. Speaker 1: I I'll repeat again December 18th at 8:30 a.m. for the hiring matter.

Closed Session Item

CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS (54957.6) City Negotiator: Elizabeth D. Warmerdam Employee Organizations: International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1245 (IBEW), Electric Utility Professional Association of Alameda (EUPA), Alameda City Employees Association (ACEA), Alameda Police Officers Association Non-Sworn Unit (PANS), and Alameda Management and Confidential Employees Association (MCEA) Under Negotiation: Salaries and terms of employment

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_12152015_2015-2348

Speaker 1: The recommendation to amend the General Fund fiscal year 20 1516 budget by appropriating 3 million from the General Fund committed fund balance to pay for the city's other post-employment benefits obligation as stated in the Safety Bargaining Group's Memorandum of Understanding. Speaker 0: All right. So. Could you clarify I pull this out in the title says Recommendation to Amend General Fund Fiscal Year 20 1516 Budget By Appropriating $3 million. Could you clarify what $30 million is and what we're really being asked to do here? Sure. Speaker 1: My name is Elaina Dyer and finance director. So what this particular item is is really an administrative item. So what happened back in April of 2015, council approved the safety for safety contracts, bargaining group contracts, and the OPEB section stipulated in those contracts that the city is required to deposit $5 million to the irrevocable trust OPEB trust . We have $2 million already set aside and ready to go. However, we the $3 million that is part of general fund additional contribution is sitting in the general fund and we need to appropriated so that the payment can be made in January. As a clarification item, the Council did approve a commitment of $3 million in September, and that's not the same money that we were talking about prior to the council being superseded here in December of 2014. There was another commitment made for $3 million. Just happen to be the same dollar amount, and that's the dollar amount that was. To be used, actually, or at least assumed to be used back in April for the payment of $5 million. Madam Mayor, it was. It was set aside, but not appropriated. And this is just the authorization to appropriate the money. Speaker 0: All right. In the 2 million, has that already been appropriated for this? That's correct. And this is then the 5 million that per the for am I use is to be made contributed by the city to an irrevocable OPEB trust by in January or by January 2016. Correct. All right. Any other. Speaker 3: Question? Speaker 0: Yes. I swear. Speaker 3: When will these dollars be deposited into the interest bearing account? Speaker 1: I'm in January, so we are waiting for an appropriation so that we are ready to go. I believe the contract just says January, but January 2016. Speaker 3: So that's when they'll start accruing as soon as that deposit happens. Speaker 0: That's correct. And the trust. Is this the five? I trust that this money will be deposited into. Speaker 1: No, it's not the five. I is actually a different type of trust in which city merely just assists the bargaining groups to set up the trust. But there's no contributions going to that trust from the city. It's strictly employee contributions and those are really to supplement their retirement. And it has nothing really to do with OPEB. The members may choose to use portion of that money that they on their own contribute to use towards premium health premium. But that's not something that city's participating in. Speaker 0: OC than the OPEB trust that this money will be going into. Is that all or solely city council contributions, or does that OPEB trust include both City Council contributions and member contributions? Speaker 1: It's combined. So the contribution will be going into one account and it's going to be a pooled account and we'll be earning the interest on the total. Speaker 0: And that's a current that's pulled account that's currently established. Speaker 1: The city will be setting up an account specifically that for the safety and we'll use the word determined that it's actually is actually at the same time a stipulation within the the contracts. But it will not be commingled with moneys that been deposited for existing retirees. These are for the future retirees of the safety groups. Speaker 0: But that trust has already been established and it currently has money from both employees as well as city donor contributions. Speaker 1: It's the same trust. It will be tracked in a separate account. Within the same trust. Speaker 0: So is there a way to have some sort of accounts within this account that's that do not co-mingle the city contributions and the employee contributions? Speaker 1: Well, actually, the contributions for the purpose of the trust itself, as well as for tax purposes, are all considered to be city contributions. In essence, it almost makes it, as you would say, a charge to the employees. And it's not separated for that reason. Speaker 0: Member. Ody. Speaker 5: I like to move approval of the item. Speaker 2: Our second. Speaker 0: Were there any questions? Speaker 6: Yes. Speaker 0: QUESTION Members, just to be. Speaker 6: Sure. Now, the trust that we're talking about, as indicated in the staff report, this is about the April 2015 trust that we had a discussion which basically the former city manager, Russo's trust fund idea to help pay down the OPEB liability in the future by combining not only the employee's contributions through new payroll, but also helping finance that through the mechanism being discussed right now. That's what this is all about. Speaker 1: Yes. And this is, as I mentioned, that's an administrative item for us to move the actual money to the trust. We need to have an appropriation to do so. Speaker 6: Now, I raised that because back in April 2015, when this was raised, the concern that I made then and still have is I do think that the trust is undercapitalized. And I do think that the time is now to really think through how to well-capitalised the trust fund. Because the way it looks now, going back to the April 2015 discussion, it runs out of money by roughly the year 2034. But you begin to begin to see a decline in the amount in the trust fund, even as I think 2025 or 2026. Now, I know the counterargument is, well, you know, at some point in time, we will make sure to fix it. We just don't know. You know, you just never know that, you know, there might be some things that happen in the year 2022. I mean, you know, that's many years from now that precludes us, the city council or the Future City Council from from fixing it, the way in which we foresaw possibly right now. So so I still do have my concern about the undercapitalized nature of it. And sure, I could certainly vote for this, but then I think that would kind of water down my concern. My goal is ultimately to fix what I believe is the undercapitalized nature of this. And I do have some suggestions, but I'll I'll remain consistent with my vote of April 2015. Speaker 0: I'm sorry. So I also opposed that contract. I think long term it does jeopardize the fiscal health of the city. I also will not be supporting this. So I'm going to call you on it. Speaker 5: Just a couple of quick points. I mean, this is a contract that we signed with our bargaining unit is that we have to honor. So it seems like if we vote no on this, then we're we're violating the terms of that contract, which seems to me a violation of our fiduciary duties. And I also don't seem to understand the argument that if it's undercapitalized to begin with, that you improve that problem by not funding it by the amount you promised it, because then you're even undercapitalized even more. So it seems a little, you know, hypocritical in my mind that, you know, to say that I'm not going to vote for this because we're the big project or the big fund is undercapitalized and then miss out on a chance to actually put money in there, which we promise to do. It just seems a little bit odd to me, but it is what it is. Speaker 0: So I'm happy to respond to that. I actually think that we need to come up with a serious solution and not something that's a partial solution, and that at this point, we are not there. And and so that's. So I appreciate your comment. At the same time, I cannot support the solution, which was that contract, and I didn't support it then. So I'm member Ashcraft. Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam Mayor. So I look forward to future discussions and perhaps agenda items and hearing from our Mayor and Councilmember Desai as to how we can further enhance what we have started to do under the last administration. But I don't think any of us thought we were going to solve the problem of the underfunding of this liability overnight. I think $5 million is a decent start and we want to get that money into this account, which is also known as the lockbox. I think that it's not I mean, it's very strict purposes for which the funds can be used. So, you know, there's a lot that we can discuss, but I don't want that money just sitting out there, not in an interest bearing account. I want us to get started. So I hope we'll have a majority vote to go forward with that appropriation tonight. Speaker 6: So just to be clear as to what my concern is, my concern is that you have members of public safety, police and fire who going forward are going to pay out a certain amount from their own paychecks towards basically self-funding or partially self-funding their their retirement. And combining that to start that off or putting in $5 million to capitalize this project over time is going to generate money through interest. But we already know through our discussions of April 20, 2015. We already know, though, that what we're starting off now, the formula that we're starting with now in terms of persons is contributions as well as the capitalization that we're providing is not enough. We already know that is going to run to zero in 2034. We already know that even by 2026 it begins to go slope downwards. So knowing what we know about it running out, to me, that tells me that we need to have a discussion about fully capitalizing it . Right now, I've offered two ideas of, you know, securing the 1079 and 1081 retirement accounts, preserving, you know, what we would have paid to those folks putting it towards this. So that to me is the better course of action is to you to cement some kind of policy, knowing that we know that knowing that we already know that this is going to run out of money is at the end of the day, it's not fair, in my opinion. It's not fair to the public safety person who in 2016 or 2017 and years are paying out as opposed. It runs out of money and they retire. You know they're going to retire in 2031. That's not fair. So I think that's why we we need to take the time to ask this out. Speaker 0: And I want to clarify that the vote for the MIS was was this council. It was April 29th, 2015. This council approved different avenues and that vote was 3 to 2. All right. I'm going to call the question all those in favor. Speaker 5: I. Speaker 0: As opposed. Speaker 3: I. Speaker 0: I love you. Thank you. The motion carries. Three, two, two. Thank you. The next one I pulled was by. Speaker 1: Adoption of resolution of proving administrative correctness to better reflect current medical contribution rates, dental plan modifications to update language changes related to the Public Employee Pension Reform Act and to list specific uniform rates to the memorandum of understanding between the fire chiefs and the city for the period commencing November 1st and ending 2015 and ending December 18 , 2021. I don't believe that's the kind of idea. Speaker 0: Regarding the trust. Speaker 1: Supplemental retirement trust. Oh, a uniform resolution amending the International Association of Firefighters Supplemental, Retirement and Health Plan and Trust Agreement for IAF employees hired after June seven, 2011, to include the Fire Chiefs Association, the Police Officers Association, the Police Management Association and Employees hired after July.

Consent Calendar Item

Recommendation to Amend the General Fund Fiscal Year 2015-16 Budget by Appropriating $3,000,000 from the General Fund Committed Fund Balance to Pay for the City’s Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) Obligation as Stated in the Safety Bargaining Groups Memoranda of Understanding. (Finance 2410)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_12152015_2015-2318

Speaker 1: , Ryan Avenue, West Tower Avenue and Main Street to enable pre-development activities for designing and constructing new supportive housing facilities for the existing supported housing provider. Speaker 7: Could he be mayor? Councilmembers Jennifer Short Chief Operating Officer All made a point and that was a longer title than maybe it should have been. I'm sorry. Speaker 4: About that, but. Speaker 0: I know it's very clear. Speaker 7: Okay. Well, good. Laura, do you mind if. Speaker 2: My staff report? Speaker 1: Actually. Speaker 7: We've got a couple of. I'm just going to do a quick introduction before I'm going to come back at the end and talk a little bit about the NRA. Before I do that, I really like I'm a two point collaborative and mid-penn housing to provide a little presentation for you. But before I do that, I just want to frame the history. We are here tonight to recommend that the council approve an exclusive negotiating agreement with Mid-point Housing, a nonprofit housing developer that is working with and representing three of the existing supportive housing providers that our current tenants at Alameda Point and the home to about 500 residents at the base. Before I turn that over to turn over to Doug Biggs, Executive Director, Robin Point Collaborative. I just want to give a little bit of history here on how to understand why we're doing this and what the background is. As part of the Base Closure and Realignment Act, federal law, the city or the Navy, the United States Navy is required to go through a process of surplus in their property and allowing property to be used for homeless accommodations. And there were three organizations, actually a long story, but at the end of the day, there was there are three organizations that ended up taking advantage of that homeless accommodation and have become tenants at the base there, occupy the orange, whatever color you want to call it, on the screen. But the orange, about 34 acres that they occupy using existing, you know, existing or former Navy housing for two to provide housing for the formerly homeless. It's about 200 housing units. And in 1996, we actually entered into a 59 year lease with them for those 34 acres, answers about 47, I guess maybe 45 years left on that lease. So a very long term lease to use those 34 acres. And for many years it's probably been about five years now. City staff and the council, too, in different in different ways, has been discussing with the 11 point collaborative building futures women and children in Operation Dignity. Dignity, the idea of consolidating building new facilities because existing the current facilities they use are deteriorated. They're rundown their former housing from the Navy that really aren't built to any current codes and things. And so we've been talking for a long time with them about the idea of creating new facilities that would be on a consolidated footprint that would be designed around providing services for their residents. And so that's what we've been engaging in. And what I'm going to do is turn it over to Doug Briggs to come up and talk to you a little bit about their vision for what those new facilities would be like. And then I'll come back up and get into the details of some of the INA and what we're asking you specifically to do tonight. Thank you. Speaker 5: Do the high tech thing for me. Push the button. Good evening, Madam Mayor. Members of the City Council. My name is Doug Biggs. I'm executive director of the Alameda Point Collaborative. We want to start off by waking you up a little bit. We've put together a short video that talks a little bit about why we're doing this, what we've done so far. And as I've learned in my 15 year, 11 years now of being at the Alameda Point Collaborative, it's always best if I be quiet and let the residents speak for themselves because they have an amazing story to tell. Speaker 7: So Alameda Point is the name that we use for the formal naval air station is about 2000 acres. It was a Navy station that was played a very prominent role in World War Two, but ultimately was no longer needed as a Navy base and was closed in 1987. The base that the city controls from 900 acres. And we have divided that into some areas and subdistricts because it's such a big piece of property. And one of those is the Main Street neighborhood, which was traditionally a residential neighborhood as part of the Navy base. And we are working now on a very extensive planning process called the specific plan to really put into place. What's the vision for this neighborhood? We're working closely with collaborative, collaboratively futures, Operation Dignity to come up with a vision for that Main Street neighborhood. Speaker 5: The Alameda Point Collaborative was created in 1999 as a regional attempt to help end homelessness. Our mission and our philosophy is to use all the resources we can to create a community where formerly homeless families can thrive and gain self-sufficiency. We have over 500 residents living out here, including almost 300 children and youth, 18 and under. You know, I like to tell people that we built a pretty amazing community with really horrible housing. Speaker 1: Some of the challenges is the the litter and the dilapidated apartments. They are an eyesore. You know, they make the place really look like a dying ghetto, you know, dangerous to kids, ride around in their bikes. They're curious. They going in and they're hazardous. The walls just cave in, you know? Speaker 5: And we could do so much more with accessible housing, energy efficient housing, housing that built to create a neighborhood and housing that that's close to services. We're very fortunate that there are three organizations working out here. We each have a particular focus and expertize. There was no place for homeless veterans to go in Alameda County. I was actually the first to start any kind of program, and for the first several years we did it with one veteran helping another veteran. It was kind of our philosophy at the time. We're like the Alamo. We're the last group standing that's going to fight for everything that the homeless or low income families get out here. About a year or so ago, they started having some issues that caused me to not be able to work, went into the hospital and found myself homeless when I got out and thinks Operation Dignity. I was able to find my way back again. That allowed me to to see a brighter future for. Speaker 1: Building futures of women and children. Is a 27. Speaker 0: Year old agency whose mission is to end homelessness and domestic violence and the lives of the women and children. Speaker 1: We serve. And I think what's exciting about this new vision is really thinking about how do we integrate the three agencies? How do we share services or share facilities? Gives us a real. Speaker 0: Opportunity to leverage. Speaker 1: What we have and one agency with two other agencies. Speaker 3: Prior to coming to our MITA. I was stationed in. Speaker 5: Berkeley in transitional. Speaker 3: Housing for two years and prior to that. Speaker 5: I was a couple of years on the street living in abandoned buildings and storefronts and. Speaker 3: You know, full time work. And we met. Speaker 1: Before here and we were in a couple of small family shelters. Speaker 3: And so we were really glad to get somewhere stable. Speaker 1: But I think what's important is that our voices are heard. I've been a resident at ABC for four years. The group I worked with, our headline was Cohesive Neighborhoods Built Around Community, Open Spaces, Faithful Safety, you know, for our children and ourselves. Somebody walking the grounds, possibly more at night than during the day. Our lighting situation makes you look so right here we're. Speaker 0: Talking about because we have a lot of people have illnesses, terminally ill and also older generation talking about keeping them in a little in their area, away from everybody. So you guys got peace, the kids. Speaker 3: And then you get around. Like we said, the motto is, let us take care of everyone. Speaker 4: So everyone is going to get some care. If you have a beautiful community you like, more like people who walk around it rather than drive it. So you feel more comfortable walking in. Speaker 5: To feel safer. Resident involvement is very important to APC. It's a core value of our mission. We have residents that serve on our board of directors. We have residents that are on staff. We were really fortunate to find a partner like Mid-Penn. Speaker 3: Husted along those. Speaker 5: By Mockingbird. One of the things that really impressed me is the level of engagement they're going to do with the residents. Speaker 1: We test our residents with coming up with how they would compose an ideal neighborhood. So they needed to lay down the streets and configure some buildings and talk to us about where they wanted to put amenities. And then Penn's mission is to not only build housing, but to build communities where families can really thrive. And there's so much opportunity here to be able to build housing that is going to be here for the long term, that's high quality, that has amenities that the residents need, that can really help them move forward. Speaker 7: Our plan is to really take that input and those thoughts in an integrated into the larger plan for the neighborhood and then ultimately get that vision approved by the city council so that we can move towards implementing and constructing facilities. Speaker 5: We have a really unique opportunity to design the new housing design and the community with input from the residents that will live there and hear what's important to them and hear what needs they have to so that we're able to design a community that really probably going to be one of the most effective housing programs in ending homelessness that exists. Yes, I know that. So we've dubbed our project rebuilding existing supportive housing at Alameda Point Reshape. We're talking not just about reshaping the physical environment of the buildings that are out there, but reshaping the lives of the residents that we serve by providing them more accessible housing, providing them with safer housing and communities and more secure housing, but providing them with more services and better access to services in the way that we locate the housing. We've already talked a lot about. The existing conditions. But we are spread out over 34 acres for four families and individuals that have significant disabilities. It's hard to get around. Safety is an issue out there because we're surrounded by blighted, empty, abandoned buildings. And the housing we occupy is a challenge. Every year it's getting more and more expensive to maintain, and the infrastructure in general out there is getting more and more challenging. Just this last weekend, our community without was without power for most of of of Sunday morning. And when you're serving people who have chronic disabilities and sometimes require special equipment, that could be a concern. So beginning is, as Jennifer mentioned, four or five probably even longer than that. We begin and we've been envisioning this idea of rebuilding our community on a more consolidated footprint that would better serve the needs of our residents. And last year, we really got serious about it and went through a very competitive process and ended up hiring mid-penn housing to assist with the the financial feasibility, the design aspects, everything to lead us up to the actual rebuilding of the housing. And so I want to introduce to you Nevada Merriman, who is the project manager working with us, and she's going to take you through a little bit more of mid-penn capacity in this and then talk about kind of why we're here tonight and what the next steps are in this. Speaker 1: Thank you, Doug. And good evening, Madam Mayor. Members of the City Council. Oh, just advance one, please. Okay. So just a little bit about Mid-Penn housing. We are coming up on our 45th year of providing affordable housing. We work in 11 counties, so we have very deep experience in Northern California. And in addition to working in the 11th counties, we have a deep presence in Alameda County. Okay. You saw our video with resident engagement process. We weren't sure if we were going to be able to show it also. I think I'll just go over this very quickly in the interest of time. But resident engagement to us is really one of our top priorities in crafting the process that we have with Doug so far. And we've been grateful to city staff for allowing. They really took a pause in the middle of their Mainstreet planning process in order to let us do what we thought was the right kind of outreach and the right amount of outreach. And so we spent our summer and we conducted many meetings with both our residents and also the staff for all three organizations. And so we were grateful for allowing that time to really obtain this feedback that we think is so important. Speaker 3: I. Speaker 1: So in creating the preferred alternative, we held two large meetings over the summer and we also held a staff workshop. As we know, the people who work there every day have a lot of ideas about what they'd like to see in terms of improvements. We received hundreds of comments and were able to also at each meeting there were at least 100 members who signed in. So we know that more people were there. But in terms of head of households who were willing to sign in, that's the kind of turnout that we received. In addition to that type of outreach, we've conducted many meetings with the city in their specific plan consulting team cultivate in urban planning partners. We expect that relationship to continue well into the new year as they. Kind of infused the mood. The. What am I looking for? Um, we have a little bit of momentum and so we know that's going to continue into 2016. In addition to that, we had to do a lot of analysis to give Operation Dignity Element a point in building futures, some ideas about what is really going to be feasible from a development perspective . And the location that we selected is the combination of all of those. And I'd like to just spend a little time on the next slide, which is the preferred alternative that we submitted to Jennifer and her team. And this shows all of the existing housing we built on a much smaller footprint and is really the result of those different stakeholders coming together. And we do not yet have the feedback from the rest of Alameda, but we expect that in 2016. That's some of the additional feedback that we will obtain as we move through the Main Street process. So this is really our starting point and is it was really selected in with a few components in mind the basic design principles in terms of having access to shared amenity space, including many of Alameda Point Collaborative Business Enterprise endeavors and their Plowshares Nursery. The other major driver really has to do with tax credit financing, which is one of the major ways that we are able to fund affordable housing. And in order to qualify for most of those programs, we need to not only achieve a certain density, but also be located close by to amenities, important amenities like high performing transit , the public school and park amenities that are built out. And so this particular corner has all of those components so that we can get the maximum scoring that we would need in order to compete in the region with other projects. Though some of our next steps are that we really would like to apply for additional financing from the county that's available. That's a big step for us. But we think that based on the work that we've been doing over the last year where we are, we are ready to make that ask of the county and they have this opportunity with their housing trust fund. We also expect to be further engaged with Jennifer and her staff around analyzing this preferred alternative and working through some of the economics of how this deal will come together. So a little bit on the trust fund. It's just an incredible opportunity. The county has been a strong supporter to date of all of these projects. And so when we presented the concept over the summertime, they were very supportive. And I mean, it's my opinion that one of the reasons that they're very supportive is that it's seen as a preservation of all their existing efforts to date, that we would be looking to rebuild the housing and in many ways the county not only in the in their loans many years ago, but in their annual operating funds, are a very strong stakeholder and strong partner for these organizations. This particular funding is really important because it's a rare opportunity that we see county funding that can be used for this early pre-development at this early pre-development phase. It could be used unsecured. This is this type of money would allow us to continue to do the design work needed to really keep pace with the city's process and continue to invest in and leave the door open for us to really do the design work needed to move forward. And in addition to doing that, we are signaling to the county that we are ready, that within a few years time we expect to see that we will be in a position to start rebuilding and we would like to apply for additional funds from the county in the future. So this is probably this is the first time we'd like to apply the application is due this Friday and we are signaling to them that they will probably see us again as more opportunities come up. And one of the exciting things is that Alameda County as a whole is looking to increase the amount of their housing trust fund, the way that it's funded from the general fund. And that's an opportunity that could potentially turn into a great source for this project. Speaker 0: So can you clarify, you are planning to apply by Friday, assuming this gets approved today? Correct. Speaker 5: Just before we turn it back over to Jennifer, I just wanted to add that. Clearly the application is a trigger for us coming before you in requesting the intake tonight. But I on the other side of it, I do want to say that should we not get funding this round? That's not going to stop our work. We've already invested over $100,000 in cash into doing the analysis, not to mention an inordinate amount of staff time. And there are other funding operatives that are going to come up. But clearly the DNA was the threshold we needed to have in order to move forward on this application. Speaker 2: Amber Ashcraft So just a couple of questions, which well, you can probably any of you could probably address them. So Mr. Biggs, you referred to you've spent $100,000 today. Was that a grant from a particular agency? Speaker 5: We've actually if we count all the funding that we've spent, it's probably been over $300,000. We've gotten several grants in the past from Corporation for Supportive Housing. I'm a little bit scared to mention it, but we also got funding initially from Southern Cal. That's how long we've been working on this. Speaker 2: How about the Metropolitan Transit Commission? Speaker 5: Yeah. And then we partnered with with the city on the Main Street Project, the most recent hundred thousand dollars. And this is why you you work with a development partner like Mid-Penn is money. They're investing because they believe this project is really meaningful and needs to move forward. Speaker 0: And I want to share with counsel. We do not have any public speakers on this item. Speaker 2: Right. So and I was going to say, I did attend one of the workshops that Mid-Penn put on, and it was some of what you saw in the video. It was pretty impressive, all the different groups that are housed there. And then there was the separate teen room and children's room tables where they were putting their ideas in. Very skillfully administered the boomerang funds that were from the County Affordable Housing Trust Fund. Does that refer to former redevelopment funds or is that something else? It does. Okay, everybody, Debbie Potters nodding. That must be correct. Okay, good. Thank you. Speaker 7: I just quickly want to go through what the kind of the logistics of tonight of what we're actually asking you to prove tonight is an exclusive negotiating agreement between the city of Alameda and these four entities, including Mid-Penn Housing Going Island, Collaborative Building, Futures of Women and Children and Operation Dignity. And the reason we think it's a good idea from the city's perspective, obviously helping our existing residents build new facilities, but it also by putting this the development on this yellow site here, you're consolidating the footprint. It makes it very difficult. The Main Street neighborhood we are in the midst, as was mentioned, in a Main Street neighborhood planning process. It's very difficult to plan this neighborhood with the 34 acres the way it is here to create a cohesive neighborhood that and to be able to build marker a development that helps pay for the infrastructure and other things with that spread out here. Obviously, you've heard the reasons why they're interested in consolidating. I want you to hear from the city's perspective, too, that by consolidating on a particular site. We're going to be able to develop a more cohesive neighborhood overall. And we really can't without them moving forward with their design and planning. It's very difficult for us to move forward with the overall planning of the neighborhoods. So we have these two planning processes are really inextricably related, sort of how allow them to move forward with it, getting these funds hopefully and move forward their plan and we're able to move forward our planning which will be part of a very public process in 2016 that we'll be kicking off now that they've completed their resident outreach and hopefully get these funds will be able to really kick off with some momentum in 2016 into the term of the INA is really because we understand and recognize that we haven't done finished our public planning process. We wanted to kind of put in here the terms essentially of the seniors until the council adopts the mainstream neighborhood plan. And so it may be at that point that the the site changes or, you know, how we need to kind of give the council a chance to hear the mainstream planning process. We kind of recognize that we don't want this innate to continue past that moment. And then just in case for whatever reason is kind of unforeseen, what if we don't ever get that major neighborhood plan process? We do have a 12 month kind of deadline as just to kind of have a moment that stops this process in case we need to the deliverables are really to start to sit down with is an implementation term sheet and it would be the city and mid-penn and all the all of the collaborating partners sitting down to create a roadmap or an implementation term sheet of how are we going to implement this complicated arrangement? And we'd sit down and negotiate that implementation term sheet that we would bring to the Council for approval. It would not be a transaction. It would not be a disposition development agreement at that point, but it could include terms that might go into an ultimate DDA, but it would be that first, really detailed step of trying to create a road map for how we're going to get from A to B in terms of implementing this project. The city would be agreeing their responsibilities would be to agree to negotiate with regard to C to the site exclusively with these entities. From the developer standpoint, they would be preparing a draft development plans of really getting in, using these funds to really delve into the details of their preferred alternative and their plan, a business plan which is important to us because it's really, as you heard it is, you know, like a lot of affordable housing and without redevelopment. It's very complicated to figure out the financing. So how do we all work together to figure out how to finance this, especially as part of the larger Main Street neighborhood plan and then schedule? And so we'd be they'd be responsible and we'd be obviously working very closely with them and cooperating with them on those responsibilities. And so those are the key aspects of the INA. I'm happy to answer any questions and I think we're all here to answer any questions you may have. Speaker 0: Can you clarify? Does this require three or four votes to pass? Three, three? All right. I remember days ago. Speaker 6: Thank you. Thank you, Ms.. Just a question. So we're looking at the ten acre quasi rectangular area, which is yellow to some maybe light orange to others. Now, on that site, there are some buildings which might have some problems or I don't know. So does the is there enough flexibility through the in a process that as Mid-Penn and their and the Alameda Point Collaborative they're reviewing you know the pros and cons of that site. Are there enough options should they so choose for them to move elsewhere, perhaps areas contiguous to the light orange area? That's not to say I want them to move elsewhere, but it's just to say that, you know, I remember the commissaries there and, you know, there's other you know, things can happen, as they always do when it comes to redeveloping sites at Alameda Point. How would that work? Speaker 7: Yeah, I think that's a great question. I mean, I think we, you know, on our end, we're going to be really kicking off, of course, closely with a mainstreet, every planning process that has to get input from the rest of the community so that could influence things. They're also going to be engaging in due diligence and pre-development that might result in them finding something out about the site that makes them change their mind or want to tweak the boundaries. And so we absolutely can look at that. I think our responsibility is to negotiate exclusively with them on this particular site. But it doesn't say that we can't not exclusively talk to them about other sites within the mainstream neighborhood. And we we've talked with them about that. They're open to that. We understand that this isn't limit our possibilities. I think we all we've it's not that we just drew that yellow boundary, you know, randomly. There has been a lot of thought put into that particular site, but we still are just starting this planning process. So we we definitely are all open to the fact that we might find something to that planning process that leads us to a different location. Speaker 6: I think I'm bit basically raising that, speaking as one of five to let people know that, you know, if I'm fortunate things happen that, you know, if you have to go to plan B, then let's all jump onto plan B, but hopefully plan will work. So let's all get behind that as well. The other question I have is and this is an important question, I recognize that we've moved down this process, but there was an entity who was interested in the commissary site. If we can speak to what y you know, who you are going with is the better alternative. I'm sure the other person had, you know, was enthusiastic about the ideas that he wanted to do with the commissary site, but. Speaker 3: Mm hmm. Speaker 7: Yeah. I mean, and I think in general and I'll speak specifically to your question, but in general, we get a lot of interest in, I mean, a point in a lot of buildings. And then we typically, you know, ask questions and things and we don't there isn't always we you know, there are reasons we don't always move forward with a particular prospective tenant. In this particular case, we felt that what we've been talking we've been talking about the collaborative and the collaborating partners for a long time, and that this site, because of the tax credit kind of scoring that you heard, you know, because it's close to Main Street where the infrastructure is close to site where you have some of the transit. We felt it was more important in terms of some of those public policy, other public policy goals to move forward with this proposal. That doesn't mean we are still talking to that other, you know, that is interested in doing some kind of entertainment, other uses that we can look at other buildings for them and explore those options. Speaker 6: Wonderful. I just want to end by just quickly saying, you know, this is a relationship that we've had with the Alameda Point Collaborative going on. 22 years since 1993 and 1994. So it's not just a legal relationship, but it's a relationship that I think has made Alameda that much of a greater city. We had some rough patches in the first go years if you were around in 94, 95. But I think out of that, you know, base conversion is certainly achieving. I think it's for meaning by including as as we have done, the Alameda Point Collaborative and to see, you know, the families who are going through the transition. I think it makes everyone proud here in down member. Speaker 5: Just a couple quick clarifying questions so. They have 200 units right now in the mainstream neighborhood, right? Mm hmm. And so we're not really adding housing units. We're actually replacing the already. And then I think you said this, but just to be sure, if for some reason we can't come up with a mainstream plan because the community can't agree on whatever, we could still. Take this apart and develop these these 200 units and this project separately. Correct. Speaker 7: Well, first of all, the DNA would terminate after 12 months if we weren't able to come to some agreement. And then we'd have to look at how the project was financed. But we could we and in fact, part of the direction for when you the council give direction when it entered into the consultant agreement for the mainstream neighborhood was to look at how what's the kind of minimal amount of development that we might need to support the replacement of these housing units. And we were absolutely doing that. So for some reason, the Main Street neighborhood planning process fell apart. We could still, before the council, get direction to move forward with that proposal. How could we then, you know, create a plan and a, you know, an entitlement for how much ever development we would need to help support this project. And so we could kind of we could try I'm sure we can come up with a way to kind of carve that out and try to find a feasible way to move it forward. I will say that I can't tell you now that there is a feasible way because we it's this is a complicated it's expensive. But we could absolutely figure out a way to try to make that happen. Speaker 5: Because my concern is that for some reason, this community cannot come to a consensus on on what they want the Main Street neighborhood to be. I, you know, these these 200 units housing some of our most vulnerable populations. So it's important to me that we keep that process going, even if we have to make it independent of the Main Street neighborhood. And so, you know, anything I could add is not going to be nearly as eloquent or powerful as that video. Speaker 7: So I will say that our zoning requires that there is a mean a neighbor, a or one or more specific plan that has to be done. So we'd have to turn whatever plan they were preparing into that plan to meet our zoning and then try to figure out a way to do it. And I think we could figure out a way to entitlement a title that and come up with a package. Speaker 5: Hopefully that won't happen. But right in the worst case scenario, I'd like to keep this this ball moving. Speaker 7: Yeah, absolutely. Speaker 0: And Ashcraft. Speaker 2: Thank you. I also wanted to commend whoever put that lovely video together. I think that that's the sort of thing, you know, I'm the eternal optimist. So I think that going forward and going out into the community to help sell this plan and its importance, I hope you show that video every single time. But it really does give all of us an idea of the kind of work that's being done out there, but also the deplorable condition of the buildings that are out there because not many in the community necessarily find their way all the way out. And among those 34 acres, Mr. Biggs took me on a walk. A few years ago, we walked for 3 hours, going through just about the entire premises. So I am excited about the prospect of working with Mid Peninsula housing. If you read at the end of the INA that's attached to the staff report, there's biographies of the various executives who are part of this development team and they come with very, very good backgrounds for what they're doing. And I, I think that it is important to move forward on this. There's so many advantages to consolidating that 34 acre dispersed space into a more cohesive 13 acre site. And we've heard from the residents who don't feel safe out there at night. It's so spread out, the lighting's not good. You know that if you're ever at an event at the old club at night, you're practically doing a flashlight to get back to your car. And so and it's expensive to maintain older buildings. And so I think that it's time to move forward with this, and I look forward to supporting this when it comes to a vote. Thank you. Speaker 0: Vice mayor. Speaker 3: Yes. I think that what's on the table tonight? Puts us at no risk and actually keeps this project, which is much needed given the state of housing there in the realm that it can be delivered. And we have to do this. There's an there's a clear term that's been described in the staff report, which puts the city in a good time to get this done in a timely fashion. The deliverables are quite clear. It's a term sheet and it's meshed with the main street planning process. I think they have to go in parallel. So I, I, I'm fully supportive of that. The case that the consolidation is necessary, especially around transportation and the schools, is is a no brainer. And the responsibilities as outlined it from the developer standpoint, from the city standpoint, are quite clear. So I'm ready to move forward on this. I think it's at no risk to the city to make this an exclusive negotiated agreement, and we need to get this passed. Speaker 0: Remember De Saag. Speaker 6: Just a quick question. So when we're talking about thinking this up with a larger Main Street neighborhood, is the one is one of the underlying reasons because we might use some financial mechanism generated there to help pay for the this project. If so, I'm I would be fine with that. I just want to make that clear. Speaker 7: Yeah, it's actually two things. One is that our zoning, we created these districts, the Subdistricts for the 900 acres because it was so big. One of them was in a mainstream neighborhood. And because it's a housing neighborhood, we knew we actually added a layer of requirement, which was you can't develop here without a specific plan, because we really want very prescriptive rules and regulations about how this place, this neighborhood is going to look and feel like like we did for the town center. And so we are now we got funding from the region to implement that extra kind of layer of rules and regulations. So they actually, in order to develop their plan, need those rules and that framework in order to move forward. Now, there might be creative ways if the event that we can't come to some agreement about the whole neighborhood, I hope that doesn't happen. But if we couldn't, then there are ways that we could be creative within the zoning to get them move in on their project individually by doing kind of a plan just for them. But I think our hope is that this neighborhood gets planned cohesively together and that that framework that set in place with the specific plan. So that's one reason is they actually need the zone, they need the detailed zoning to be able to move forward with their plan. And so as they plan their buildings and their site, we then can have that inform our framework. And then if there's concerns that come up with the community about that framework, then we can go back to them and say, Hey, we need to tweak your plan a little bit to be responsive to our our community's concerns about this issue, whatever that may be. And so these two efforts can kind of inform each other. The other, you're right, is that there could be we need to see their financial we're going to kind of kick this off a little bit more. That's why we need the performa. We need to see their financials usually with projects like this that for these populations and I'm tell me if I get this wrong Nevada is that there's pretty significant subsidies that are required, public subsidies that are required. And so how we finance there's also that land needs infrastructure, $1,000,000 an acre of infrastructure. And so we're expecting that we're going to at least have to put on the table and discuss the possibility that some of the market rate development may have to help subsidize the infrastructure for this project. But and remember, they're giving up a long term lease on 34 acres for for land they want to own on 13 acres . So they are foregoing, you know, a leasehold, a very long term leasehold. And so all of that has to be part of the negotiation with them is to figure out a way to make this mutually beneficial for everybody to try it. And so I do expect that there's going to be discussions, maybe some hard discussions about how to how to get all this financed. And part of that may be the market rate development in this project, but I don't know yet because we haven't done. Speaker 4: All that. Speaker 6: Understood. In which case it it might behoove us to kind of have a check in with the ninth Street neighborhood process, because given the housing context that we're in now, I mean, there are conceivably some ideas that some might have with regard to that specific area relative to the general housing crisis and how that might or might not address it. And so. Speaker 3: It's. Speaker 6: Maybe it may be better to have that conversation sooner rather than later. Speaker 7: We absolutely agree. And we've been kind of pausing to let them kind of catch up. And now we're I think 2016, we're really with this DNA. Hopefully with the funding they get, we're going to really kick off that process and have a much more public presence with regard to the Main Street Neighborhood Plan. Speaker 3: Thank you. Speaker 0: So I think it might be about six months ago I was able to take a tour out of the point with Doug Biggs, and there are quite a few different representatives out there. And I just have one question for Mr. Biggs. Speaker 3: Oh. Speaker 0: And I saw the video. I really appreciate the video. I think it was well done. And my question to Mr. Biggs, who has been I I'm going to say. A lifetime serving these families and I think doing an amazing job. And I do agree with your statement that this is an opportunity. So at this point, my question to you, is this what you want? Is this what you want? Speaker 5: Thank you. That's an excellent question. And it's total surprise to me. I have to say, you know what's really wonderful about this? This is what the residents want. This is not my. Dictate. This is not my dream. This is their dream. This is their wants. This is their way to get security and safety and to build a healthy community for their families. So it's you know, the best part of this is it's not about what I want. It's what they want. And we can achieve it with your support tonight. Thank you. Speaker 0: Well, you're the executive director. That's why I'm. Speaker 5: Asking. I'm the typist on the grants. Really? Except this time, I mean, really, it. It's their voice. Speaker 0: You're being very humble, and I appreciate that. So given all of their needs, everything that's expressed to you, I see this as an opportunity. And this is. This is. But. But your proposal. Your. I plan to fully support this then, based upon your expertize and recommendation. Speaker 5: Thank you. Speaker 0: Truly. Okay. I'm not finished yet. All right, then. I also want to share that recently I was able to attend College of Alameda and there was a class there where we have two students in our audience today that were there. And the issue that they were sharing with the community was about homelessness. And I think that they raised some really good points. And my recollection is, remember, I was there, vice mayor was there, Mr. Otis daughter Sarah was there. Speaker 5: Not representing me, though. Speaker 0: But but you're in our audience today. You did not post slips to speak. Would either of you like to say anything? Speaker 3: Hi. My name is Skyler. Right. Speaker 4: And I'd just like to say that as someone who was born into a family that was homeless and was homeless here locally over in San Francisco, that just having the opportunity to build the lives back up. Speaker 6: And just have a place for. Speaker 4: These people, really, because that's what they are people and they need a place. Speaker 6: To call home. And it's just so. Speaker 3: Wonderful that we've got the opportunity to make that really happen here. Speaker 0: Thank you. And I really do appreciate your class setting this subject, inviting the community to participate. To hear you. To have you be in our audience. And then to have you speak. And I want to make sure you understand. We do welcome you to our meetings. You do have a voice to be heard. Thank you. And I so I do plan to support this. Right, Vice Mayor. Speaker 3: And it was. It's. At the presentations that this group did. There were a number of points that were covered in our goals that were. Pointed out in that presentation on things we should be doing. So I think it's a validation from a sector of the population that generally doesn't come to city council meetings. It's much appreciated. I'd like to make a motion to approve the recommendation as stated in the staff report, to enter into an in a of between the city of Alameda Mid-Penn Housing Alameda Point Collaborative Building Futures for Women and Children and Operation Dignity for the Planning and development of 13.2 acres, as defined in the staff report. Speaker 2: Taken and embraced. Before we vote, I just wanted to just tag on to your comments, because the mayor did very nicely describe the session on homelessness. This was a critical thinking class at the College of Alameda, and they did a presentation last week and there were four different areas. Food deserts was one of them mentoring young people. And I have an idea see me afterwards and rape culture and then the homelessness issue and these presentations that these young people gave were very polished and professional and they had visual aids and they had interactive activities for us to partake in. And it was very impressive. So thank you so much for coming out tonight and being here. Speaker 0: Thank you. That being said, all those in favor. Motion carries unanimously. Thank you. Item six, see? Speaker 1: Recommendation to accept the five year pipeline report for affordable housing. Speaker 0: Good evening, mayor, council staff members and other members of the community. Thank you. My name is Victoria Johnson. I'm the director of housing community development for the Alameda Housing Authority. I'm making up just a presentation report. No action is is requested. And it is a good news report. The presentation is the affordable housing development pipeline. This is a projection of the number of units and the location of the units that are likely to come online in within the next five years. Many of these projects are already under development or pre-development, and some of the projects are in the preliminary stages. Speaker 3: So. Speaker 0: Yes. We're good. Okay. Thank you. All right. So just for some points to think about, we agree that the goal of the housing authority in its role is serving as the city's primary agent of housing development. For Affordable in the affordable market is to expand housing choice at many different income levels. And, of course, the city's inclusionary ordinance supports that goal. We focus as a housing authority on low income households, which is households that earn less than 50% of median income. And we also know as each year passes that we we really need to serve a diverse population and diverse with respect to physical needs, social needs, economic needs . And I want to really emphasize the need for geographic dispersion. In years past, in decades past, there's been a lot of affordable housing development. This is not so much true in Alameda, but certainly in larger cities. That development has been geographically concentrated and that is not a good idea for many reasons, the least of which I want to make reference to a United States Supreme Court decision from June 2015. So very recent, which found in State of Texas case that the governmental agency was liable for violating the Fair Housing Act, or I should say could be liable under the Fair Housing Act for claims against the government agency, even if there was no intent to discriminate. But if there was an effect of discrimination so simplified, if all of the affordable housing in any particular jurisdiction is in one neighborhood or in one census tract or in one side of town, someone could bring a claim of a violation of the Fair Housing Act. So and for that reason and many other reasons, we seek to distribute housing throughout the city. Some other points just to think about, which is that right now we have quite a good, healthy pipeline. We have if everything gets built over 200 for sale homes and 400 for rent units that will either be newly constructed or renovated and calling the previous item. I really want to emphasize that preservation and restoration is important part of the overall strategy. Older units that are lost are. It can happen. It happens in a lot of older cities in particular. So preserving older units is really in many ways just as good as building a new unit. We're preventing the loss of that unit. And so each of those contribute, whether we're building new, renovating or preserving, we're contributing to the overall goal. There's some smaller projects that are in our pipeline here in the city. They're not included in all. I'm going to kind of quickly run through the 15 projects that are underway, but the smaller projects are important. Even, for example, the discussion about potentially bringing on a handful of of accessory dwelling units each year, every little bit counts . And lastly, our inclusionary housing housing ordinance in the city of Alameda is very effective and it has been for a long time. Many cities don't have that tool. So I really appreciate working here that I have that tool. So then through the map and you have a presentation that describes each of these projects in greater detail, starting at the east end of the island, the housing authority owns land on Eagle Avenue. We have received planning board approval and we're moving forward to apply for funding for 22 units. The Boat where its boat works project has yet to receive its entitlements, but it is underway and will include affordable units per the inclusionary ordinance requirements. Similarly, 2100 Clement will have inclusionary units that will has entitlements. And I'm I don't want to necessarily repeat what you have in your report, but perhaps for the public who doesn't have the report in front of them, I can list the number of units. So the Clément, for example, will include seven affordable units. The Del Monte building, as you know, has approvals in place. And that will include both affordable moderate priced units that will be developed by Tim Lewis. Communities and the Housing Authority will help to develop 31 affordable rental units, which will be senior units. Maureen assures a linear project there will be 16 for sale affordable units to the north of Del Monte. The Tim Lewis company is planning to develop. They have just started the really early conversations about that project, but that could potentially include up to 40 affordable units or more. And moving westward. I've highlighted here is three existing housing authority projects, all of which are aging, and in particular the Roseville Project needs to be redeveloped. It has some serious structural decay issues and we're going to be we the housing authority will be working on that. I don't think it will need council approval, but we will of course, be working with the building department to get approvals for that. And the the combined number of units in those properties is, is almost, let's see, 40, 80 and 50, 130 and the Parrot Village in particular, there's a lot of vacant land there. We could potentially add some units at that site. So we'll be looking at that. Continuing. We have the China Clipper project. That's a small building. It's only 26 units owned by the Housing Authority, but it is also aging and needs to be renovated. And then all the way west to Alameda Alameda landing and the the edge the east edge if you will of Alameda Point the Stargell Commons project. I'm happy to report if anybody doesn't already know, we closed financing last week. There are 32 affordable rentals being developed there. Alameda Landing has 16, the current phase 60 and affordable homeownership opportunities and the master developer Catullus has entitlements to develop several hundred more homes. I don't know the exact number north of Mitchell. There's a 40 acre parcel, I believe. And then the last here is the North Housing, which the housing authority will receive in the coming year. 13 acres of of Navy owned land to develop affordable units. And last but not least, the city really least, but most in terms of number of the city project has 200 affordable units and adding those all together. It's a really significant number of units in a city for their size. Owever, having said that, the demand is great. And even if we build 600. Demand will always exceed our our ability to supply. But we do the best we can do. So be glad to answer any questions. Amber Ashcroft. Speaker 2: Thank you. Amber Spencer. Johnson. Thank you for the report and for the the nice presentation of the visuals. When I was reading the staff report about upcoming projects in number nine is North housing and it is described as so it's former Coast Guard housing and it's and it's adjacent to Estuary Park. Correct. So there'll be a nice park there. But it says the approval requires the development of a 90 unit permanent supportive housing project for formerly homeless individuals and families and may include housing for veterans. So my question was, how does this proposed housing at the former Worth housing former Coast Guard housing site coordinate with the work that we just heard that Alameda point collaborative and building features was women and children is doing. Speaker 0: There's a memorandum of understanding that was executed by the Housing Authority, the city and the providers, Building Futures and Alameda Point Collaborative are signatories to the demo. You and the Navy has approved and HUD has already approved that the memo use specifies the the use the 90 units should be supportive housing. It does provide an opportunity and this this may come to pass or it may not be necessary for some of the families who now live in the collaborative units to move into the 90 units if they are developed first. So it remains to be seen what will be developed first. So it is one possibility that some of the existing households, if north housing is developed first, could move over, which would make it easier to develop the 200 new units because there'd be fewer relocation problems if the 90 units are developed later, that would not. Speaker 2: Thank you. Speaker 0: In other questions. Comments. Thank you very much. Okay. Thank you. Next item, a6d. Speaker 1: Introduction of ordinance amending the Alameda Municipal Code by adding Section 2.24 to Article two of Chapter two related to emergency organizations to create the City of Alameda Disaster Council, as required by state law to obtain legal recognition as an official emergency organization.

Regular Agenda Item

Recommendation to Approve an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) between the City of Alameda and a consortium of four developers made up of MidPen Housing, Alameda Point Collaborative, Building Futures with Women and Children, and Operation Dignity for Planning and Development of a 13.2-Acre Parcel in the Main Street Neighborhood Area at Alameda Point bounded by West Midway Avenue, Orion Avenue, West Tower Avenue, and Main Street to Enable Predevelopment Activities for Designing and Constructing New Supportive Housing Facilities for these Existing Supportive Housing Providers. (Base Reuse 819099)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_12152015_2015-2300

Speaker 1: Introduction of ordinance amending the Alameda Municipal Code by adding Section 2.24 to Article two of Chapter two related to emergency organizations to create the City of Alameda Disaster Council, as required by state law to obtain legal recognition as an official emergency organization. Speaker 0: Hello. My name is Captain Sharon Oliver. I'm the disaster preparedness coordinator. Pardon? My voice decided to leave me right before I came. I'm the disaster preparedness coordinator for the City of Alameda and emergency manager. So what I'm hearing tonight is we're requesting that you adopt an ordinance to reinstate the city of Alameda Disaster Council. I do have a point of clarification as that went through, as the ordinance went through the process. There was a name change that did not get corrected prior to giving it to you. You should have a version with a line through that calls it the disaster council as opposed to the disaster commission. It couldn't be called a commission. There's other rules that go along with commission. So staff worked very hard to have it accurate for you to this evening and there was still a minor error. So do you all have your packet? Correct. So I'd just like to give you a little context for why we bring this and how the city of Alameda fits into a bigger. A bigger picture with the state and how we operate when it comes to emergencies and disasters. So the state of California works in what's called the standard emergency management system. That's seems for sure. That is how we respond to and organize ourselves in disasters. It's where our mutual aid agreements live and are played out. There's methods for requesting assistance and giving assistance to other cities through those mutual aid agreements. We operate in a chain of command type environment where if we need help, we go to our operational area, which is the county of Alameda. They have their emergency operations center in Dublin, California. So we we do many of these things to be a team and work together. But we also do these things to meet requirements from FEMA. FEMA has, as the years have gone on, gotten to the point where they're not willing to continue to spend taxpayer dollars if the communities aren't doing their part to be prepared. So when we bring these things before you, part of it is so that we're eligible for full reimbursement for disasters. They will always come and help us. But at the end of a disaster, they're going to audit us. And if we don't have certain things in place and we're not doing our part to be a prepared and resilient city, they will ask us for some money back. I believe it's at about 6% now. If everything's not in place and I'm not going to go through all those things tonight for the time constraint, but when it costs sometimes billions of dollars to help a community recover, 6% of that can be quite financially devastating to a city if they're not, you know, doing what they need to do. So we are doing what we need to do, I can assure you. Part of the things we need to do are have an operational plan. We have an emergency management plan in place. That's one of the things we have to do. We are currently working on a revision of the emergency mitigation plan. That's to mitigate hazards prior to, you know, identifying and mitigating those hazards. So we're in the process of doing that, that plan right now, and you'll see that in the coming months to be adopted. We're also responsible to train our staff, and we're responsible to collaborate with the community and train the community to the best of our ability. Those are things that are required for FEMA to give us the reimbursement and not ask for any of it back. We don't want them to ask for any of it back. So this ordinance is getting reinstated. And I want to just kind of let you know that the reason we're bringing it back is because it by accident got deleted. It was an oversight, the last council task staff with looking at boards and commissions and getting rid of some of the bureaucracy and red tape, I believe. And that's great because everybody wants to streamline as much as possible. The problem was in that streamlining, they got rid of the disaster council. So it just a brief history on the disaster council. If you're old enough and I'm not sure any of us are, I'm not going to admit to it. They used to call this civil defense. The term civil defense came out, I believe, around World War Two. Don't hold me to that. It was a way for communities to protect themselves and to rally their citizenry and their government to protect themselves in the event of war. That became disaster preparedness. That's what that term turned into. Some communities still use the term civil defense. The county of Hawaii uses the term civil defense in their preparedness efforts. The city of Alameda established a disaster council in 1947. They formally adopted that in 1951. That was to align with where the state was going in those preparedness efforts. That ordinance was revised in 1972, and you can see this ordinance was very old. And so when they went to clean things up, it looked a little musty and dusty. With that being said, it was still completely in effect. So in 2011 was when they with when the action got taken to clean up and that ordinance got removed. So what are the responsibilities of the disaster council? And when I when I talk to you about this, this is all about being standardized in the state of California . We can be really proud as Californians that the National Incident Management System was modeled after California's efforts in the way we work together. So we've been doing this a long time and we're good at it. And the. Government modeled after us. So that is the Council's responsible for planning efforts. So I mentioned the emergency management plan or sometimes called the operation plan. That council guides that planning. We have one in place. It's bones are good. But if you were really to sit and read it, you'd see that it's getting outdated. It mentions things like the alert and warning system, which we've taken down. It does not address alerting to the community through Nirsal, which is now what we have in place. So there's some things that have just changed. It mentions things like VHS tapes and, you know, technologies that are quite old. The bones of it are very good. And we need to drill down and we are in the process of doing that. But the disaster council would review those plans and then bring them to you for adoption. The council would review any mutual aid agreements. We currently have a signed agreement from 1950 that is current to be part of the mutual aid agreement. So we're not out of compliance with that at all. But if there was major changes, it would get reviewed by the council. It directs the emergency organization, which is essentially that council. And those who are assigned to work in our emergency operations center coordinate efforts between agencies such as Red Cross. Also I have here Coast Guard, Marines, things like that, other response agencies. It's a place for all those agencies to come together, to work together in our planning and our response efforts. It allows the city to recall city employees as disaster service workers. This is the ordinance that allows us legally to have them come back in. It allows us to command the use of citizens and pressed into service by police and fire personnel in a disaster. And they're covered as disaster service workers. It also allows us to organize and coordinate the use of our affiliated volunteers. And when I say affiliated, it's they're they're known to us. So Alameda Search is one of the programs that the fire department oversees. And it has grown to be a robust organization that is integral to our response matrix. Those are affiliated volunteers. So they're people that are known to us. There are citizens, they've had training and they have chosen to be available if they can, to assist. So that's some of the things they do. So the new ordinance, since we lost the old ones, we took the opportunity to rewrite the new one. And part of why we we why we rewrote it was because it helped us align with what we already do day to day in the operation of our city and our emergency operations center. So the city has it. And stop. If I go off track, please. The city. The Council has assigned the city manager to run daily operations. So in this ordinance, you might notice that the city manager is called the director of the ordinance. The city manager is also the director of the Emergency Operations Center. So it aligns with the way we do business. I also might add that, you know, although we took our ordinance away accidentally, we are not the only city that did that. Other cities went through the same conflict and felt that it was old and got rid of it only to find they needed to reinstitute it. The city of Berkeley had a similar issue. I was speaking with my counterpart about the challenge and they rewrote their ordinance as well in place with the city manager as the director of the disaster council. So who. Speaker 3: Who are. Speaker 0: Who are members on this council? Our membership are people who have a strong background in response and planning. So it's upper management of the police department, the fire department, the public works department, AMP. And I call those four agencies our response agencies. Those are the groups that of city employees who come out when there's something going wrong. We all have daily activities, but we show up amp when we have storms and fires are down. They come out in the middle of the night to repair and restore power. Public Works comes out at any time of the day or night to fix a broken sewer mains and and you know interact with you say might if we have a water main breaks and if we had a disaster they would be working side by side with police and fire and the EOC staff to put our city back on its feet and restore services. So I call those our response agencies. They're used to working in the mutual aid system. They have mutual aid agreements in place. They understand planning and response because that's what they do. And then we bring in our partner agencies that also our response partners. That's the Red Cross, Coast Guard, Marine, East Bay mud, which is our water service, PGE And just to name a few, Alameda Hospitals sat on the board before because they're an integral part of our response and a partner in serving our citizens in that way. So those are generally the people that we have on this council, and they are professionals in their field understanding, mutual aid agreements, planning and that process. So it's a high level council. Anything that goes through them, you might have read the ordinance comes to you for approval. So never are you out of the loop on what this council is doing. It always comes to you for approval. Some things are going to come to you soon for approval. We're going to update as soon as we get this ordinance back in place. We've been working on it, but we'll work even more diligently because there'll be a team in place to update our emergency operation plan, which is critical. The Public Works Department is working on debris removal, so there's a lot of us already working to drill down and update these plans. So that's pretty much how that works. I wanted to touch, though, on our emergency operations center and how that's organized because this ordinance does will get us in an alignment with the way we operate already. So the city manager is the director of the Emergency Operations Center and makes decisions in conjunction with the police chief and the fire chief because they are a little bit more of an expert in response and can guide the city manager. But it's a team effort. The people who are assigned in that in those positions are predominantly department management and just below management. We're a small city, so we have really two full teams that can respond to the emergency operations center. Now, the council plays an important role. Your role, however, is not in the actual EOC. Your role is to make policy decisions. Appropriate funds be the face of the city in speaking to the public. You work closely with the PIO, the public information officer, to disseminate critical information to our citizens about what we're doing and what we. Would like them to do and to provide services. You also work closely with the city attorney to make sure that we don't step outside any legal guidelines with disaster response. The other thing that this ordinance talks about is declaring a disaster. Now, the city manager in our emergency operation plan is capable of declaring a disaster, as are you capable of declaring a disaster. The city manager is required to come back and will come back. I know you will, because you live in town. And so when we when the city manager and the staff decide that we need to declare a disaster, we would like to do that early. And then it comes to you for ratification. I want to clarify. She's our interim. We're in the hiring a long term, and I'm not sure where that person would be living. So this should not be based on having a city manager that lives here. I'm sorry. It's not. But all all employees come back as disaster service workers and all people assigned to the EOC would get messaged and would be required to come back apologize. So it aligns with how we do business in the emergency operations center. You will be kept abreast of everything that's going on, an integral part of decision making at the highest level. So I don't want you to feel as though this somehow goes around your authority. Everything comes through you. So with that being said. I would open it up to any questions or comments. I understand we don't have speakers on this one either. All right. Questions. First, we're. Speaker 3: Just in the membership of the. Speaker 5: Of the. Speaker 3: Emergency operations team and the disaster council would consider including the Water Emergency Transit Authority because they'll have their EOC at the new building on the point. And is there any consideration and that's peripheral to the ordinance because the ordinance doesn't specify it. But as you get to those type of issues, once this is approved, will you be asking guidance? Speaker 0: Absolutely. Speaker 3: Or when you started putting the implementation steps in place? Because I can see that also the mayor, Ed, has resources that will be very valuable during the disaster, and I'm hoping that comes back. I think in my read of this, it allows that, yes, flexibility and adaptability depending on what ends up at that end of the island as well. So I'm just hoping you consider that, I think, to get this in place sooner rather than later. Allows us to start the implementation process and we can adjust this if the implementation process demands it. Speaker 0: Yeah, absolutely. You know, we're always doing outreach to all the. You know, partner agencies. So transportation, I, you know, I gave you a short list. AC Transit is also one of our partner agencies, so and we're in agreement with them to assist us in many cases. For example, if we had an active shooter event at a school, they're, you know, able to come in and help us move students and things like that. So we partner with a lot of agencies. That was a very short list and on certain topics we definitely want to have input from various groups. I've been working just to let you know, I should preface this so the city is responsible for a disaster from the start to the end. So even though we get assistance, we're responsible for all of it. So we're responsible for sheltering and feeding any of our displaced citizens and pets. And pets and at risks that risk community as well. So we've been in conversation with the animal shelter and bringing in interested citizens to talk about what sheltering pets is going to look like and how we might do that. I've been talking to Carey Parker on the Commission for Disabilities about the you know, how how are we going to plan and what does that look like? They're the experts in disabilities. So we need to involve all the community input to really effectively plan. So the council's a high level group to move these plans through. But the public outreach and the input is important at all times in my office is my door is always open. I work closely with people who come through cert and those are the people who are tend to be compassionately interested in assisting us with planning efforts around the pet's disabilities. I've had people interested in helping to provide training in more languages than just English. So really to be a resilient community, you need input from everybody. So I've actively reached out. We have a resiliency committee in place right now. Mr. Biggs is one of the members on that to help us address some of those issues with our at risk population and the communities that we serve. That group has supported much of our planning and in fact we identified it, identified that we needed to reinstate the disaster council one to be in in line with the state of California, in the way the whole of the process works. And to also affect the the, the things that we need, such as being able to call our employees as disaster service workers and things like that. Before we continue, it's almost 1030 and we're going to need a motion to consider our remaining items. Six E, which is the workers comp for disaster workers and six F Alameda Theater marquee. And we need four votes to approve that. We have a motion. Speaker 3: That moved. Speaker 0: Second. Speaker 5: Second. Speaker 0: All those in favor I. Motion passes unanimously. All right. So thank you on that. Now, bringing back member Ashcroft. Speaker 2: Was there a question about the unanimous per your. Speaker 0: Everybody. Speaker 2: Nonverbal group. I'm thank you for your report Captain Oliver. And I'm mindful of the fact that your voice is leaving you as you speak. Just a quick question. You mentioned the search program, which I've been meaning to take part in. Can you tell us if you know when the next training will take place? Speaker 0: We don't have the schedule just yet, but we're very close to producing that. We give the class four times a year that it's a course, contains seven modules and it's 21 hours of training, and we usually give two in the early part of the year, take the summer off because we don't always fill the class and then give to later in the fall. So we will we should have that out by the approximately the first or second week of January. For the public. They always ask us about that. Speaker 2: Thank you. Speaker 3: No. I'm a. Speaker 0: Member. Speaker 6: Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Captain, all of you, for your presentation and much appreciated. I think we have a difference of opinion, though. It seems to me that the city charter imbues the mayor and the council with certain powers when it comes to emergency situations. What we're talking about here in the Emergency Disaster Council isn't just a planning body, but it's a it's a body to take action during the course of some kind of a. We don't want it to ever happen to some kind of emergency. It seems to me, though, then, that the mayor and the vice mayor, at least two members of city council, ought to be part of the of the of the people who make up decisions, because at the end of the day, we're a democracy. And then the people who are elected to be the voice of the people are the council members. We don't disagree with the fact that the expertize lies with you and the city manager and your understanding and how all the processes work and the relationships with the emergency people from from beyond Alameda. That's that's not questioned. That's not you know, no one challenges that. But I would say, though, that that if we're going to live up to the meaning of the very first definition of of what it means to be the mayor of Alameda under Article six, Section six, dash one, that there has to be a role for the mayor. And it is it asked the council. He didn't ask me to make this raise, this issue. The issue, actually, that I raised way back in the EOC meeting, I think any council member or any mayor would would exercise enough judgment to recognize that they have to defer to in the in the in the moment of a of an emergency. They have to defer to the experts, to the people who are saving lives. So we understand that for sure. But I do believe that there are that that the council, through the mayor, has to be involved in the disaster disaster council itself. I don't I don't think it's I think that's there's no for me, there's no other way to interpret Section six, dash one. Speaker 0: I do know that there's Section six. That's one of the charter. And as I understand it, you could take the city council could take control of the city at any time. And that's you're right. There is always the possibility that. The the people who work for the city would for some reason not come to work for the city. And you would you must take control of the city. That would be something you would have to do as citizens in council. However, we don't generally do business quite that way, and it's not to leave you out at all. I'm I'm excited that you're that you have an interest in preparing and planning that you would want to be on the council. The ordinance ordinance that went away by accident had the mayor as the director of the council. It can be either or. But because we do business generally where the city manager is given the day to day operations and emergency management, this alliance's. With that being said, the last time that council was in place and this isn't referring to you, you're very involved. Council. We never had the mayor attend any meetings. And we went through a few mayors while the council was in place and she was on back who was at the time captains on Beck was the disaster preparedness coordinator, and he ran the meetings. So with everything coming through the council. That's neither here nor there. But it was really more to align this ordinance with the way we operate generally and the way it's presented in the emergency operation. Speaker 6: I think what I'm getting at, though, is in the moment of an emergency hire emergency, when decisions have to be made in terms of, you know, how you are going to make recommendations to deploy staff. I mean, let's say there's a even forbid something happens at the Port of Oakland, at the airport, and then at the same time, something happens at the at the tube on the west end of town. Certain decisions have to be made in terms of how to deploy certain limited resources. And you guys have the expertize to make the recommendation. But I think for it to be legitimate, there has to be some involvement by a representative from the city as elected. That's my only point. Speaker 3: When it comes to disaster. Speaker 0: I'd like to speak, but the rest of you, you've already had an opportunity to. I'd like to how? Speaker 2: I want to respond to what Councilmember De Saag said, but I'll be happy to take my turn at that after you speak. Speaker 0: And then also on the speak. That's why I wanted to speak to this, because you just shared that under the prior. Counsel if. Actually the term commission is what's been being stricken and term council count added. Was it ever referred to as a commission? It has always been council, yes. Okay. So. Okay. And then under the prior council document. That document is not included here. So we don't have anything we can't compare. Right. But I see as the red line version that actually just substitutes the word council for commission throughout the document that I don't have the document that you're referring to what it used to look like. And I think that needed to be included so that we could compare whatever especially substantive changes that are being proposed. And we don't have that information in front of us. Can. So I don't know what else is being changed. And it sounded like this was just an error, that it was removed and it's being brought back. But in fact, it sounds like it's being brought back with what I would call substantial changes that are not being disclosed here. I understand your question there. I guess the term substantial changes is one I don't know. I you know, it's maybe subjective. The change was to add the city manager is the director and the assistant city manager as the vice chair in my position as the assistant to the vice chair so we could continue to hold meetings. The State requested we add at least two times a year. The rest of it came out of a template from the state and it is. Almost word for word. As I remember it, what it was before. So the only change was to align it with the way we do business and what the emergency operation plan matrix for the emergency organization says. Okay. So I. So I would have preferred and just any time staff bring something that's coming back with changes, we need to see the original document so that we know what's being changed and the public has also has that right then to see it. In regards to the proposed change. I think when this issue came before us in regards to the EOC, I think that there was discussion at that time raised by member de SAC and. And the chief, there was discussion. I did not have the opportunity to review the tape. I don't think it was discussed in the minutes from what I could tell. But I think we did have a discussion back then that the mayor and I actually think council would be somehow included in the EOC, and that went to why we needed a larger EOC accommodate everyone. So I didn't have a chance to review the actual tape on that. But then we do have the charter and the charter language. And this is your. The proposal is silent, completely silent as to the languages in the charter. And I think that that has to be addressed, whether or not you're proposing to not. But, you know, somehow and I think there should be a legal opinion or discussion about how does this respect the charter, because we cannot change the charter. We as a council can't change the charter. And the charter is fair. In regards to there is a statement that the mayor takes command of police and fire departments and governs the city by proclamation whenever council determines that public danger or emergency requires such action. And that is not even addressed here. And I feel like that needs to be addressed because you have two documents that I think actually conflict with each other. And I don't think it is appropriate if we have an emergency, if we have a disaster, we really do need to have planned in advance who is doing what? What is the role of the mayor? What is the role of the city manager? If the city manager is acting as this director? And so I don't think it is appropriate to be silent. I think it is something that needs to be addressed and we need to have council weigh in. What is the charter provide? How does that align with what's being proposed today? So I'm not comfortable without having that issue addressed here. And then another comment is it does speak to that. The city manager, I believe, would be making the says as be appointed by the director, which then it would be the city manager under this with the advice and consent of city council. And I think maybe that would be nominated by the director, if that's what that is, and then confirmed by council. But it doesn't it's not real clear even what council's role is there if it comes back to council then for confirmation or what that is. So I, I think that that also needs to be clear how we are, how people are being appointed to be on this commission. And then in regards to the cert when it's offered, I think it'd be nice to come up with a time. I would also like to participate. I know Member Ashcroft has already said that when I've looked in the past, it's offered on Tuesdays, which we are never available for, and it's like four or five Tuesdays in a row is my recollection of Saturday. So I know we do we weeknight series twice in the year and on weekends or twice in the year. Okay, so I'd like us to be able to look at a date other than a Tuesday for it. Speaker 2: I think we heard two, two weeknights and two Saturdays or two weekends. Speaker 0: Right in and having it not be so we weekends. Well, I'd like to schedule something other than to see if we could roll around our instructors. So, yeah, it's not perfect and trying to accommodate counsel so those of us that are interested could participate in this training also. All right. Member Ashcraft. Speaker 2: Thank you. I am happy to have the city attorney take a look at reconciling the language between the charter and the language of this ordinance that we are clarifying. However, I think that in a disaster, in an emergency and you just stop and think about in this country, in our state, in the world, some of the things that have happened recently really require our first priority has to be the safety of our citizens. I want to put that safety into the hands of trained professionals who have done this for years, who know how to respond in an emergency. And I am happy to take my cue and my direction from them. I think we would be doing a disservice to our citizens to say that somehow an elected mayor and council should be the ones to be giving public safety direction on how to act. We don't have the training. I think it takes a certain temperament also to be cool and calm in any situation, and that's what you do when you know for a living you run into burning buildings and you, you know, follow the sound of gunfire. We I don't think any of us has that kind of training. So if we need some clarification, I understand, you know, the city charter. But again, first and foremost, the reason we're doing this is to keep our citizens safe. And I think that we place that responsibility in the most capable hands. Speaker 6: And I don't disagree with that. Like I said, you guys are the experts, but. Now, part of our democracy involves elected officials. And it's and it's explicit here in our charter. I think the mayor or whomever else is part of if. If she or he is part of the disaster council would exercise incredible discretion. And in Austin, an understanding, you know who does what. At the end of the day, yes, you run into the buildings when there's fires or heaven forbid, you know, for the police when there is violence going on. You guys are there. We understand that. But I think there is a role for the or a mayor in in in an emergency situation so that the experts who are making the decisions or executing the decisions understand that they've got the complete backing of of the public. And in emergency situation, you know, you can't obviously gather all council members to suddenly have a meeting. So that's why we have at least one person on council, and that would be the mayor. And I think that was the understanding as to why in the previous rendition of the disaster council, the mayor was involved. So let's not pretend like the mayor was never involved. Speaker 0: Now, I don't mean to pretend that. Speaker 6: In fact, I think I attended a disaster council meeting on behalf of Mayor Afzal when I was the vice mayor. Speaker 3: You may have. Speaker 0: I would like to point out that the emergency management plan has been adopted by the council. So that's part of why the alignment was going forward, is to get our documents in alignment. You know, the the topics you're bringing up, you know, other cities have language that's similar to what we're proposing and have emergency management plans with there are councils doing what I explained to you was the role that is a standard operating procedure for all the cities that I know of within the state because we work under Sams and we work in a particular way with requesting. But we're a charter city. And the fact is, is that this has been handled differently in the past in this city, and that was not brought to our attention before this was raised, you know, during this conversation. Vice Mayor. Speaker 3: Yes, I think that's a substantive change that needs to be taken back and incorporated in this with the and my preference is that. We reconcile the this ordinance, including the language that's in the charter. And I think the charter does separate operations from policy as as a document. And I'd like this to go back to include that separation as part of the lead into what I consider as a good template for operational purposes. And bring it back for another first reading. Speaker 0: My brother. Did you want to speak? Speaker 5: Yeah, I. I'm trying to compare the two, and, you know, I don't see any conflict between the two. The charter says discussing the mayor changing a word. He or she may take command of the police and fire departments and govern the city by proclamation whenever the council determines that public danger or emergency requires some action. There's nothing in in this ordinance that takes away that authority. Speaker 3: Or silence. Speaker 5: The mayor to. Continue to do that, continue to call the council together and create a proclamation that allows her, in this case, to take over the police and fire departments. And we also put in a check in to 24 six that if the director of emergency services actually declares our proclaims a existence of a local emergency and or issue such a proclamation, if we're not in session that the Council has the authority to ratify the proclamation within seven days. So we do retain the authority. I'm just worried that if we have a situation like an active shooter situation where you have to mobilize, like in San Bernardino a few weeks back when the whole city was basically shut down, that we need to have somebody do this quickly. You know, that's not to say that, you know, once the mayor is able to arrive at the situation and or the council is able to be called together in any LC or whatever, you know, that we can't, you know, assist in that direction. But, you know, I think we need to be able to have emergency response as quick as possible in some of these emergencies. And we're not really taking anything away. It's just allowing the city staff that's in charge of and leads emergencies to allow to handle them right away without waiting. You know, and I do look at the main priority or duties of this commission is to develop emergency and mutual aid plans and agreements and ordinances and resolutions, rules, regulations, so on and so forth to implement these plans. So, you know, we're not turning over no control of the city, you know, to some rogue elected body. You know, we still retain authority over it. And I don't see where these two these two that the Section 6.1 of the charter is in conflict with this ordinance. Speaker 3: Vice Mayor And I don't dispute that this provides the framework for doing that. In fact, in the example that you gave on the San Bernardino, there's active a just ordinary police operations are going to be expanded when when the full event is known. And I think that's not incompatible with what's here and what's listed in the charter as far as the declaration of an emergency and. Basically having the city council and the mayor take control per the charter in the event of a citywide disaster. I'm just asking that. We take the language that's in the charter and. Basically embedded. As in the appropriate section of this ordinance to make sure that that hierarchy is understood. I think that's the genesis of what Councilmember de SA brought up is that that hierarchy is proscribed in the charter and until that charters change we have to recognize it as the front end of the declaration of a citywide disaster. Speaker 0: Well, I want to see what it used to be, because we have a we have a history of doing this. When Alpizar was mayor, he went to these meetings. There was a way it was it occurred. I'd like to see what that document provided. And I'd like this to be handled like we do all the time when we're making revisions. You red line, we see the old one. We see the new proposals very clear what the changes are. And I think that that needs to happen just like it normally does happen. I think that that should have been disclosed today. I think it's very important we have that. I think it is substantive. Who is leading this council that is substantive? Speaker 6: Well, let me make sure to say, I believe that the past practice of including the mayors in the disaster council was to respect a Section six, dash one. But that being said, I think the disaster council itself, the way that it unveiled because of its, for the most part, planning nature. Many mayors didn't attend the meetings simply because, well, we're not subject matter experts for the most part, unless you're, you know, the former mayor of Fremont, who is a former police chief. So I think in that situation that the issue is just simply attending the meetings and and, you know, recognizing that we are, in a way, the fire department and and the police force are are. Quasi martial arts. So we would be the civilian body and somehow we have to reflect that. That's all I'm saying, is that they that they were the mayor was involved in the disaster council before. And I don't see any reason why the mayor ought not to be involved today if she or he so decides to attend the planning related meetings. Fine. But at the point in time when there is an emergency, I do see the mayor as the rallying point. First for the experts to come together for them, for the citizens and general to say, okay, well, that's the mayor. That's why we elected she or he to bring us to. Rally around, so to speak, during some times, obviously, that a mayor isn't going to run into a. Building on fire. Or, heaven forbid, if there's a violent situation, we understand that. It's not that. It's. It's. No, I think I said formidable. Speaker 1: Yes. Thank you, Madam Mayor. So I just want to make a couple of clarifications. I think one of the reasons why the ordinance was not included in here is because it's not an act of ordinance. That ordinance is no longer in effect. But that's the reason, I think, why Captain Oliver did not include it. So we will bring it back. But that is kind of the reason why it was not we're not redlining a current ordinance. The ordinance doesn't exist right now. So this is a brand new ordinance, but we will bring it back. I think the other piece to remember is, you know, I think there's some discussion about, you know, back when, you know, Mayor Bizarro was here, that was a long time ago. We have very different standards now, as Captain Oliver said with Sims. That's a structure. That's a very technical structure. This is a technical group, the city manager. It's not not going to be me. It's going to be your director of emergency services. That's who needs to be directing the in coordination with the with the police and fire folks and public works. And, you know, I work with those people. The city manager will be working with those people every single day. And so that's part of the reason why that the city manager needs to be the director. The director has that relationship. It's a longstanding relationship. It's a stable relationship. It doesn't come and go with the elections. That's why that director needs to be the city manager. So I would argue that I mean, I understand that the you know, the mayor and the council obviously need to have absolute oversight of what the director does and what the council does. But that council is a day to day. It's a technical advisory group. They're meeting with PGE. They're meeting meeting with, you know, ECB mud with WETA. We have relationships with those folks. We work with them all the time. And so I think that's the reason that's sort of the argument of why I think we need to keep this at the at the city manager level . However, we will bring it back. We're happy to do that and I think we're happy to embed. I don't think that would be an issue with the state to embed the charter language in, you know, just the very check. Yeah, I don't think that would be an issue. So it's very clear that, you know, we have this language in our charter and that the council and the mayor have this authority. But I do believe that the director needs to be the city manager who has those relationships, who are working with those organizations by day to day basis. Speaker 0: I think we need a legal determination on that issue. Well, actually, it looks like, okay, we do have to respect this charter. We cannot as a council change the charter or the intent. Speaker 6: Well, let me give you one example where there was an emergency situation and, you know, no one talks about this. But, you know, actually, Mayor Spencer did a pretty good job when we had the ruckus here in city hall several weeks ago. You know, she you know, a lot of people, people clamoring, yelling. And then when people when bodies were thrown around, you know, she stood out there and, you know, people respected her for that, for standing up and saying, okay, this is how we're going to go forth with the meeting. And things calmed down in a way that one could argue that that was a quasi emergency situation into which she stepped. And to me, that that just indicates that the natural leader is the mayor of Alameda, recognizing that the day to day functions are subject to the city manager. And in times of emergency, the fire department heads and the police heads. So? Speaker 0: So, yeah. Do you mind if I comment on that? Excuse me. Sorry for my voice. That's why you're. You're an integral part of what we do in the emergency operations. And are you. Are you. Are you seeing the public? You are calming their concerns. You are the policy makers. You play an integral role. An integral role? Well, we're leaving to the professionals in the emergency operations center is the management of the boots on the ground, things that are happening in real time. So that that's the piece that we do. The piece that you do is calm the citizens, make decisions properly, funds, make sure that everything the city needs, they get that your citizens needs are addressed. That's that that is your role and is your role in the emergency operations center. The emergency operations center are not the people who are doing the response. They're managing the overall welfare of the and supporting what's going on in the field, getting their arms around what's happening through our. Response agencies, public works and police fire. Input from the citizens that we get in taking that all into account. Getting our collective arms around it and through stems in our mutual aid agreements, through the operational area in the chain of command, which is very strict the way we do it. We get resources to assist us. So this isn't to take away your authority or your ability to command the city in any way. You could take command at any time. That's what I'm clear about. The Charter City Council can take command at any time. This is an operational level where you put the people who have the most training and background and experience into manage the incident and everything comes through. Speaker 3: You and Mr. Mayor, I think that's that's at the root of it. You mentioned what the operational side is, and I think having. This ordinance was entitled organization and creating. The Disaster Council has to have that context included in this ordinance, and I think that's what we're looking for. And I don't count what happened on the fourth is as particularly relevant to this. I think if we go back to when the plane crashed here in the seventies, there's an interest in video. That's I don't remember where I saw it, but it it featured the emergency response that happened with footage. And I think it was Mayor Lacroix. Yeah. That was prominently featured there. And it had it. He wasn't out there pulling the fire hoses and keeping people back, but he was there on the site and the council had some action. And I, I think that's what the charter intended. And the true operation and those operational decisions are not the council's and they're not the council's. This isn't day to day. So that's not what we're asking for. I think we're asking is to provide the context of that section of the charter. Two. What happens operationally when you implement this disaster council and start doing the day to day tech technical work that's needed to execute when it happens? Speaker 0: I appreciate that. And where I was at 11:00, in which case we need a motion to continue beyond 11:00 on the. Speaker 2: Back end. Speaker 0: Of those in favor. I. I. I. Motion carries unanimously. Thank you. Member Ashcroft. Speaker 2: Thank you. So I will certainly look forward to clarification language as far as taking control of the situation. I would want that to be the entire council's vote as opposed to just the mayor. And I think it's it's all well and good to look back to an incident that happened in the seventies. But in some ways it's quaint. I really do think that I mean, without sounding like an alarmist. The the magnitude of emergency situations that a community can face are they've risen to such a level. I mean, I do remember the term civil defense and I do remember the drills in school when we got under our desks and , you know, covered the back of your neck and that was going to help you withstand nuclear attack or whatever it was. But we live in a different world and so on, and we all have sufficient egos that we ran for office. I get that. But part of our duty is to make sure that we're making good, solid decisions. And I agree with the vice mayor. The operational part is something that we as a council don't have expertize in. We can certainly as a body together direct certain policy. But I'm I would be very concerned if if there was very much of a departure from what you've presented to us tonight. But we'll look forward to this coming back to us with some. Speaker 0: Kind of motions or. Speaker 2: Just direction. Speaker 0: Remember what it is you want at anything? Speaker 5: Yeah, I think they're compatible. So I guess we'll come back with advise language. And then, you know, I kind of agree with the vice mayor. I mean, a fire flood, a storm epidemic. You know, as you know, however, the mayor performed during that or war or threat of war, you know, that paired two things doesn't that was really not a right. That was an arrest of two people. Speaker 4: So I. Speaker 6: I just like to end this my, my, my comments by just saying that, you know, I've always tell Chief Larry and Chief DeLong of Chief Long sorry that, you know, whatever your professional judgment is, I'll go with that, because at the end of the day, you guys are the people who are dealing with lives, people's lives, lost limbs. And I respect that. But. What you're getting from us is pushback. And my hope is that, you know, you take a look at it, but, you know, whatever your recommendations are. City managers, the police chiefs, the fire chiefs, and yours as the emergency person. You know, I'll certainly respect that. But I just wanted to make sure to say, hey, there is this 6.10, I understand. Speaker 0: And I and I believe that that will all get handled. What I want to say to you, as I appreciate that you take the responsibility of planning a preparedness so, so much to heart, it is very important to have everybody see the value of it. We won't be prepared if we don't all work together as a community and bring in all the comments and and decisions that are made. It's it's imperative because, you know, me standing here with my person, personal background and experience can't can't make a judgment for, you know, different ethnic backgrounds and disabilities and the people who love pets and all the all the things that we are now required to address. It takes everybody with a commitment to making our city resilient and able to withstand anything that comes along. And the goal is to be able to stand right back up and go on with our lives. That's our goal. And it takes everybody working towards that to make it happen. And just one more comment. We have a resolution that comes right behind this ordinance. It was the resolution for the disaster service worker, which has got to be part of the ordinance. So we probably don't need to go on with that. Speaker 2: That's good, because your voice is going to give out. I know. Speaker 0: And I know you would vote for that. Second, sorry. So we'll defer. It's all like kind of one part. I appreciate that. Thank you very much. Thank you. Speaker 2: Very much. Speaker 0: In which case, then we're going to move on to six Askew. Speaker 1: Update on council referral regarding Alameda Theater Marquee Lighting. That'll be Miss Potter.

Regular Agenda Item

Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding Section 2.24 to Article II of Chapter II Related to Emergency Organization to Create the City of Alameda Disaster Council as Required by State Law to Obtain Legal Recognition as an Official Emergency Organization. (City Manager 2110)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_12012015_2015-2340

Speaker 0: All those in favor I motion carries unanimously. But now we're on six a regular agenda items. Speaker 1: Adoption a resolution appointing Christopher Griffiths and Susan Warner as members of the Rent Review Advisory Committee. Speaker 0: We have a motion. Speaker 2: The move second. Speaker 0: All those in favor. I oppose motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Speaker 1: Do you solemnly swear to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the state of California that you well and faithfully are about to enter? Speaker 0: So unfortunately we did have. Speaker six And John Kline, I'm sorry if you could come and speak. Speaker 2: My name is John Klein with the Alameda Renters Coalition. And thank you for a new batch of RAC members. It's a distinctly different group of BRAC members that you now have. I have to say, I was a bit shocked and aghast. The first time I looked at the composition of the rack, it was attorneys and real estate agents and had been that way for six or eight years. And so I'm I'm glad that you're diversifying the, you know, the board members on the rack. There's still the issue of that of the 10% rent increases. I'm looking forward to some actual debate on the rack among the members. Those 10% rent increases for years have been handed out unanimously. So this could be a good turning point for the rack. But the real the real test there is going to be how the landlords are going to respond to a recommendation that's 5% increase or 3% increase. That's the real test of the RAC. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Uh. And now six be. Speaker 1: Consider adopting an emergency ordinance to remove certain grounds for just cause evictions by amending Ordinance 3140 an urgency ordinance of the city amount of to imposing within the city. A temporary 65 day moratorium on certain residential rent increases and on evictions from all residential rental units except for just cause evictions.

Regular Agenda Item

Adoption of Resolution Appointing Christopher Griffiths as a Tenant Member and Suzanne Warner as Homeowner (Non Housing Provider) Member of the Rent Review Advisory Committee.

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_12012015_2015-2344

Speaker 1: Consider adopting an emergency ordinance to remove certain grounds for just cause evictions by amending Ordinance 3140 an urgency ordinance of the city amount of to imposing within the city. A temporary 65 day moratorium on certain residential rent increases and on evictions from all residential rental units except for just cause evictions. Speaker 0: And if you want to speak on this item, if you could please turn in your your slip. So we have all the slips. And how many slips do we have? So at this point, we have ten speaker slips. And then is this the order that they returned in? And I'll be reading them in the order. And we're going to start with stealth presentation. Thanks. Speaker 4: Good evening, Mr. Mayor, and members of the City Council. My name is Debbie Potter, and I'm the city's community development director. I'm going to be providing a brief staff report this evening. And then myself, along with the city attorney, are prepared to answer any questions. On November 5th, the City Council adopted an urgency ordinance that limits rent increases to no more than 7.99% over a 12 month period for multifamily rental units built before 1995. The moratorium ordinance also limits the basis on which property owners can serve termination notice termination of tenancy notices to enumerated reasons of just cause for a 65 day period. The urgency ordinance terminates on January 9th, 2016 or when legislation is adopted that replaces the urgency ordinance, whichever comes first. One of the primary reasons that the urgency ordinance was adopted was to provide stability in the rental market, while staff drafted legislation requested by the City Council to provide additional renter protections, including mediation, rent stabilization, relocation benefits and eviction protections. Several council members at the time the ordinance was adopted expressed their desire to maintain the status quo regarding tenancy and current rents. As noted, the ordinance currently provides 12 reasons that a property owner can serve a notice to terminate a tenancy ranging from 90 I'm sorry, ranging from nonpayment of rent to going out of the rental business. And those 12 enumerated reasons for eviction are included in Exhibit A of the ordinance. There is a there is a there is one of the one of the reasons that our is currently allowed for providing a notice of termination is to undertake substantial rehabilitation. That is number ten and exhibit A in the listing of the reasons for which you can serve a notice of termination of tenancy and that that Section ten and erm is going to call it up here on the Power Point. Section ten provides that a housing provider can serve a notice if the provider is proposing to do work on the unit that is valued at eight times the rent. Times the number of units for which the work is being proposed. And that the work will take more than 30 days to complete. And therefore the tenant needs to be terminated. So on on kind of reflection on this language, staff really feels and the council expressed concern about the fact that this language there's not a lot of process that's included in in this reason for notice of termination. There is there is no discussion about who determines that the value of the work is eight times the monthly rent, that the work will take at least 30 days to be completed, that whether or not building permits should be pulled before termination notices are are served. So given that there is ambiguity in this language and that there is not a lot of process that's been been outlined. Staff is recommending that that this Section ten, one of the 12 reasons that this this section be deleted from the ordinance and that we adopt that the council adopt an amended urgency ordinance, and that Section ten would be essentially listed as intentionally omitted. And the other thing that staff is proposing relative to Section ten is that for any notices that have been served. For substantial rehab, that those notices served between November 5th and December one, that those notices be deemed null and void and no longer in effect. And the removal of this provision is for the 65 day period that this ordinance is in effect. So that is one of the recommendations we have this evening for the Council. And then additional direction that was provided to staff was for staff to go through and look at the other 11 reasons that are provided for just cause of action under our ordinance. And if I could ask four for Exhibit A, Section five. There is another section of another basis on which just cause eviction notices can be served. And once again, staff feels like this provision of is perhaps also not as clearly drafted as it could have been and not as well informed by way of process. There is not we're not clear about how notice should be given and to whom notice should be given. And we did. I just want to say that we when we were drafting this ordinance for counsel's consideration, we took a look at ordinances in other jurisdictions and we focused in particular. And this is something that we often do because we want to make sure where we're really incorporating best practices when we recommend policy actions for the Council. And we were looking at the Richmond's ordinance. They were the most recent ordinance that was being looked at by by a local jurisdiction in the Bay Area. And we feel like this this may have been a provision that met some of the specific needs of the Richmond community, but we feel is maybe less less directly related to Alameda current situation. And so we just think because we don't want to trigger any unintended consequences in the next, you know, remaining month or so that we have on the moratorium, we would recommend that the council delete this section, too. And once again, we would if the Council wants to do that, we would replace number five this language with intentionally omitted. That would be the change that we would make. So that concludes my staff report and I am happy to answer any questions. Speaker 0: Any clarifying questions from council. Then proceed with our speakers. Crystal Osorio and I'm going to name three at a time. J. Mariah I think it's f e r i. H it looks like than Aaron Subito. And you each have 3 minutes. Speaker 1: Hello. My name is Krystal. I live in the Bayview Apartments and I'm also a student. And so now not only baby apartments are affected by this, but also other apartments here in Alameda. US renters make up almost half of the population in Alameda. Therefore, our rights deserve to be protected. If you could state. Speaker 0: Your name when you speak. Speaker 1: I'm Aaron Subito and I stand in solidarity with those who are affected by the evictions on Bayview Apartment. As a citizen, as a resident of Alameda myself, I can definitely see how gentrification it affects not just coming from San Francisco. It comes from San Francisco to Oakland's Alameda and a town where I've been spending 17 years of living and growing up in. I may not be living in the same apartment complex as Bayview, but who knows? This might be happening to my own family and that scares me and I don't want that to happen. And so we need to put some importance on rent control, not just we just do it now, not later. Now. Speaker 2: And good evening. My name is. Speaker 6: Jeffrey and like them, I am also a senior. Speaker 2: Here at I'm a senior at Indiana High School. Now, the reason I'm here today is I want to show my support for not only for myself, but many of the people here as well, because this whole day I've been going around to several classes in my school to inform students about what's going on at the Bayview Apartments Speaker 7: . To explain the increase in gentrification that's. Speaker 6: Going on here in Alameda. Speaker 7: There are 33 families living there, 33 families that have been living there for years. It's extremely. Speaker 2: Difficult. Speaker 6: To find affordable places to live. Speaker 2: Nowadays. And now that they finally have a place that they can call home, they're being evicted. Now, as I spoke in these classes, every student gave me the same reaction of disbelief. Speaker 7: They couldn't believe that this. Speaker 2: Was going on, especially in their own communities. Some of these students live in these apartments. Speaker 6: They have friends that live in these apartments and they have family that goes that lives there. Speaker 2: Now to show. Speaker 7: How much we support for this. Speaker 2: To pass. I would like all the national students to stand up to show that we are supporting for this ordinance to pass. We have all gathered. Speaker 7: Here today because. Speaker 2: We don't want these families to lose their homes. It's the it's it's the it's it's getting Christmas. You don't want them to lose their homes. This. I just really I don't have any words for really what's going on. And we are here to show that we are here with these renters. If if a landlord wants to evict somebody, they better have a justifiable reason they cannot evict them. Speaker 6: Just so we could let gentrification grow here in Alameda. And it's not just me. Speaker 7: Every single one of these students that. Speaker 2: Are standing up. They have family that lives here. Speaker 6: And who knows, they could be targeted next. And we don't want that to happen. Speaker 2: So, please, if you can pass this ordinance, you can stand with us and keep these homes. Speaker 6: Thank you. And I. Speaker 0: I counted approximately 60. If you have a different number, please let the clerk know before you leave. God. Thank you. Speaker 2: Also, there are some who cannot make it today, but they're also either out there or spreading the word. Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Sammy Gutierrez. Jimmy. When. Barney Duncan. Speaker 2: But. It. Well, I thought you'll have my back. What? Speaker 5: Okay. Yeah. But everybody goes, okay, I'm gonna start talking because I know we all want to get out here on time. My name's Sammy Gutierrez, and I am a counselor and civic engagement coordinator with Filipino Advocates for Justice. And I work with many of these students, and I work with students who live at the Bayview Apartments and. Bang. Okay. These are all the folks who are with us. This is their community. They are the folks who are living here. They. They're the families, the children who are living here. They are the friends. This is their community we represent. And so now we represent Bayview. We represent Alameda. We represent. And so now and we also represent by any hand, youth group. Bayanihan is a word in Tagalog. That means essentially the the community is going to work together in order to get something done. Here. We are here in order to protect these families and make sure that this ordinance is passed. Speaker 2: We want you to see how how many folks support them. And we are asking you. Speaker 5: To join us in that spirit of Bayanihan and pass the ordinance to protect these families. So we thank you for that. Speaker 0: Jimmy Nguyen. Yes. Speaker 8: Hi, everybody. My name is Jimmy Nguyen. I am a. My family rents a home here. Now, Amita and I. I just want to tell my own personal experience. I'm in a house with five boys. It's kind of, like, keeps you on your toes, but, I mean, it's. Telling them that we will be having to move away from the house that we've been in for all my life. It's is just so heartbreaking, you know? Sorry. Speaker 4: It's super. Speaker 0: Even taking a speaker. Speaker 8: Every night. They tell me, are we going to stay in this house tomorrow? Don't. Just hear them say that. I usually don't cry. This is a little crazy. Just my mom works every single day from 8 to 8. I barely see her at home. And knowing that her her working is not enough to keep us here in this beautiful community where everybody here is a friend. We all. We make of this community as being diverse and just. Oui, oui, oui, oui. Just give this eccentricity to Alameda and the people there being displaced. We can't find homes anywhere else near here. It's so beautiful here. I've been here all my life, and I just. I don't want to change. Neither will it be for my brothers either. Please pass on its thank you. Speaker 0: Annie Duncan. And then Dwayne Moles and then Michael John Torres. Speaker 4: Hello, Mayor. Hello. Speaker 0: City Council. I know. Speaker 4: Most of. Speaker 0: You and I've been. Speaker 4: Up for 70 Central helping them. Speaker 9: I've got to know many of them. Speaker 4: It's terrible. Speaker 0: To find out, especially at Christmas and. Speaker 4: Thanksgiving. Speaker 9: That you're getting kicked out of your. Speaker 4: House. And now Christmas is almost over. Speaker 0: Where are they going to go? Are we going to have tent cities here in Alameda like they have in Oakland? Speaker 9: Because right now we have something called the fields and that's where a lot of them are staying. Not the people from 470 Central. The other people that have got evicted. And it's right next to the trailer where you get from the food bank. There's a lot of people. Speaker 0: Living there in tents. Speaker 4: In this cold. Speaker 9: Weather with babies, with children. So, Mel, I'm looking to you. Speaker 4: To make a decision. Speaker 9: Because you're number one up there. So you've got to let these people know. Speaker 2: What's going on? Speaker 9: You have to know you've been a teacher, so you know what these kids are going through. Speaker 0: Don't let them go. Speaker 4: Through it any longer. I mean, they're stressed out as it is. Let's get something done about these rent increases. Ask the landlords to pay their own. Speaker 9: Rent and maybe that'll help. Speaker 2: Okay. Good evening, Mayor. City Council members. My name is Dwayne Moles. Here specifically to ask you to change the language in the emergency ordinance. Speaker 0: And that is the Speaker of the House. Yep. Yep. Speaker 2: People live through remodels all the time. I think. You could ask any number of people in this town. I owned I owned a house at 1905, Craftsman Cottage here in town for the better part of a decade. And, you know, remodel floors and kitchens and bathrooms and all that stuff. And, you know, I didn't need to be. I didn't need to affect myself. So what is it we're talking about here? We're talking about efficiency. Versus family stability. That's really what we're talking about, this issue. Can we do it cheaper if we kick everyone out? Versus I. We let the families stay. And this city in particular. As values, as values that it expresses through ordinances and through its regulations. We do it all the time where we say efficiency isn't the guidance for everything. That same cottage. I was putting in new windows at these really cheap, terrible aluminum side sliders was not period. And you know what? I could replace those with the cheapest possible option there. But now our city says, you know, we value we value our architectural heritage. So you know what? You need to actually go back. You need to put something in that's not the cheapest option available, not the most efficient version available, but something that represents this part that we value in our city architectural heritage. I agree with that. I'm glad that the city has that. I would argue in this situation, family stability. Stability of all the people you've seen come up here is a value that this community has that outweighs any of these efficiencies that you get when you evict people. We're talking about the ability to come in and do a little renovation here and there. We're not talking about you know, there's already stuff for demolition, demolition, health and safety. Those are the other items. So, you know, I would just ask that you give the people that live in the buildings the same kind of protections that we give the actual buildings in this town. And I think this is this is this is a value that this town has that applies not just to this little raw. But the ordinances that we're looking forward to next month and continuing in the city. Thank you so much for your work so far. Thank you. Speaker 0: So I have only three more speakers Philips, Michael, John Torres, Eric Strimling, and then John Klein. If there's anyone else that wants to speak on this issue, please turn in your slip. Thank you. Speaker 5: Honorable Patricia Spencer Mayor, Honorable Frank Matter, U.S. Vice Mayor, Notable Members of the City Council. Michael John Tory, former member of the Board of Housing Commission of the City of Alameda. I know, as you know, some time ago, another group of people came with a situation similar to this back, I guess, 2003, 2004, I think they were the harbor and the Tenant Association Group that came because some landlords wanted to remodel their units and they were evicting units, evicting tenants too fast and not giving their notice. Seems to me like the same thing is happening from what I've been reading with the Bayview. Apartments that tenants are being rushed out because they want to do some remodeling. And I can't argue with remodeling, but I think that tenants should have been given a fair notice, a warning that that was going to happen so that they would be able to find another place to stay without having all this turmoil. And I thought that you, Mr. Vice Mayor, and Tony de Soto had worked out that that issue and came up with a policy that went into the the the charter that would allow for tenants to have a fair amount of time to move out and find another place without being impacted by a landlord so quickly because they want to remodel. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Eric Strimling and then John Klein. Speaker 2: Good evening. There's nothing that I can say that it would be anything close to as powerful as these youth coming up and speaking to you. I think that what's at stake here is a stable Alameda community. What's at stake here is the right. Speaker 3: Of an Alameda to live in their. Speaker 2: Home securely. How many want to live under a 60 day? You can you can be forced to move. I'd like to point out to you, I strongly support this ordinance. But it only is going to last for another 35 days. I ask you, make it permanent. Make the eviction ban a permanent law in Alameda. We can adjust it. You're adjusting it now as you find the faults. You'll adjust them. But how do you ask these kids and not know if they're going to stay in school for the rest of the year? Every year of their lives. How do they know, not know if they can go on the Boy Scout camping trip because they may not live in town anymore by the time it actually happens. I didn't live like that. When I was a kid, I was thrown out of an apartment because the landlord wanted to remodel. They changed the carpets and painted the walls. That was the remodel. That was in Santa monica. Santa monica passed a very successful rent control model. And I'd like you to look at it. I'd like you to really consider making it the law of this city. But please make the eviction ban, at a minimum, the permanent law of the city. Thank you. Speaker 0: And our last speaker on this item, John Kline. Speaker 2: Managed John Combs Alma to Renner's coalition. I can't add much. Thank you for having the political will to back up and make this change. It's obvious that it was it's needed and we look forward to doing something similar with in the long term and permanent. You've seen all the students. I want everybody else that's here for in support of the change to stand up. Everybody else stand up for all of us. You see all the students over there. But then you have all of these people in support as well. So we're going to keep coming back until you get it right. You got it right. You're getting it right. And so. Thank you. Thank you. Speaker 0: All right. Comments from Council. Nebraska. I'm ready to make a motion, but I will just insert that in the last. Well, since we met before and passed the emergency ordinance, I've had an opportunity to talk to a lot of landlords in this town, especially the smaller property owners, a number of property managers, all of whom were horrified by what the new owner of 470 Central did to serve a notice notices of eviction on all the tenants at 470 Central, the very day after we met in a special meeting to consider the emergency moratorium. So and what I heard from them is that they would never have done the sort of thing he did, the timing , the way it was done. Some of them are already paying relocation assistance to tenants when there is a reason, a legitimate reason that they need to vacate. And so certainly what this experience has done for the council, I think, at least for me, is to help inform us and staff of the kinds of measures we want to make sure are incorporated into an ordinance that we come back and vote on in January when this moratorium is up. And and I will say, I also met with the the owner of 470 Central Avenue and, you know, had a discussion about the way I wish things would have happened. But this is an opportunity for the council to step in, to add a protection that we now realize is needed. And so with that, I would like to move that. We adopt an urgency ordinance to remove certain specified grounds for just cause evictions by amending. Ordinance number three went for, oh, an emergency ordinance of the city of Alameda imposing within the city of Alameda a temporary 65 day moratorium on certain residential rent increases and evictions from all residential units except for just cause evictions. And specifically, the two amendments we were making were to remove paragraph ten, which is the evictions for for doing renovations and paragraph five, which has to do with tenants who have not. Executed a new written agreement with the housing provider. Speaker 3: I'll second that, but would also like to talk in my turn. Speaker 0: All right. And also, I think Steph suggested that in regards to paragraph five, that we substitute language. And do you want to say what that was? Speaker 4: So just to to be clear on the motion, you do have and they are on the website as well. You do have proposed ordinances that are red line showing the amended provisions which have some, whereas is and also address in the body of the ordinance itself, the fact that the notices for rehabilitation evictions would be null and void if they were issued between November 5th and December one, which is today's date. So that is on the website in there and then on Exhibit A, which is part and parcel of the ordinance. There are two sections within Exhibit A that are just cause evictions. One being Section five and one being Section ten. And each of those would be the language that is in there now would be struck. Speaker 9: And instead, what would appear in. Speaker 4: The ordinance is that that section was intentionally omitted. And that is what I believe the motion is and seconded. Speaker 0: It is indeed. Thank you. Councilmember Ashcroft, did you have any other comments? Not at this time. Speaker 2: Vice Mayor and I just wanted to note that. Our intention in putting the moratorium in place on November 4th. My understanding of these amendments are to emphasize the intent that we had, that during this moratorium period, we would freeze no fault evictions. That would provide some sort of protection while we were while staff was putting together ordinance for our consideration on January 5th as is that meet the Skull City attorney. Speaker 0: That is correct. Speaker 2: Thank you. Speaker 0: A number. You. Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam Mayor. I think the one speaker I think put it best that this represents our values. I can't remember which speaker it was, but for me the value is and this should be the underlying premise of anything we do here to protect tenants is that. Everyone has a right to stay in their home. I mean, that should be the number one value. That should be the number one goal of any protection. Now, I understand that there's sometimes when that's not always possible. But if you pay your rent, if you're not a nuisance, if you're not committing criminal activity, you basically should be able to stay in your home. I mean that to me and as staff is drafting our new ordinances. To me, that should be the underlying premise behind all of those ordinances. So that was our intent earlier this month when we met. I mean, our intent was has the vice mayor said to put a freeze on these unjust evictions and give staff a time to draft an ordinance that we could all have some consensus on? You know. Without talking too much about what happened in the last not this close session, but the last one. I've never seen this council so united as we were in that meeting, so I think bravo to our council for being united. And when I look at this, I'm hoping that staff comes back with a comprehensive set of tenant protections and not a menu where we can pick and choose. Because if you do that, then it's like the Jenga game, you know, you pull one out. I don't like some things. Another council member doesn't like something, and then before you know it, you pull enough things out, it collapses and we don't end up with reasonable tenant protection. So I'm hoping to see that when it comes back. And again, you know, if we focus on making sure that we keep people in their homes, you know, we passed this ordinance. The vice mayor said it was our intent to do freeze the status quo, to make sure that we could protect tenants. And I'd like to see that we protect tenants above and beyond Christmastime and above and beyond this moratorium, because this is not something that's going to go away. And on January 11th, when the moratorium expires and and the reason I do that is I don't particularly care for this term, but now it's it's being used housing provider . But the critical part of housing provider is your housing provider. And housing to me is one of the most critical needs now on food, shelter, clothing. And that's where we have to come down. When we come down on a policy, in my mind, on the side of the tenants, on the side of protecting people's right to live in quiet enjoyment in their home, it doesn't matter whether their home is technically owned by somebody else or it's owned by them, they should have the right to quiet enjoyment and be able to not worry not only at Christmas time, but all year round that they're not going to be evicted. So as we go forward, you know, we've we've listened and we've, you know, we've had reasonable landlords come up here and say, let us police ourselves. And I think that has worked with other reasonable landlords. But despite letting them police themselves, we've had double digit ten, 20, 25% increases and we've had these mass unjust evictions. And then we've been we've been asked to, well, let's just try enhanced mediation. Well, in my mind, you know, mediation is you get in a room and you figure out how much you're going to pay so I can leave my building or leave my unit. And to me, that does not meet my fundamental goal, which is to keep as many people in their houses as possible. So I hope as we go forward and we find ways to structure our ordinance, you know, whether it it it provides temporary relocation and requires that tenants are allowed to come back in their homes because basically these are their homes. I'd like to make sure that we we protect that right of tenants to be able to stay in their homes, even if they do have some type of renovations. Because, you know, face it, folks, we have we don't have any rental units that are under or under 40 years old here in town. So some of them will require some type of renovation. But let's find a way to do that in a way where we don't kick people out. Speaker 0: I'm ready. Speaker 6: Well, thank you very much. Thank you very much to all the youth who had come out this evening. I know this is a busy time and like many of you, you want to be with your families in your homes. But let us make sure to say that when the property owners serve the eviction notices to the 33 families, they not only punched their families in the gut, but they punished all of Alameda as well. And rest assured that in city hall you have a force that has awakening that will fight on behalf of the residents here to do whatever we can to make sure that the residents at 470 stay there. What that means in the long term is that we have to do new types of legislation and talent that has never been in place, such as just cause evictions. We have to look. We have to implement a just cause eviction in the city of Alameda. It has to be done in the immediate term. We have to modify the ordinance along the lines that we're talking about. So stay tuned. The fight is just beginning, and it's not just about a470. It's not just about this or that apartment. It's about the character of all of Alameda, not just the west end of town, as socio economically diverse as it is, but it's also all all of Alameda is at risk. And so we need to do new things that we have not done before. We need to look at a strengthened just cause of action so that you can only get evicted if you're if you haven't paid your rent, if you've done some kind of crime and then some kind of damages. We also have to look at strengthening the rent review advisory committee process on the table. For some on the table for some is rent control. You know, there are different models to help protect the residents. But for some, that that is on the table. Everything is on the table now because the force has awakened. We as your five representatives of our city council, we are doing our best to represent the city because we know that the city is behind us in being behind you. Speaker 0: Thank you. I want to thank staff for bringing this back at this time. I think it was critical that it be returned to us. I think what you're hearing is that council is united behind this. This is a serious problem. From my perspective, I think we all got together and we had a meeting where we had a huge turnout of people that want to speak on November 4th. We were here until 130 in the morning and we made a decision. And then the next day we hear from tenants that have received eviction notices. That was a problem. It was disappointing to me. We have many landlords in our town who are excellent landlords, who really do care about our community, who are part of the fabric of our community. There are many that do not raise rents or have reasonable rent increases. Many with long term tenants. At this point, we have a few that I call outliers that don't really seem to get the message. Which is why we're back today. To clarify the message to me, the intent. My intent was that we really would give everyone what I call time to breathe. We have all known people that have been receiving these notices, sometimes rent increases that they can't afford that make it so that they cannot continue to reside here in town. We also know many that have received these notices, 60 day notices to vacate. We know families. We have students that are being forced to find new homes outside of the community. Many and and I appreciate having so many students from Encino here today. I think it's very important that students be part of the government process. It's absolutely important that we hear your voice as you are impacted by these decision. So thank you for coming out tonight. Moving forward, I continue to hope that we will be able to work together as a community and that these outliers will get the message . I really want to thank all our meetings for working with all of the landlords and trying to share with them. But we think is important what I'm going to call the Alameda Way. So thank you for coming out. Thank you for continuing your work, your public work, as well as the work that's happening behind the scenes to reign in what I'm going to call reining in these these outlier landlords, of which the majority of our landlords are not. Yes. Member Ashcraft thank and I did just want to add while you were speaking Madumere, it occurs to me that you and I and I think Councilmember Desai just said that everything is on the table. And I do think that this council has some serious challenges before it going forward, not just with crafting the right ordinance that gives protection to our renters and also takes into account the needs of landlords. Because as was also noted, we have aging housing stock in this in this community, and there are legitimate needs to to renovate it. But there are better ways of going about it than the examples that we saw the day after a special meeting. But I think something this council is going to have to grapple with is it is supply and demand. And when we have the opportunity to add to our housing stock and especially some multifamily of which has been noted, we have it built with a few exceptions for more than 40 years. We've got to look at doing that and finding out the best way to do it, address traffic at the same time. But we we can't you know, there have to be a lot of tools in our toolkit going forward that we know what we have to do between now and January. And I also want to commend our staff. We have thrown a lot at them in the last couple of weeks, months, and they've got even more to do. But they're doing a great job for all of us and all of you. So thank you, staff. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. I don't believe I use the term. Everything is on the table. That was Councilmember Davis. All right. Thank you for clarifying that. And with that being said, no other comments by council. I'll call the question. All those in favor. I oppose abstentions. Motion carries unanimously. And I'm going to call for a short recess. Thank you. Speaker 2: Thank you. Speaker 0: Then. Thank you very much. Speaker 4: If you can take your seats. Speaker 0: And we have item six. See?

Regular Agenda Item

Consider Adopting an Urgency Ordinance to Remove Certain Grounds for Just Cause Evictions by Amending Ordinance No. 3140, an Urgency Ordinance of the City of Alameda Imposing within the City of Alameda a Temporary (65-Day) Moratorium on Certain Residential Rent Increases and on Evictions from all Residential Rental Units Except for Just Cause Evictions. [Requires four affirmative votes] (City Manager 2110)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_11172015_2015-2171

Speaker 0: Motion passes unanimously. And now we'll do five c. Speaker 4: Okay. Is Debbie Porter still here? Speaker 3: Yeah, as part of this party. Speaker 4: So just one Mr. Potters coming up to the podium. This is. Has to do with a lease that the. The Council's being asked to to approve its actually assignment of a lease from one entity to another. And and Ms.. Potter and I had a productive conversation via email today. And I think the the information you provided, I thought was was important. And I just wondered if you would share it with the public. And so specifically, my question was that so this has to do with Bolena, the Bolena Bay Area, Bolena IO and it's Tidelands Trust property . And so a new entity is taking over a significant portion of this lease. And can you just tell us, Ms.. Potter, about this S-H m Bolena, LLC that's taking over. Speaker 3: Yes, thank you very much. I'm Debbie Porter. I'm the city's community development director. And the request was for a little more background information about the financial wherewithal and depth to the organization that will be assuming that the existing lease. And so what I the information I have provided is that they are a Texas based organization company that has operated 55 marinas over the last 30 years, that they have already committed to investing between 500,000 and $1,000,000 in immediate health and safety upgrades that are needed out at the marina that in 2004, they entered into an agreement with the city of Emeryville, and they did the all of the renovations and upgrades of the Emeryville marina and invested about $2.3 million in those upgrades at the Emeryville marina. And that this particular transaction that's being contemplated by this company were part of a $127 million transaction that involves 27 marinas. So all of that information taken in combination LED staff to recommend to the council that it consent to the assignment, that we feel confident in the wherewithal of this company. Speaker 4: Thank you, Miss Potter. Speaker 3: Thank you. Speaker 4: And so with that, I would move approval of consent to assignment of lease and leasehold deed of trust with SAHM Bolena. I'll LLC for the current CLP Ballina Marina LLC, formerly known as Seasonal Income Ballina Marina LLC at Ballina Marina. Speaker 0: Do we have a second? Speaker 5: Second. Speaker 0: Although some favor I motion carries unanimously. Thank you. Speaker 6: Madam Mayor. If I can raise your point of order or perhaps a point of inquiry, whichever, is that effectively it might help out the members of the audience who have attended tonight's meeting as to where we are with regard to the matter that they had, issues that they had, that their youth had raised, so that the youth and their parents know how we're moving forward. I mean, without giving any details. That might prove to be helpful for purposes of the residents who are here right now. Speaker 4: That the city attorney for you. Speaker 0: So because of the public comments. Okay. Council council approved a moratorium for 65 days, which expires January 9th. The city has posted on its website and the housing authority, I think it might have it on its website as well. The moratorium, it limits rent increases during the moratorium period to to less than 8% for a certain category of rental units that are defined in the cost of Hopkins Act, which basically means it does not apply to single family homes and condominiums. Homes that were built or apartments that were built after 1995 than anything that was built before 1995 is an apartment complex. It's not individually personalized. It would apply to and in addition, it it restricts the the ability for a landlord to to give notices and to evict tenants unless there is cause, just cause. And that is defined in the ordinance. The city has been working very hard to get frequently asked questions available on its website. City staff has been fielding a lot of questions from landlords and tenants. City staff has met with landlord and tenant groups and is hard at work on drafting what we've calling permanent legislation, new legislation to bring forward to the City Council. Our goal is to bring it to the City Council on their first meeting in January, January 5th, which means that two weeks ahead of that, it would be available publicly on the website. So we are working as hard as we can, getting input from everyone to be able to craft different options that the Council discussed and gave direction to the city staff. And the intent is to have that legislation in front of the council and hopefully adopted before the end of the moratorium period. So the moratorium is in effect. It is a limited moratorium. And I should say that just cause eviction portion applies to all rentals, it does not apply to just a segment of rentals. So more information is available on the city's website. The ordinance is there. The City Housing Authority is fielding questions and again, city staff is working very hard to bring forward. What we are hopeful is what the council is looking for in response to the community's expressed concerns, and that should be before the council the 1st of January. So at this point, I will thank all the speakers that came on during public comment. All the students. We heard your comments and we are it. We took action at the last council meeting and we are continuing the council to figure out next steps. Okay. So we will not be giving any more information tonight. You do not have to stay longer. You could leave whenever you'd like. All right. But thank you very, very much for coming this evening. Thank you. We'll actually wait a few minutes if you want to leave. That's quieter. Speaker 4: Oh, I haven't. Drink this way. Speaker 1: Oh, sorry, Jim. Speaker 3: Yeah, that's right. Speaker 4: Hey, nice to have a drink around. Speaker 5: I think. Speaker 1: You have to be thirsty. Speaker 5: When to get the can I. Speaker 4: I'll check if you need a refill. Speaker 2: But. Oh. Okay. Speaker 0: Oh, my God. Speaker 5: I guess they're you. Speaker 3: To get it back to me when you get. It. But don't you worry. Speaker 1: A adoption of resolutions, appointing John Nolan as a member of the Civil Service Board and Brandon Sullivan not as a member of the B Advisory Committee.

Consent Calendar Item

Recommendation to Approve a Consent to Assignment of Lease and Leasehold Deed of Trust with SHM Ballena Isle, LLC for the Current CLP Ballena Marina, LLC, Formerly Known As CNL Income Ballena Marina, LLC at Ballena Marina. (Community Development 216)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_11172015_2015-2284

Speaker 1: A adoption of resolutions, appointing John Nolan as a member of the Civil Service Board and Brandon Sullivan not as a member of the B Advisory Committee. Speaker 6: We're going to. Speaker 0: Recess. We're going to call for. We needed a short recess because we had a member of the public requiring medical assistance. So we took a short recess and now we will resume with item six, a. Speaker 1: The adoption of resolutions, appointing John Nolan as a member of the Civil Service Board and Brennan following the Yana as a tenant member of the Rent Review Advisory Committee. And we do have a speaker. Speaker 3: On this item. Speaker 0: Katherine Pauline. Speaker 3: Hello. I'm Katherine Pauling of the Alameda Renters Coalition. I want to thank you all for the work that you're doing and also to acknowledge, apparently that our newest renter representative is someone other than an attorney or a realtor. And we're very grateful. We want to. Speaker 0: Have that. Speaker 3: Representation. And I understand at this point there's only going to be one member going forward for the landlord side. I'm Tony Nguyen. And I'm. I'm also hoping that I understand a lot of work and effort has gone. Speaker 0: Into the. Speaker 3: Rack and the idea of the advisory role and that we've. Speaker 0: Had a year. Speaker 3: Of both tenants and landlords hoping this would work. Unfortunately, landlords obviously, as shown by the 470 central residents, are not able to completely police their own. And so, again, I'm very grateful that you're going forward with the moratorium and continuing to work on a more permanent solution. So thank. Speaker 0: You. Thank you. She was our only speaker on the item. Speaker 6: Better. Maybe I'd like to move. Adoption. A resolution appointing Mr. Nolan as member of Civil Service Board and Mr. Brendan Sullivan Sarafina as tenant member of the Rent Review Advisory Committee. Speaker 0: We have a second. Speaker 4: Well, I'm going to second, but I also want to make a comment that so we have a second to the motion. I have already come to realize that. I think we're moving into some new territory with our landlord tenant situation in Alameda and that having a body that is simply advisory and has, as we've said over and over, no teeth is just not effective in today's the situation that we find ourselves in. So it will be up to the council when we convene again at the to hear what staff has put together based on our recommendations on the moratorium and rent stabilization and more to decide what sort of form or what sort of body might hear landlord tenant disputes. And my preference would certainly be something that actually has authority and probably an actual professional mediator. So but right now before us, we have these appointments and I do appreciate the two members of the community coming forward and volunteering their time. And I imagine we may have a December agenda before the city council comes back. So with that, I will second this motion. Speaker 0: Although some favor. I oppose motion passes unanimously. Thank you very much. Speaker 2: Yeah. If. I'm John Nolan, and I want to thank the mayor and the council for this appointment. I just wanted to make a comment that I worked in the Human Resources Department for the city of Alameda for 18 years, and the day after I left was September 10th, 2001. Speaker 7: And now this. Speaker 2: Appointment at following the French catastrophe. I have no connection with either of those, and I assure you, I'll do my best. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Speaker 2: Hello. My name is Brendan Sullivan. Speaker 5: Thank you for confirming me. Speaker 2: I just want. Speaker 6: To say that I'll do my best. I know the difference between. Speaker 7: Your job and. Speaker 6: Mine and advocacy and policy. I'll do my best to uphold that. And my family's been in Alameda for quite some time. My mother knew. But I consider myself an Alameda and. Speaker 2: All my best. Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you very much. Right now we're on item six de. I believe we're going to jump to 60. Speaker 1: So would you consider amendment to fiscal year 28 through 15 Community Development BLOCK Grant Action Plans and authorize the city manager to negotiate and execute related documents, agreements and modifications? Speaker 3: Good evening, Mayor, Council members and staff. My name is Claudia Young and I am with the Housing Authority of the City of Alameda. So the city of Alameda is an entitlement city with community development block grants, which are federal funds by the Housing and Urban Development. Each year, the city receives an allocation of approximately $1 million. To receive the CDBG funding, the city has to submit a HUD annual action plan detailing the programs and activities that will address the needs identified in the city's approved five year consolidated plan. When the action plan is approved. The City Council includes these programs and activities and associated funding amounts for the fiscal year. If a program or activity is canceled or does not use the total funding allocation, the remaining funds are carried forward to the next fiscal year. Until these funds are specifically reprogramed, the grant year remains open. Tonight's item is a standard midyear adjustment, since accounting rules have changed. At HUD, it's important to not have leftover funds remaining in the previous years. Staff is recommending adjustments to make sure that funds are expended in a timely manner. In front of you. You have exhibit A, which is the proposed REPROGRAMING and step is here to answer any questions. Speaker 0: Amber Ashcroft. Speaker 4: Well, if people don't have questions, I was just going to move approval. Speaker 0: I'd like to ask a staff could show that attachment on what's on the screen to the audience. Speaker 1: Can see when you get it. Speaker 3: I've. Speaker 0: And if you could briefly show what the discussed this specifically discuss the changes and then that pops up. Walk us through it. Thank you. Speaker 3: In the first column you'll see each year and the remaining funds for that year. So that's cumulative of various activities or programs that did not move forward or had money left, left over at the end. So in the first section you'll see for 1516 there are $6,753. And those are the proposals to allocate them to public services. And there is four agencies that are already receiving funding for this year. So we would augment what they have already received and you'll see the amounts all the way to the right column. The second item is for the year of 1112. We have 21,000 $974,000. And we're proposing to allocate the funds to a capital improvement project for the Alameda Parks and Recreation for the Woodstock Park Daub Rehab project. The third is clearance activities, and it's a combination of 2008, 2011, 2013 and 2014 program year funds. And we're proposing clearance activities for North Housing, which is the 13 acres out at the base. And that's going to be for for demolition of some of the buildings and some clearance activities. And the last item is, in the year 1415, we have 33,000 left over in residential rehabilitation funds for another specific category. So we would like to move those funds over specifically for the residential rehab program. Speaker 0: And then could you describe the four agencies up at the top and the dollar amount? Just name them. Speaker 3: Alameda Food Bank Building Futures. Women and Children. Legal Assistance for Seniors. Family Violence Law Center. Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. So we have a motion. Speaker 4: I was about to make. A motion that. Speaker 3: We? Speaker 4: We authorized the interim city manager to negotiate and execute related documents, agreements and modifications. With regard to the amendments to fiscal years 28 through 2015. Community Development BLOCK. Grant Action Plans. Speaker 5: I'll second. Speaker 0: You. Discussion Council comments. All those in favor. The motion carries unanimously. Thank you very much. Now we're on item six B. Speaker 1: And this one will be only considering one of the two resolutions due to a resignation from Karen Lucas that was distributed at the desk tonight. So it is only adoption of resolution. To consider it is appointing renewing as a member of the rent review advisory committee to a two year term beginning. And it would be tonight, November 17th, 2015. Speaker 0: We have a motion.

Regular Agenda Item

Adoption of Resolution Appointing John Nolan as a Member of the Civil Service Board and Brendan Sullivan-Seriñana as a Tenant Member of the Rent Review Advisory Committee.

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_11042015_2015-2210

Speaker 1: preservation of peace, health and safety, this ordinance would require four affirmative votes. Madam Chair, I'm sorry to interrupt you. Did we do item number three? There were no speakers. Okay. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 1: There were no speakers. Okay. You. Speaker 0: All right. Before we continue. If you happen to have a cell phone, if you haven't already turned it down, if you could double check, that would be greatly appreciated. Also, we have received 90 speaker slips from the public, from all of you. We normally give 3 minutes per speaker, which would be 180 minutes at best. Approximately. Right. Which is 3 hours. Speaker 1: Oh. Speaker 0: Thank you. Okay, let's try again. Speaker 2: But we're not going. Speaker 0: Okay, let's turn and set. 270. Okay, then. That's four and a half hours of public speaking. All right. Let me. But we normally do is we have our staff, presentation staff. You have an estimate of how long the presentation is about? Speaker 1: I'd say about a half hour. Speaker 3: Half hour, 40 minutes. Speaker 0: Staff presentation for all parts of it. Speaker 1: That's correct. Speaker 0: All right. It's 6:00. If. I'm if we did 2 minutes per speaker instead of three. Then we'd be at. Australia, 130 over 2 hours of public speaking. I'm hoping to. Speaker 4: Be out. Speaker 0: Here. So. Speaker 2: Okay. Speaker 0: So hours and of course so sensitive. Do one minute a situation like this. We could do one minute. So I'm going to actually ask you all to raise your hand. The choices would be 3 minutes, 2 minutes or one. I actually am going to do this. Thanks. All right. If you think that we should limit public speakers to one minute, raise your hand. Thank you. If you think we should limit it to two, raise your hand. If you think we should limit it to three. Raise your hand. All right. So, okay, so now I'm going to ask counsel, given that information, I'm going to ask for us, between us, if you think we should limit it to one. And remember about 97. Raise your hand. Speaker 5: I'm just gonna say one minute. Speaker 2: Yeah, one minute. That's what the audience agreed to. Speaker 0: I think that was agreement. I'm sorry. I, I, I appreciate that. Thank you. I appreciate that. Yes. Speaker 6: Perhaps one alternative might be that we continue with our normal practice of 3 minutes and 2 hours into this. Remind people to, if they should, if they're repeating other people's attempts to reduce their time or 2 hours into this at that point determine that, well, you know, we're only one third into where we want to be and then move accordingly. So I have no idea. So I. Speaker 0: Appreciate that. At this point, I'm going to ask each of you. One minute to minute or 3 minutes, and I'm going to. Now that's going to determine it. All those in favor. One minute. Speaker 7: I one minute. Speaker 0: There's three two that a majority has that has the majority of the women. We're going to limit it to one minute. I appreciate that. And now we're going to start with a staff presentation. Speaker 3: Good evening, Mayor, and members of the city council. My name is Debbie Potter. I'm the city's community development director. And we will be presenting a we have a staff presentation for you this evening. Our presentation is a three part presentation. We are going to start with a presentation of the Alameda rent study by Janet Smith Heimer, who is the founder and principal in Valley Urban Economics. She prepared the rent study for the city of Alameda. Her presentation will be followed by a presentation of Claudia Young from the Housing Authority, who staffs the RAC and Angie Watts and her Jim, who is with Echo housing the city contracts with Echo Housing for fair housing and landlord tenant counseling services. And when that conclusion, when that presentation has concluded, then I will return to present on the staff report. So with that, I'd like to introduce Janet Smith Heimer. Speaker 0: And before she starts, some people have turned into slips intending to see their time to another speaker. So you may do that. Not everyone that you don't have to speak for yourself, but you will be able to give the one minute of your minute to someone else. And when we get to that, you'll be able to say, I see my time. Thank you. Speaker 8: Okay. Good evening. Madam Mayor and members of the City Council. My name is Janet Smith Heimer, and I'm the principal and founder of a consulting firm called B.A. Urban Economics. Long ago, we were called Bay Area Economics, as some of you may know us by that earlier name. We're almost a 30 year old consulting firm headquartered in Berkeley, but we have offices around the country and we practice nationally. In fact, I just got back from New York City working on a project for the mayor there. We are expert in economic development, affordable housing and a number of other specialties. And I just wanted the audience and the council to know that we have worked for a number of cities over the years on a number of rent stabilization issues. We've worked for Rent Stabilization Boards and Berkeley Fantasy, and currently we're working for the West Hollywood Rent Stabilization Board on an issue that they're facing. Speaker 0: So as my understanding, staff said, 30 minutes for their presentation that correct. Speaker 1: 30 to 40. Speaker 0: Okay at most 40 minutes. And I'm we started the clock now. An uninterrupted go. Could you call up. Speaker 8: The who has the presentation if they could go back to it? Speaker 1: Yeah. Speaker 8: Is working. Okay. It was up a moment ago. There you go. Speaker 9: It'll be up. Speaker 1: There. Okay. Perfect. Speaker 8: So while we're waiting for that to come up, I'll just mention our portion of those should be about 15 minutes, and then I'm happy to answer questions. This will be the highlights of the report we did called the Alameda Rent Study, which is posted online. Any minute it should come up. We can see it here, but not there. I have it. I can. Should I start? Okay. So those of you in the audience can't see, but hopefully it'll come up shortly just to sort of start out and give you a sense of our work. We were asked by the city to work on the rent study starting in June of this year and we finished the work a couple of weeks ago and we were asked to really take a close look at all available data that is published and some that is privately published so that we could help understand some of the factors that are shaping the rental market in the city of Alameda today. There's two kinds of data that we relied on mostly. So I wanted to start my presentation by just giving you a sense of both of those, because as I go through this, you'll hear me refer to each of the two kinds. No data is perfect, but the two kinds that we use a lot in our study are the first kind of the American community survey. This is a kind of data that the U.S. Census Bureau puts out. They take a sample over a period of time in each city in the U.S. and each county. Also for Alameda, it's based on size of the city. How often they do this detailed data for Alameda. The last period that is available covers 2011 to 2013. It's what we used to think of as the long form of census data. So it used to be that you filled out a long survey. Some of you who got this in your mailbox now they do it by phone. It's collected through a very detailed phone survey. It's statistically valid, and it does give you a lot of really good information about some of these issues. However, since the last version of this was ended in 2013, it doesn't take us current to the present day of 2015. So it doesn't really give us the full picture of what's happening to rents in market rate units in Alameda today. So to augment that, we used a second data source which is available from a private vendor. The vendor used to be called Real Facts. They changed their name recently to something called Real Answers. This is a private data vendor that surveys every quarter larger apartment projects. They kind of start at 50 units and above. And so they do survey the 50 unit and above projects that exist in Alameda in the city of Alameda. They do it every quarter. So when you buy this data, what you're looking at is a subset of all your rental units, but it is the subset that's easily easy to track. And you can compare things quarter over quarter things like rents and vacancy rates and the percent of increase of those. Speaker 0: Can you look you know, when you're speaking I'm sorry, we're the council. Could you look at the stretch? Speaker 8: I'm sorry. I'm trying. Speaker 1: To I. Speaker 8: Was hoping to come up here. So that's just a brief introduction to the two kinds of data. Next slide, if you're watching on the monitor here. Speaker 1: Anyone doing? Thank you. Speaker 8: Oh, I'm sorry. I can do it. Got a belt that controls that, too. Okay, I apologize. So just to sort of start to talk about a little bit about who are Alamitos renter households. So looking at the American Community Survey data, which ends in 2013, what we know is that there are about 16,500 renter households in the city of Alameda, and that's about 55% of your total household number. At that point in time, that's a slightly higher proportion of renter households in the city of Alameda than compared to the county overall. We also know or knew in 2013 that Alameda renter households had a median income that was about $55,000 a year. So median is the midpoint among all the households in the dataset. And that was only about half of the median for owner households in the city of Alameda, which was about 115,000 in 2013. Sorry. So a another piece. I'm going to go back here. Another piece of information from that same data set is we looked at how long Almeida's rental households have lived in their unit. This gets a little tricky, but the basic finding we could make is in 2013, which was when the data was collected, we know that about 13% of those 16,500 renter households had lived in their unit since 1999 or before. So at that point in time, it would have been 14 years or longer. That's a little bit higher of a longevity proportion than some other comparison areas we looked at. So, for example, in the county overall, all of Alameda County, about 9% of all of its renter households. Speaker 0: I'm sorry to interrupt. Is there an update on when we're going to be able to get this to work? Because at this point, my preference would be to start hearing from the public. I think that's actually more relevant. What's happening now has changed since 2013 so. Speaker 8: That America have more up to date statistics, which I was. Speaker 0: But I don't. Honestly, I have a room of people that can tell me right now that they're experiencing. We can't get the mechanical part to work. And my preference would be to proceed with our speakers and and then go back to this when that part is working. Um, yes. So, um. Speaker 2: So I, I think that's not a bad idea. Logistically, I don't imagine we meant to say that the data is not important because I think the data certainly is important, especially as an underpinning. Speaker 0: So I'm going to go ahead and start. Speaker 2: Calling able to do this evening. But if you wanted to hear from the council, I would agree to. Speaker 0: Continue. Speaker 2: That. But I think the council should probably weigh in on that change. Speaker 0: And if there's an objection. Speaker 6: I just want to say that I do appreciate your presentation and the report. But for now, you know, we should probably wait when the. Speaker 1: Hearing. Speaker 0: No objection, everyone's going to go ahead and start calling speakers and it's going to be one minute. Do we have someone to keep track of the time or. Are you going to be able to keep track at the time? Speaker 1: No, it's not working. Speaker 0: That's not working either. Okay. All right. Speaker 2: I'm on time right now. Speaker 9: Okay. Speaker 0: Yes. Can someone can use a phone timer? And I really appreciate everyone's patience and cooperation. Speaker 2: Interim Assistant Manager Moore. Speaker 0: Madame would be our. Speaker 2: Minute timer. Speaker 0: If we approach someone who is going to be a key. Thank you. Wonderful. All right, so when you're speaking, I would appreciate it if the audience members would hold your applause so we can hear the speakers. Be respectful. I'm confident we can, because I really want to hear from all of you, which is why I'm actually bumping this up now. And then we'll do one minute and we're just going to give you all the chance to start talking to us. Mark Landreth I'm going to I'm going to call like three or four at a time and you can stand up and we'll be ready. All right. Thank you so much. It'll be Marc Landreth, John Cashman, Karen Miller and then Pauline. And I'm sorry if I mispronounce your name Zu Lock. Thank you very much, Mr. Landreth. And speak clearly into the mic. If the mic is not at your level, please lower. So we will be able to hear you and lean in a little bit. Thank you. Speaker 9: Good evening, Madam Mayor. City Managers and City Council. Thank you for this. Where's my timer? Start now. Okay. Speaker 0: Got it. So. Speaker 9: So my name is Mark Landreth. I grew up in the city all my life. I've inherited a home that I grew up in, was built in 1890. And I have I'm fortunate to have Gallagher and Lyndsey manage it for me. It's a small Victorian, has two studio pluses and a three bedroom, two bath. So it's not a real big but I'd like to share with you is that a year ago, November 21st, I had major heart failure. So the job that I had I'm young 55, but I planned on working another ten years. So my livelihood, my income, like many of yours, depends on the rent that I receive. Now, January 1st, I'm going to be able to retire from my company with three quarters of my pension is going to pay. Go ahead. Three quarters of my pension is going to pay 1100 dollars a month towards medical. And not only I've had to invest in the property over years. It was a brick foundation home. I had to redo that. So there's cost of goods associated the property to make maintain it. And any restriction on my ability to rent is like anybody here getting a restriction on what they would earn an income. I just want to share that perspective. Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Speaker 9: Thank you. Speaker 0: So I'm going to go ahead and call the speakers. I'm actually going to have like five or six because I was just reminded some people are coming from across the street from the library. Give me just a minute. So be John Cashman, Karen Miller, Pauline. Mark Palmer, Ken Slaven and then Linda Sol Self. Speaker 9: Mayor and City Councilor. I'm John Cashman and I bought my first apartment house in 1976 at 1401 Central Avenue. I love Alameda and I think the rent control could be a hassle. In Alameda, I was the past president of the Berkeley Association of Realtors, and they did a study in Berkeley on the rent control issues. And when rent control started in Berkeley. 5000 property owners took their units off the market because they didn't want to deal with the rent control and those issues. I sold 1401 Central ten years ago and my tenants are still there from 1976 till now. When I sold the apartments, I picked the buyer because I wanted that person to be good to my tenants because I had them for over 25 years. Some landlords can be good landlords and just need somebody to maybe see if there's a problem tenant or if there's a problem landlord, but not rent control. I don't think that's the issue. I met an attorney when I was president of the board who told me he went to Cal. Speaker 0: I appreciate your comment. Thank you very much. Speaker 9: And he rent. He rented this unit, but he still had it was using his office supplies. Speaker 0: I appreciate that. Thank you very much. Next speaker. And I know 60 seconds is short. Maybe we should consider 90 seconds. But about 90. Speaker 1: Seconds. That's why I wrote everything down. Speaker 0: You in 90 or. Just think of it. Okay. We're going to keep the 60 seconds and let you try to finish your thought. All right, let's go. Speaker 1: Okay. Mayor Spencer and members of the city council. My name is Karen Miller, and I've lived in Alameda since 1982 and been a housing provider since 2003. Speaker 3: We bought our six unit building as a retirement plan. Speaker 1: As neither of us have a pension. Alameda has a long tradition of welcoming renters. When the Navy came here during World War Two. Households were asked to create housing for the arriving sailors. Overnight, we went from a bedroom community to a town of multiple units. The majority of Alameda housing providers are Alameda INS with just one property, and they understand the special relationship that we have with our renters. I was a member of the Rock from 2003 until this year and was chair for the last ten years. The RAC is a unique body in Alameda. Unlike the various other city boards, it is a mediation panel. It requires that all members be able to objectively hear both parties in a dispute and make a recommendation that is fair to all parties. It works because no member is an advocate. Oftentimes, the parties come to an agreement on their own and a recommendation does not need to be made. In the 13 years that I was a member, only one. I remember one time, three times that the parties did not come to an agreement in the matter. It was referred to council earlier this year. This council directed that community meetings be held to find out the extent of the housing issue and come up with recommendations. After months of work by both housing providers and residents, the consensus was to strengthen the RAC, which was done by ordinance effective October 1st. We have no data as to how these changes will impact the renters, and I would urge the Council to let that process go forward before making any changes. Thank you. Speaker 0: Next speaker. Speaker 9: Hmm. Hmm hmm. Hmm hmm. Speaker 4: My name is Pauline Zazula. I own a single five unit apartment building in Alameda. My highest rent is 1450, according to the sun. Speaker 1: The median rent is 2800. Speaker 4: I want you to know that I'm a moderate landlord. I now have had tenants for two and three years. The same group. I like them. I don't charge excessive rents. Please take that into consideration when you are making rent control rules that some of us are moderate landlords. Speaker 0: These. Hold your applause. Thank you. Speaker 9: Honorable mayor and city council members. Thank you. My wife and I are small potatoes. We are small. We are mom and pop landlords. And I think there's probably close, you know, close to 99% of us that are very small landlords, not the big type that you hear about. Now, this is what my wife and I get from our tenants. We get, you know, Christmas cards, we get birthday cards. Our rents are like the lady who just, just left are hundreds of dollars below market rents. We're not allowed to gouge anybody. We want a small profit because that is our livelihood. On the moratorium that might as well call out what it really is. Such a it's a wage freeze and a freeze is a ploy. Speaker 0: I know. It's just. Speaker 9: Anyway, the the new study, the arrest study is fine, but if it ain't broke, don't fix it. I say. Get on with. Just get on with the new. The new provisions with the RC and see how they work. Before we go on to other things. On top of things. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 9: Madam Mayor, council members and citizens of Alameda is me. The Ordinance 3131 is called the Rent Review Ordinance. Housing providers are required to work out a fair rent and. Increase with rack. That's Rent Revised Review Advisory Committee, which is a really good one. And the thing is, it's only been in effect for only two months. The cost of living in a home goes up for everyone, not just the renters. The cost for a plumber or electrician. The average hourly cost is $125 an hour. It used to be only $85 an hour. Utility expenses have gone up an average of 5% a year. The premium on my home insurance just went up 17% this last year. And property taxes go up as well. So let's give ordinance 3131 a chance. Thank you very much. Speaker 4: Question. Do I have a moment or do I have a moment and a half? Speaker 1: Just start. Speaker 0: And comment. Let's go. Speaker 1: One moment. Speaker 0: You get one minute. Speaker 4: Okay. My name is Lyla Berghoff. Tig. My husband and I own a three unit Victorian in Alameda. And good afternoon and good evening to all of you. When we bought the building, we found there were many dangerous problems with it. It was a miracle that it hadn't burned down, killing a number of people. We brought everything up to code. We felt we would not discriminate, period, at a time when this was rampant in Alameda. We've had very good tenants for the most part, but we are at a point where we need to increase rents. Our rents are lower than you would pay in a slum section of Hayward first. For two of the three units. We want to keep our tenants. We were given a letter by the last tenant who moved out who was able to buy a nice mobile home in Citrus Heights, that we were the best landlord he'd ever had . And he gave us a letter to that effect. Please don't make it impossible for us to make some money on a long term investment and provide good housing for people in Alameda. Speaker 9: Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. So I'm going to say this one more time. Please hold your applause. And we have plenty of other people that I think could sit here and not clap, which means we could start rotating seats. So please hold your applause. Let's get through all of our speakers. Thank you. Speaker 1: Hi. My name is Linda Sue Lodge, and my husband Gary and I have been landlords in this town for 35 plus years. I'm not going to repeat everything, Kenny said, but I was on the committee. I was one of the landlords, the housing providers, and we talked to the tenants. We came up with the plan. We all agreed on it to enforce the rec change. You came up with a new law. I'm rambling here. Speaker 10: Anyway, let me go back to my notes here. Speaker 1: Okay. It wasn't that long ago that we had a 30% vacancy factor in the city. I mean, I'm just talking a few years ago and during the last ten years, we have had no less than three four parcel tax. Plus, we've had to reinforce our buildings for earthquake. And now you're talking about putting a moratorium on rents when we don't have high rents. When we did that study, two things came out of that study. The city of Alameda had the lowest rents or some of the lowest rents in the in the county. Berkeley. Oakland. And San Francisco had the highest rents and they have rent control. We don't have rent control. What we do works. Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. Our next speakers are going to be Marie Kane, Catherine Pauling, Dianne Mills, Jason Buckley. John Klein and Buckley and Stella. And if you want 2 minutes for those two names on the same slip. Tom HRT Biasi. All right. Thank you. Speaker 1: Good evening, Mayor and honorable counsel. My name is Marie Kane, and I worked in real estate. I know very many of the. Speaker 4: Small mom. Speaker 0: And pop. Speaker 1: Landlords. Speaker 0: That are. Speaker 1: Here, and I'm one myself. We're very. Speaker 4: Fair. You know, if I get a good tenant, I don't raise the rents. Speaker 1: I've let people save money to buy a home. That were my tenants. And I think that applies to 90% of the mom and pop owners that are here tonight. So I urge you to continue on with the rent advisory board and try out the plan. Speaker 4: Give it a chance. Speaker 1: Before you throw it out the window. Speaker 0: Thanks. Thank you. Now, if you heard your name, please line up. And then the next one in line. Come on up and speak. Come on up, Catherine. Speaker 1: Hi. I'm Catherine Pawling. I've been a renter in Alameda for nine years. My children only know Alameda schools. We've been part of sports, part of PTA, I and four different schools activities. I hope. I hope that I'm able to stay five more years so that they can graduate from Encino High School. What you have with longevity and what we are losing with active displacement across the city, that report that these many fine landlords are referring to also stated that rents have risen more than 50% in less than four years. And that's what we're talking about. Maybe to them, 10% sounds reasonable, but 10% on $2,000 is 200 a year. And when you. Speaker 2: Have a. Speaker 1: Year after year, we are now on the third year of 10%. It is getting to be over 30% in only 25 months. This is terrible for families. And the families and the people who came here are now shuttled off into other rooms because this room has been filled out and you're not hearing them. The places that have rent control. San Francisco. Oakland. Richmond, Berkeley. They only allowed around 2% or less per year. And yet I understand some board members are going to suggest that with a moratorium, the moratorium would have a cap of like eight or 10%. It's unconscionable. I don't think you're hearing us. We've been coming here for over a year with tragic stories of the people that are doing and maybe it isn't the small mom and pops. And I thank them for being here and I thank them for what they're doing. But the large complexes are coming in with 50% rent increases, 30% higher. So there there is another side. Speaker 0: To this story, and you are not getting. Speaker 1: The full. Speaker 4: Impact. Speaker 1: Of what's. Speaker 0: Happening out there. Thank you very much. All right, next speaker. So when I call your name, if I've called your name, please line up on that wall and then we're just doing them in order. Speaker 9: Okay. Thank you, Mayor and council members. My name is Duane Moles and a resident here since the nineties. I think a lot of what we've heard this evening about mom and pop operations that run a good organization here is completely true. And what we're really talking about is about bad apples. But that's why we have laws and regulations, not because of the law abiding, not because the just. Yes, landlords have a right to, you know, fair and reasonable return on their investment. However, we have protections, consumer protections for exactly those people and individuals who do become predatory in their practices. So it's not about every landlord being bad, but we as citizens need protections from those 30 and, you know, and 50% increases. People who get kicked out of their homes for no fault whatsoever, who pay their bills on time, are good citizens, are good parts of our community. So we're not trying to slander landlords in general, but we do need protections. Please consider that how many people need to be. Speaker 0: Thank you. And when you approach the mike, if you could say your name. That'd be great. So if I've called your name, please line up there. I've called some names I don't think are. Here it is. Oh, is Duane right? Okay, go ahead. Speaker 9: Hello. My name is Tom Hercules. I definitely wrote too much, so I will make this quick. I came here today away from my wife and children, to discuss a matter that will potentially affect my family in a negative way. Today, we all discussed the future of many people, renters and landlords alike. Let's not rush into bad decisions because of political tides, but sort out a rational approach to this issue. My story is probably quite common in many people with the American Dream of making their life better than their parents. I grew up in Michigan and oftentimes lives on what we called a shoestring budget. Later, we moved to California. I met somebody who taught me the trade that I still do today. I came to Alameda from the Navy and fell in love with this place. The reason I tell my story is I'm not a large corporation, a foreign investor norm or some outsider looking to make fast money in a community that I don't live in. I say for ten years when I bought my first house, I was able to get two more buildings on an owner carry as you could not prove to my prove myself to be viable or bank worthy. I spent the majority of my money back in my buildings to keep them excess exceptionally clean and fit. No tenant of mine ever waits more than a couple of days for any type of repair. I appreciate my tenant to get to know them personally. I never give rent increases at 10%, and typically it's 75 or $50. Jan Mason can attest to that. I take care of my tenants and they'll take care of me. The last time we had rent increases to people, I chose not to give a rent increase because of their situation, because these are people and we are trying to take care of one another and we all live in the same community. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank speaker. So I'm going to say names and some of you may already spoken. Jason Buckley. I think we already had John Klein. He's there. Okay. Oh, sorry. Speaker 9: And Buckley and is going to concede. Speaker 0: Okay, Tom. Court of horror device. Okay. Michael Brown. So then go ahead and line up and brought you Dominic. Pass the nifty easy. Don starts. Marilyn Schumacher. I think that's what this is. All right. So then you all can line up. Go ahead. Thank you. Speaker 9: Hi. I'm going to make this really quick. The holidays are coming. This moratorium. 65 days. Just do it, for crying out loud. Just do it. Save our community, at least through the holidays, from this predatory, greedy practice of giving people the boot for no reason other than naked greed. And, you know, we're half the population. We're keeping an eye on how all you vote. And we're going to remember that in Election Day. That's all. Thank you. Speaker 0: Speaker. Thank you. Speaker 9: My name is John Klein and with it Alameda. Renters Coalition are two things I'm still waiting to run into a good landlord this week at the RAC. There was a landlord there with seven or eight units and given rent increases for three or four years. Just the nicest person that you'd want to meet. But now she wanted to $100 rent increases in in 14 months. The tenant tried to negotiate her down to $50 instead of $100 this time. The tenant said the landlord said no. So mediation did not work with a good landlord. The second thing is, about 5 hours ago I got an email from someone who had just gotten a 60 day notice on a 50% rent increase. And that's the same as a an eviction for her. So I'm still waiting to find a good landlord. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Come on up. Say your name. Thank you. I really appreciate y'all. That's good. Speaker 9: Good evening, mayor and council members. My name is Michael Brown. I've been a landlord in Alameda for 38 years and I'm a mom and pop operation as well as I'm a practicing attorney in town. And I'd like to direct some of my comments to the study that was presented briefly today. I believe it's somewhat skewed because it only focuses on interviewing property owners with 50 or more units. And because I'm a mom and pop with converted Victorians, the maintenance costs and the cost of. Speaker 5: Just. Speaker 9: Maintaining those is significantly higher. And I understand the larger projects tend to be owned by investment groups that are looking for particular returns. And my understanding the report sort of focuses on the rent increases that the bigger units have generated, not the mom and pops. Also, the special assessments that I get on my tax bill is probably one of the highest cost of operating a property, and those special assessments represent about 26.60% of anyone's tax bill. And those go to the benefit of the public at large, including the tenants. Also, because these properties are old, they constantly are requiring maintenance work that you can't just generate out of rents. You've got to collect money over time just for paint. I just did a paint for $28,000 on a five unit building. I just spent 5000 on asphalt slurry coat. I like to maintain good properties and these type of draconian measures that are being proposed which clearly impact the viability of the properties and cause further depreciation. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker. That your name? Speaker 9: Good evening, Madame Mayor. City Council. My name's Dominic Pasternak, and I've been an Alameda resident for over 36 years. I've raised my family here, and I also have owned income property in Alameda for over 12 years. I have a unique perspective regarding rent control. I grew up in San Francisco. My family owned and still owns income property in San Francisco. I have seen the effects of rent control both before and after. Rent control hurts the conscientious small property owners such as we are. Even a moratorium on rent increase only mostly hurts small property owners like myself who have been conservative with rents and rent increases. The big out-of-town investors who have already bought in and raised their rents excessively will not be affected by a moratorium. I know of conservative small landlords like ourselves who've owned property for many years may charge rents at less than market rates because tenants don't move out and don't charge high rent increases. The building we purchased had low rents and had quote unquote deferred maintenance by the previous owner. We invested in much sweat equity and kept rents low while improving the property. There are many old buildings in Alameda that require high maintenance, which won't be done by the owner if there is insufficient profit margin or reasonable rents or rent increases. Rent control creates a two tiered system of rents, where new high rents subsidize older lower rents. This is what's happening in San Francisco and in other cities where rent control exists. Thank you. Speaker 0: Next speakers. Maria, it'll be Maria Dominguez. I have some names here. I just want to make sure that we have everyone lining up. Lisa Lawley. Karen Bay. And talking. T ru a c h i h w u lin anders. All right, thanks. Thank you. Speaker 1: Mayor and City Council, I appreciate your time and thank you for having us here this evening to speak on this issue. I speak in opposition to a moratorium or any moratorium on rents or evictions. The city just spent a significant amount of time holding meetings, gathering information and establishing new standards for the Rent Review Advisory Committee. I encourage you to give the new process and procedure a chance. Speaker 4: To work before. Speaker 1: You consider taking any other action. Rent control typically reduces availability of rentals, which makes it a self-fulfilling prophecy. So I encourage you to give the new Rent Review Advisory Committee a chance to really work and see how that goes. Speaker 4: Thank you. You. Several people have conceded their time to me. So here we go. Speaker 0: You know how many people have. Speaker 4: It's in a package with my name on it. Marilyn Shoemaker. Speaker 0: All right. Speaker 1: Or later. Do you want me to count them. Speaker 0: So you can tell me that six people. 12. 15. All right. Very good, then. We're going to go ahead and we're going to start with 10 minutes, see if you can do it in ten. Do you think? Speaker 4: I will try. Speaker 0: All right. Speaker 4: Good evening, Madam Mayor. Council members and staff, thank you for calling this special meeting to discuss our current housing needs. Our meetings for fair rents are property owners, residents and community members like myself. My name is Marilyn Shoemaker. I have lived in Alameda since 1973. We've raised our family here and our children still have dear friendships with kids. They met in Alameda attending preschool. In 1976, my husband and I became a small property owner in Alameda, and since 1986, I've been a local realtor, primarily helping folks buy and sell and live in Alameda. I have been through all the ups and downs that real estate and the rental market has experienced here on the island. Our group is composed of people like me, property owners, management companies and residents of Alameda. Many of us are small owners like me. Most of our group has been providing housing in the community and renting our properties for decades. We represent a diverse group of owners and property owners of all sizes from buildings like mine, with just four units to larger units. We represent more than 3000 rental units in Alameda. We are committed to providing quality housing to our beautiful and unique island. There is no doubt that California is experiencing a housing shortage and increasing rents. And nowhere is it felt more than right here in the Bay Area. Cities have not created enough new housing stock, particularly multifamily units, to meet the demand of our growing region. People are back to work. The economy is booming, and we need to provide people with affordable places to live in. Alameda We are lacking real localized data about this crisis. Studies conducted by outside parties offering regional statistics do not give an accurate picture of what is happening here in Alameda. And so this council is left with anecdotal information. We are eager to see the results of the research the city's consultant is conducting and hope it will include real data from property Alameda Property Owners. We know that the housing shortage is a real issue. We have all been impacted. As property owners. We are responsible for maintaining our properties and providing a safe and comfortable place for our residents to call home. During the last economic downturn. Downturn. Many of us actually lowered our rents. Rents have gone up and down with the economy, and owners like myself have been reasonable to help preserve and community, our community and help our residents. Over the years, like myself, many owners owners have passed on along improvements with costs in reasonable, measured increases. Folks come to stay in Alameda for our schools, our safe streets, the new library, access to quality health care on the island. Property owners have been strong supporters of bonds and other taxes to support these services and needs in the community. We fully realize that not all property owners operate their businesses as we do. We know that there have been some cases of egregious rent increases and we do not support the behavior by our colleagues. We value our residents as part of our community, our neighbors, friends, teachers, colleagues. One of my residents has been with us for 22 years. Another five and a half years. I value having good neighbors. It's important to our group to retain good residents and neighbors who make Alameda the community it is today. We are committed to continuing to do our part to keep rents in alameda a fair. Many of us have worked in good faith with within the rack process and feel that Alameda residents and property owners have had positive outcomes through rent mediation. However, in fairness, the RAC has not been given the same time to the same. Given the time to work effectively, particularly since the improvements this Council passed on in ordinance October 1st, just last month, to strengthen the Board and provide better noticing and communication between the property owners and residents. We urge the Council to uphold the rack and continue to adopt appropriate amendments for a period of time sufficient to determine effectiveness and equity for both residents and property owners. The rack is a viable, fair way to address rent increases and property costs for both residents and owners. We support continuing the equitable treatment of all parties going forward, recognizing that we are in rent and housing crisis in the region and state. The RAC also can be a source for actual data, real cases and mediating disputes. Without this information, we do not have an accurate picture of the volume and severity of cases in Alameda. Rent control is not one size fits all. And as you well know, Alameda is not a urban, high rise apartment or condo community. While it is true, we have many rental units, they are spread throughout the island, intermixed with our single family homes and part of the individual neighborhoods. This makes for a very balanced community with great residents and good neighbors. Rent control is being route being proposed before changes to the rack have function under its new ordinance. There is no evidence that the rent control provisions would be better for residents than the current rack process. We understand the need for a temporary hold on rent increases while staff works through the issues. If the city council chooses this path. We want staff to have time to examine real data so they are not responding to anecdotal information. We believe the moratorium should include 30 to 60 day evictions and excessive rent and excessive rent increases of 10% or more. Cities have that. Cities that have adopted just cause provisions have experienced difficulties. As a property owner, my responsibility is to all the residents and the neighbors. We need the ability to remove residents that are truly troublesome. Reasonable and appropriate protections and provisions could be added to the rent rack process. Amanda Rak We suggest the city council add the 30 to 60 day evictions to the rack process. Give the process time. We thank the Council for addressing it seriously considering a very real issue in Alameda and the region. Affordable housing and rental housing. This is an important and complex issue. We appreciate the work that has been done. We hope that you will listen to the following testimony of many of your Alameda constituents so that you will have a better understanding of who they are and the service they provide to residents and the community. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Next speaker. Speaker 1: I am a landlord and I ran a small house in Alameda. The house rents out well below the market rental rate, and after five years of renting to the same tenant, I increased the rent by a total of $160 over the five year period. That actually works out to $30 a year and actually to $2.66 per month. In that same period of time. I invested. $26,000 on improvements in the property. And at point I'm still working with a negative cash flow. I know other property owners who also rent their properties at a significant financial loss and rent control poses an enormous problem for us. We're operating under a great financial loss and with rent controlled, which may only allow about 2% increase, we may have to sell our properties and this would create a reduce in the stock of affordable housing. I suggest that all renters who have any complaints use the rent review board. It has a very effective. It's been very effective in mediating disputes. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 1: And a mayor, members of city council and city staff. Good evening. Speaker 4: My name is Lisa Lawley, and I'm an ally. I've been an ally comedian for over 25 years now. I am a property owner and I am also an owner of small residential income property as well as managing rental properties in Alameda. I'm speaking tonight, as I most recently experienced Rent Review Advisory Committee firsthand this past Monday. I was one of the three cases on the agenda. One case was dismissed because the tenant did not appear. In the second case, the tenant and the property manager came to an agreement prior to the meeting and canceled their appearance. In my case, the tenant did appear and I was able to present my case. I felt the rack treated us both fairly and the committee allowed us allowed both sides to be heard in a non-confrontational dialog. They asked questions that made both of us see the other person's view as the direct result of the committee's interaction with us, we were able to come to a mutually agreeable resolution. I think both of us were satisfied with the outcome since we came up with a resolution on our own and the rec did not have to make a recommendation. As a landlord property manager, I do feel having the RAC in place is not only helping both sides, but also allows the parties to be both effectively be able to effectively communicate with each other. While I understand, I understand that there are those who will disagree. I was there and I went through the process. It's fair and I hope you will let the RAC continue to bring tenants and landlords together so they can resolve disputes rather than instituting a one size fits all policy such as rent control. Thank you. Good evening. My name's Karen Bay. I've been a landlord in Alameda for over 35 years. And so I wanted to mention today that in the San Francisco Business Times today, one of the articles. Oakland ranked nation's fifth most most expensive rental market. Speaker 9: So rent control does not work. Speaker 4: Two of the top. Remote control. Speaker 9: Cities are the highest nations with the nation's most expensive rental market. San Francisco is number one. Oakland is number five. Speaker 4: I want to talk a little bit about some. Speaker 9: Of the. Speaker 4: Ideas that are out there. Speaker 9: The moratorium. I think we need to focus on a targeted approach, one that focuses on excessive rents. One of the ideas is 10%. And I'm hearing a lot of people saying, you know, that there are 20 to 50% is ridiculous. And I. Speaker 4: Agree. I think we should target on merit the relocation assistance program. Speaker 9: I think we need to consider rent raising fees and using that increase. Speaker 4: To go into the. Speaker 9: Housing trust fund to help with relocation assistance. Speaker 4: But I think to burden the small mom and pops with. Speaker 9: The moratorium on. Speaker 4: Top of that relocation. Speaker 9: Assistance, it just doesn't work. I think we need. Speaker 4: To. Speaker 1: Focus. Speaker 9: On the larger 50 plus units. So thank you. Speaker 1: Thank you. Good evening, Madame Mayor and city council members. My name is Lynn Anders and I'm here to speak on behalf of our family and the property that we own here in Alameda. My father, maybe, if you probably know, is Dr. Paul Anders, who was born and raised one of 12 kids on a farm in Wisconsin, put himself through college, dental school, moved out here, started a practice in Alameda. And when his wife became ill and when he had some health issues, he decided to build some income property as a. Speaker 4: Backup plan, plan B, now, he has had. Speaker 1: I'd say. Speaker 3: Some of his tenants, about one fourth of his tenants are. Speaker 1: Long term tenants. Some of them have lived there for over 30 years and they are paying well below market rent. Speaker 3: He has he believes in having a good relationship with his tenants. Speaker 1: He maintains his property when he was made aware of that, that this his buildings were soft story structures, he had the option of not just sending a letter to the tenants to inform them. He decided to incur $300,000 of his own money to upgrade the buildings. I urge you to give the rack a chance. There are plenty of out of landlords here in Alameda that treat their tenants. With with regard. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. I'm going to call a few more names at this point. Eric Anders. Jeanne Allen. Mark Kleiman. Lisa Fowler. And Doug Biggs. Thank you. Speaker 1: Good evening, Mayor and council members. My name is Chilwell and my husband and I are well. We learned in Alameda 1991, right after college. We scraped every penny that we have and we bought our house and threw a lot of sweat and tears. We save enough money now to buy investment property. We bought a dilapidated building and we somehow scraped $200,000 to make it. Speaker 3: To make the upgrades. Speaker 1: We were willing to do it because we looked at it as part of our retirement plan. We treat our tenants will respect. We are fair and we respond to their needs and we do not raise rent because they are part of the community. And we understand, you know, we're like a family. I believe that Alameda is a small town that we are very proud of and have worked the system. So I urge that council led to rock works because we could make it work. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 9: Good evening, Mayor and council members. My name is Eric Anders. I was born here and a long life time resident. Just a couple of points. I believe what is being proposed is unwarranted. The RAC has not had a chance to function and there's no information on how well it is functioning yet. It's been too soon. Rent control suppresses tax rolls everywhere. It's been implemented and the city of Alameda has long term unfunded liabilities. I would hate to see us harm our income stream. There are 98 soft story units as of March in this year in this city that are on retrofitted. And how are you going to fund that if we stop rent increases? It costs about $100,000 for a ten unit building to get retrofitted. Rent control is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you yell fire in a room, people will run. If you yell rent control, people will raise their rents. Thank you. Speaker 1: Good evening, Mayor and city council members. Fellow property owners and renters. Speaker 4: I'm going to read you an email I sent you because it just will be easier for me to get my thoughts together. Speaker 1: Hey, have you considered letting the new ordinance work? Have you considered the school bond issue? Speaker 4: Just appeared on our tax bills. Have you. Speaker 1: Considered how our beautiful Victorians will look when housing providers are no longer able. Speaker 4: To paint them? Our recent bid was over $30,000 for a bid on a Victorian. Have you considered the effect on apartment sales and how the effect will be less revenue for the city? Speaker 1: Are you aware that some housing providers that own smaller buildings pay for. Speaker 4: PGE, which. Speaker 1: Is a gas? Speaker 4: Water, garbage, recycling. Speaker 1: And all of those fees have increased and do increase increase every year. Are you aware that the city raised our city license tax 20% about two years ago? I believe the moratorium on rent was adversely affects the small property owners. I also believe the major the majority of evictions have already taken place in the past. Our tenants have stayed 2 to 3 years and moved on. We raised rents when Tunis tenants moved out and now tenants are staying longer. So with the threat of rent control, we will raise our rents a very reasonable. Speaker 4: Fee every year. Speaker 1: Unfortunately, the small apartment owners are the majority and the ones that will get hurt by rent control as well as the appearance of the city in the years to come. If people are not don't have the money to paint their buildings. In rent. Speaker 4: Control areas, many tenants take. Speaker 1: Advantage rent control by renting out the units as well as going on Airbnb. It's not fair to the owners of the property. Speaker 4: Many property owners depend on the income for their retirement. It's not fair to them. Would you like a governmental agency. Speaker 1: To take away your part of retirement? Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Lisa Fowler, you're here. Okay. All right. Thanks. Speaker 9: Good evening. And my name's Mark Wyman, and I'm going to take a little bit different bet. We've got a lot of people talking about the rent control. And my main concern for me, or one of the main concerns is more regulations. I think we have more regulations than we need already. And as a property owner, you really don't have many rights to do anything with your property anyway. And this is just going to be another big bureaucracy that's going to get created that's going to be nothing but a money sucker pepper. I think so. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 9: Good evening. Doug Biggs, homeowner in Alameda, executive director, Alameda Point, Collaborative, Member of the Shrub Board. I want to address the issue of boomerang funds. Ultimately, you can't solve this problem. Speaker 7: Unless you build additional housing. With the rape and pillaging of redevelopment funds. Speaker 9: We lost our. Speaker 7: Biggest tool in creating affordable housing in the state of California, and to. Speaker 9: Date, the politicians haven't. Speaker 7: Been able to fix that. Speaker 9: Many jurisdictions are taking the opportunity of getting boomerang funds and allocating them preserving them for affordable housing. The county of Alameda has already done that, passed an ordinance designating boomerang funds for affordable housing. I urge you as strongly as possible to take that action here locally and set aside boomerang funds coming back to. Speaker 7: The city of Alameda. Speaker 9: For affordable housing. Not only will allow us to leverage that with other funding sources, which is highly critical nowadays, but it will also give us local input, local funding for local housing to be able to do it the way we need to. Thank you very much. Speaker 0: Thank you. I'm going to call some more names and I don't know if any of these seat of their time or not. Karen Lucas. Mo Hassan. C f a ah oc dash taller. Karen Kellenberger. And it looks like, oh, maybe this person ceded their time. I'm not sure. Anthony. Charvet. Doug Smith and I are the ones who turn the ones that are seating their time. Speaker 1: Those are seating to Doug. Speaker 0: Okay. And then there's a quite a few that are seating to Doug. All right. Thank you. And if we can try to keep the door closed. Thanks. Go ahead. Karen. Speaker 1: My name is Karen Lucas and I have been a small rental property owner in Alameda for 40 years. My I have always worked hard to upgrade my property and to maintain it. Speaker 0: Well. I'm sorry. Please stop this. We're just going to stop a moment. But that's okay. We're going to take a recess. Groups that are from more of the tenant perspective. We're going to have what we have been doing is one minute per speaker so that we can hear from all of you. I know some speakers need a few seconds more to finish up their sentences and whatnot. That's fine. All right. We're going to have a steady stream then to try to get through 30 speakers from the tenants perspectives. That's the goal here. If you are one of those people that want to speak and I'm going to say this, if you are in this first quarter area on my side from the front, like halfway down, please line up against that wall. And that's how we're going to call you up in order. We will also ask, because some of you were unable to turn in speakers steps and whatnot when you're up at the dais. Please state your name. And it's my understanding we also have speakers slips, if you'd like to fill one out there. Yes. All right. So we're going to pause for a moment. All right. So people that are from that haven't spoken, that want to speak on the tenant perspective from this first quarter of seats. I'm going to divide them into quarters. Right. Please line up against that wall. Thank you. I'm going to. We're going to have a line. Then. Then. Mary's at the front of the line. Well have you cannot identify yourself. Lara, do we have slips? You want the. Speaker 1: Amy's on it. Speaker 0: Where is she? Speaker 1: Oh, I'll do it. All right. Speaker 0: Or a sheet of paper. Speaker 2: You made out. Speaker 0: All right, so because we normally have speakers, tips are not going to work. If you want to give us your name, you know, that's greatly appreciated. And you can fill out your slip. You are not required to give us your name to speak, though. But this is how we're going to do it. And we're going to keep track of the time. So one minute per speaker, please hold your applause so that we can try to give everyone the opportunity to speak here. That's the goal. Thank you. And I'm going to start with the gentleman and the friend line. Thank you. Speaker 9: Madam Mayor and members of the City Council. My name is Barry Benioff. I'm a tenant at 1240 Regent Street, and I'd like to urge you to enact a moratorium on uncalled for evictions and excessive rent increases to do the same thing as evictions. I also want to urge you to look at the long term solution. The moratorium is just for now. I think we need something for Alameda that will serve for many years. It seems that the de facto rent increase in Alameda has become 10%. And if 10% is piled on, 10% piled on 10% in 12 years, rents will be tripled. I think that's far too much. Senior citizens, teachers, even members of the city staff are not going to have their salaries tripled in 12 years. Well, that's one. Speaker 0: I know. A minute goes quickly ahead. You can finish the next point if you like. Speaker 9: I just want to say one more thing. And what is Social Security done this year for the cost of living? 0%. 0%. Well, thank you very much for letting me speak. Speaker 0: Thank you. Next speaker at the podium. State your name. Thank you. Speaker 10: But evening. My name is to. Speaker 1: And. You know, I have a big problem with. Speaker 0: This, speaking to them like. Speaker 1: Oh, sorry. Get really close. I have a big. Speaker 10: Problem with how landlords can raise 10%. And seniors, people on fixed income, said farm rich kids. We don't even get your 10% yearly, let alone monthly. But yet a landlord will raise their rent 10% or more. To me that is just not and not acceptable. I feel that 2% is plenty for these landlords because a lot of times these landlords. Even though they raised around 10% or 15%, but they're not doing anything into the apartment. They might go to somebody else, but the people that live there and take care of the unit, they don't come in to do anything. So I think moratorium would be called for because this is really an emergency in Alameda. I've spoken to a lot of people and these poor kids have been yanked out of school after church, away from their friends. The same thing with seniors. They're told, hey, you got to go. They lived here all their lives and they paid their dues. But now, all of a sudden, they can't live here anymore. And I. I feared for the mayor and the council members to put in a moment, one moment. And I appreciate that. Thank you very much. Speaker 0: Thank you. And after you're finished speaking, you can either take a seat or you can, of course, go to where you want to go. Speaker 4: Good evening, Mayor. Council. Tonight I. Speaker 1: Am. Speaker 4: My name is Lisa Hall. I'm a lifelong Alameda and former homeowner. And for the last three years, I've been in renters. Hell. My rent has been raised twice. But tonight, I'm speaking for the Alameda home team president, Helen Soares, who's unable to attend. She asked me to read an excerpt of her letter to the council. Not one solution, but several taken together can help alleviate the rental market crisis. Alameda is fortunate to have many homes under construction or under consideration. City staff continue working diligently to find funding for more homes. The boomerang use of redevelopment money building homes for low income is a new funding tool. New housing and money will help. But another part of this solution is to continue to work with the renters, owners, managers, and to keep rents as low as feasible and affordable and monitoring this difficult process with care and firmness. That's why the moratorium would work tonight. Please approve the boomerang funding concept. The moratorium and press forward on development of housing, especially new multifamily homes. And continue to work with the Alameda Renters Coalition, who has over 3000 members of Alameda that live in your city. Thank you. Speaker 1: Hello? Yeah, I'm not going to give my name, but I'm a first year college student at Berkeley City and I'm paying my way through college. And this is my first student, my first council meeting. So I'm sorry if I'm a little shaky. So my landlord has given my mother and I till the end of the month to leave and we pay our rent in full and on time. And she still continues to raise the rent. She hasn't given us any logical reason for us to leave. I have spoken to her personally on the phone and she hasn't give me any reason other than it is her right to have us leave and she doesn't want to renew the lease. So where did it go exactly? Speaker 0: Is your rent current? Speaker 1: Sorry. Speaker 0: Is the rent current? Yes. All right, continue. Yeah. Speaker 1: Okay. So, yeah, I'm currently working on, like minimum wage, and soon I'm going to have to start paying rent for my mother. So. Yeah. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 1: Good evening. My name is. Speaker 0: Laura. Thank you. Speaker 1: My name is Rene. And I rent on Santa Clara, and I've been in Alameda for six, almost seven years now. I'm a single mother. I have a daughter who's in college in Santa Barbara. And I am an educator in elementary school. And my landlord has raised my rent. Speaker 4: $300 and $300. And she recently gave me a notice to vacate. Speaker 1: With no reason for any 60 days. I what? I'm sorry. Speaker 0: $300 from what amounts. Speaker 1: And now I'm paying 1875. Thank you. She is giving me no reason as to why she wants me to leave. Speaker 2: I just want to make a point. We let the sorry speaker speak unfettered without anyone. Speaker 0: Appreciate the. Speaker 2: Questions. I'd like to give these speakers this. Speaker 0: I appreciate that. Speaker 2: Thank you. Thank you. I'm glad you do. Speaker 0: Please continue. Thank you. Speaker 1: I lost my train of thought now. Sorry, but basically that's my situation right now. Speaker 4: I someone ran into the back of the house and detached the. Speaker 1: Stairs and I asked her to repair those. I let her know what happened and after that she said, I can't afford to fix that. You have to move out. So I'm kind of dealing with also harassment issues that are going on. And so all the people that spoke before, the landlords are saying they're all great landlords and that's great, but not all of them and that's not my situation. So please consider. Thank you. Speaker 0: So before you speak, I the reason I'm asking from what amount is because. Right, we need to know what's the percentage. So if you're coming up here and speaking, please, this is your opportunity to tell us what is the percentage increase? What is it right now? How how you know, in the last year or two years, three years, whatever your rent increase has been, if you received a 60 day notice, this is your time to tell us. Thank you. I'm on it. Speaker 9: Hello. My name is Michael Miller and I'm a renter here in Alameda. I love the city for many years and I've come here to beg you to help us. We need a moratorium. We need it now. A moratorium is. It's not going to be long term, but it gives us time to pause and to think about what's going on, to figure out what suits the citizens of Alameda best and what's fair. Because right now we have a problem of speculators coming into our city and buying up land. These people do not live in Alameda. The rental companies that they're bringing into Alameda are not based in Alameda. And none of this money is staying in Alameda. It is all leaving and it's driving out long term tenants. We're in a bubble when that bubble bursts and all these people that are paying 20 $500 for a one bedroom apartment, move out. What's that going to do to business on Park Street? Every rent increase. I could afford a mild rent increase. But that money is comes from somewhere. That money comes from restaurants on Park Street. Money comes from businesses on Park Street. You can't be shortsighted on this. Thank you. Speaker 0: Next speaker. Thank you. Speaker 1: Hello. I'm Marian Keter. I live on Santa Clara Avenue, and I also work at 1910 Central at the Children's Learning Center, formerly now the Phillips Academy. And I'd like to speak for Liz, one of my coworkers, Liz Taylor, who was on San Antonio. Her house burned down on September 28th of 2014. She then could not find a place in Alameda to live at all. Rents were so incredibly high. She's now in Oakland and has just applied to give her apartment, her house to get her house back. And it was on the market and she was denied it after living there for nine and a half years. She is an amazing person. We work with special needs children and have for over 15 years. We are core members of the Alameda community. We live here. We have events here. Our students work all over Park Street, all over Alameda. And it is an absolute travesty that we are losing great Alameda ins because of landlords who are insisting on more rent. That is more than teachers and people that work in nonprofits in our community can afford to pay. Please think about the moratorium, put it into practice. Give us some time to really get a great situation. Be fair to everyone so we don't lose all of the soul of Alameda. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Next speaker. Speaker 1: Hi. My name is Jenny Hubler. I live in Alameda. I'm also a special ed teacher, actually at the same school as was previously stated. And I just want to say that as teachers, we don't also get cost increase. We work in a nonprofit. We don't make a lot of money. And as these, you know, rents get higher and higher. And I know that Liz, when she was going through it, there was even bidding on some of the rent that, you know, she was not able to meet. And so I just think that to make it fairer and make it so that teachers I'm speaking for teachers because I am a teacher, you know, we can give better education. We can do more for the kids. We can stay longer at work. We can get there earlier and not be stressed out and give a better education when we can actually live in the community that we work. So I just wanted to share that on, you know, at least for the teachers, because I'm sure many of them feel the same way. Thank. Hi. I'm Katherine shopping. Thank you all for being here and listening to us. I'm very grateful that Sabri arrangements were made so that there is a wider representation of all interests involved and not just the landlords. I'm a homeowner in this town. My husband's family dates back 90 years as Alameddine, and there's only one of his family that can afford to live here. And that's him because we owned a house. I just want to mainly point out, first of all, the parade of senior citizen landlords was clever, but it's not. They are not representative of who is raising these rents. And we all know that it was clever, but. It was also very cynical. I'm going to continue just one more second. I think I would like to point out one simple fact. While people are talking about wonderful property management companies like Gallacher and Lindsay, I would like to underline this fact on their fliers. At the bottom, it so states that they will collect 30% of the first month's rent from every tenant that goes through them and gets a rent. Now you tell me how that is not going to benefit them to continue to raise these rents. They are going to profit. For as long as these rents continue to go up 30% to 2500 is a hell of a lot better than 30% of a thousand. And it doesn't take a mathematician to figure that one out. And I don't believe they're the only property managers who do this. I don't know for sure, but this is a changed policy. This was not true three years ago. Thanks. Speaker 0: Thank you. So at this point. You're going to be allowed to speak. But then I'm going to take the last quarter of this side. If you could go and line up the need from the tenant side and where are we on our time? Does anyone know? Speaker 1: Oh, we started this at. Speaker 0: 730 is what I have. Yes. All right. So we could finish this side. So if you're from the tenant perspective, if you could line up against the wall and then we'll call you next, is there anyone from that side that's going to be speaking? So anyone on this side, anyone on the right hasn't spoken yet and wants to speak from the tenant perspective. No speakers. All right. Thank you. A one. All right. So you go ahead and speak then. Speaker 1: I thank you. My name is Marie Chavez. I rushed in here because I got this information. This meeting was happening this morning on KPFA. And I just wanted to say that I think that the rent control stuff gets very confusing for me as a tenant. I've been a tenant in San Francisco, Berkeley, Oakland, and now five years in Alameda. So what I'm trying to say is I understand that there's a really. Speaker 0: Big crisis, housing crisis. Speaker 1: Happening. But I think that Alameda, our sweet, beautiful island of Alameda, has a really wonderful opportunity to make a model of working together with tenants and landlords, something that's fair for both of us. I cannot count or guarantee on my 2% cola every year with work, but I can almost guarantee my 10% increase every year. And there's a gap there for me now. Less money in my pocket. I'm sweating it for rent every year. I was really crossing my fingers and glad I didn't get the 60 day notice. I know I'm going to get the 10% and 30 day notice. I don't know what I'm going to have to do for next year, but less money in my pocket means less money I have to spend here in Alameda. And I try to do as much of all of my shopping here, all my gas, everything. So I just want to say, please keep Alameda a place where renters can live and that we don't have to inherit or be incredibly rich to stay and live here. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Next speaker. Speaker 9: Either under or else they learned a very proud member of the Alameda Renters Coalition. And I'd like to bring to the attention of the city council that the police have arrested John Klein on our steering committee and charged him with assault of a police officer. We want all renters to know that and we think this is extremely unfair and that he should be released. And this is not the way to conduct a of a conversation about rent issues. Thank you. Speaker 0: Next speaker. Please hold your applause. Thank you. Speaker 1: My name is Tommy Thomas. I've been a renter. I've been a landlord and a homeowner. And I'm back to being a renter. Life circumstances have taken me a lot of places. I am trapped in the place that I live right now. I rent from a corporate organization. I can't afford to move. And I live in terror. That the next rent increase that's coming up in a couple of months is going to be as extreme as the rent increase was the last time I got a rent increase. I can't afford to. The gentleman who said this cost the businesses, local businesses money. I don't go out. I don't take vacations. And I can't afford to buy a car that isn't mandated together. I work in an industry where I see what's happening with the home buying community and I see the gap that the increasing gap that we hear about in the national press about what's happening between the people who are in. I consider them to be the people that are above the line and the rest of us who are. Every time we get close to the goal line in terms of the financial environment in the Bay Area, jolts lurches forward and we can't catch up. We need the moratorium and we need a real study on it to be able to try to make it fair and equitable for everybody, not just the landlords that are already acting in a fair way. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. Speakers, from the tenant perspective, in the first half of this side, if you could please line up over there again and anyone that's standing. If you could take a seat, that would be appreciated. If you are waiting to speak, if you could line up over there and then for the first half of this front section. Next speaker. Thank you. So state your name. Thanks. Speaker 1: Hi. A miracle. And I actually just moved to Alameda last year. In February. I was seven months pregnant and I had been wrongfully evicted from my home in San Francisco because the landlord wanted to make more money out of the home. So I had to move when I was seven months pregnant. I'm a teacher and I moved Alameda. And so when I got here, you know, I found this little place very tiny for for a family with a kid. I'm living there now. And this year my rent already been increased 9%. So if next year it gets increased again to 9%, we will have to move out of the Bay Area because we can no longer afford to live here. And I think this is where a lot of teachers are finding themselves in situation. I choose to be a teacher. I have a Ph.D. I should be a teacher because I, I feel like this is Michael Jackson to society. And I think there's really important contribution to do. And I think to not to disregard these people that are part of our society is is really wrong. So I think we need to do something about this problem. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Next speaker. I am Gwen. Speaker 1: Hammer. Speaker 4: I've lived and I've rented here for 15 years. I work in public health. My salary has been cap for the past seven years. I have volunteered my time here. Served for four or five years. Give me my medical background and help with them and with Coast Guard Auxiliary for ten years. I do vessel safety checks. I do search and rescue missions. On top of that, I'm communicable disease expert and a biological person that works for you, the state and everyone here. I'm scared. I'm going to be honest with you, because my salary is now my rent is almost one half my take home pay. You're going to lose me. You're going to lose people like me from the whole Bay Area. So I'm here just pleading with you to let you know I'm a scared person. I never thought I would ever be in this position where I'd be just as worried as the woman. Two people before us that spoke where you do very little. Don't go out. Stay home. Drive an old car because you don't know what the next month is going to bring. So thank you. I hope you figure it out. Speaker 0: Thank you. Next speaker. Just so you know, you don't have to state your name if you want to. And then we have it for our record. Speaker 1: My name is Jennifer Strong, and I've been living in Alameda for ten years and my story is different than everybody else's because I have a wonderful landlord and we have a great relationship and I have a Chihuahua. I know a lot of animals are being displaced and all of this. So people who have pets are really getting pushed out. But I'm here just because I care. I care about what's happening. I don't have it's not affecting my life personally, necessarily. But the fiber of Alameda is changing. I have disposable income to spend on Park Street and I do. And I would like to have more people be able to come before you and say, you know, I have a good situation and this is why I moved to Alameda and this is why I want to stay in Alameda. I don't have children in the schools. I don't have a husband. I'm just here spending my disposable income and I'm seeing things change and hearing really terrible stories. And I think that Alameda is being taken advantage of because these are already put into place in San Francisco, Berkeley and Oakland. Please allow Alameda to have the same kinds of protection. Thanks. Speaker 0: Thank you. Next speaker. Speaker 9: Trish. I'm just an Isaac. And my rents went up 10%. Two years in a row. And I'm afraid to ask for the landlord to do any maintenance because my rents going to go up any more. And I think there's a lot of other tenants that are afraid to ask for them to do needed maintenance, some stuff serious because they don't want the rent to go up. So if you don't put some sort of cap on the rent, then tenants are going to speak up about those, you know, few situations where some maintenance should be done and you know, who knows, it could bias could start or whatever, you know, if you do it, if the alarms aren't kept code and fire extinguishers and whatnot. So I think tenants should be able to speak up about maintenance without the rent going. Speaker 0: So thank you. Next speaker. Speaker 1: Hi. My name is Jessica Warren and I'm a renter in Alameda. I have two rentals here to say we fell in love with Alameda. That's an understatement. We found our home and family here. Our family out in Alameda happens to be made up mostly of struggling artists. In order to meet with other artists, we started a group that has now about close to a thousand members. We turn to our little studio that we ran into a place that these artists can show their work. I can't say enough about how much each and every one of these artists has touched my life in some way , and I'm so grateful for it. My mother passed away last August, so we flew to Florida to take care of her. We visit Florida several times before that, but on our way home this time I had the feeling that we were coming home. I hope Alameda works hard at keeping this amazing community that they have created. Please help us keep the rents down so that we can continue to provide a place for artists to meet, create and display their artworks. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Next speaker. Speaker 9: Hi. My name's Tim Kennelly. I've lived here about 15 years. 13 years? The same place. I just want you to get rid of a loophole on the 60 and 30 day notices. Because what my landlord did, he's been increasing my rent 8% the last three years. And then he just recently gave me a six day notice because he knew he'd have to come in here or go to the rack and explain another increase the same year of 8% or whatever. He's going to increase it, but he just took the easy way out. He gave me a 60 day notice and then he doesn't have to explain anything to anybody. Speaker 0: A 60 day notice to vacate. Speaker 9: Yes. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 9: With no reason. Speaker 0: Got it. Speaker 9: You're about a month ago. Okay. And it was like two days before. October 1st when that new ordinance or whatever is kicked in. He knew what he was. He knew what he was doing. So if he at least close that loophole, hopefully tonight, I don't know if you can do that or not. Good. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 9: Thank you. Speaker 1: Hi. My name is Jane Griswold. And I've I've lived here in Alameda since 1985. I love this community. My my wife. Her. My wife's parents were born and raised here and married here. This is home. This is home to us. We're living in a large complex in which we're having somewhere between a seven and 9% increase a year. We're now paying $825 for a one bedroom apartment. The irony is that another apartment exactly like ours that was vacated, was then rented for 20 $300. So this one bedroom, the difference between what we're paying and what is being asked is making it unworkable for us, where we're afraid to move. And we're also unable to find anything that is equitable in any way. We have a 23 year old daughter who's about to graduate. We'd like her to come home. We'd like to get a two bedroom. Don't know if we can ever do that. May have to leave Alameda. It's it's a very sad circumstance. And I'm hoping that this lovely town and you all can make it right and change the the path that we're on. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Were you on this side? Come on. It. Hello. My name is Rachel Baeza. Speaker 1: I have to. Speaker 0: Apologize. I'm a little shaky. I just watched somebody get thrown to. Speaker 4: The ground. Speaker 0: And arrested and bloodied out there. So bear with me. I have been a long time tenant. I have three children in the army at a public school. We were given 60 days to vacate. Speaker 1: Two weeks into September and two weeks into the. Speaker 4: School year. We were model tenants. We were never. Speaker 0: Late. Speaker 1: We were told the reason we. Speaker 4: Were asked to vacate was because they were going to. Speaker 0: Sell the unit. We then found out that they lied. Speaker 4: We were paying. Speaker 0: $2,000 a month. Speaker 1: They turned around and we rented it for. Speaker 0: $4,000. Speaker 1: A month. Speaker 4: We scrambled, we found a place to live within the school district. So my children did not have to move schools. Speaker 1: But we live in constant. Speaker 0: Fear of having. Speaker 1: The same thing. Speaker 0: Done to us. We are just praying that we make it through till they graduate. We never ask for repairs. Speaker 4: We try to draw very little attention to ourselves. Speaker 1: It's a horrible way to live. Speaker 0: Q Thank you. Did you want to speak? Come on. It. Then she's our last speaker at this time, and then we figure it out from the rest. Thank you. Go ahead. Speaker 1: Hi. My name is Sarah Dawson. I've been a resident of Alameda for about five years. Always rented. We've lived in three properties. Speaker 3: The first we left because. Speaker 1: The rent was increased regularly every year the second we left because our landlord decided to sell. And with the third, we're in a lease right now, which comes up in June. My husband and I would like to start a family. We plan to adopt, and we feel very insecure at this point with being able to manage our finances over the next couple of years. The idea of, you know, thinking back on the amount of times that we've had to move due to, you know, rent increases and issues with with rental properties. Sorry, I'm so nervous. It makes me very uncomfortable to think about starting a family at this point. So what we are asking for is just some security for renters in the future. Things. Speaker 0: All right. At this point, I'm going to ask the rest of the people that are seated if you would raise your hands so we can see how many more from the Tennant perspective are here seated that would want to speak. One. All right. So the ones that are seated, we have one against the wall. How many haven't spoken that would like to three or. Okay, so I would propose that all of you come over here and then we're going to be finished with speakers in this room that want to speak. So don't have anyone else come in at this point. Thank you. From the tenant perspective. All right, someone come to the mike. Whomever is in line can come on up to the mic one of you and start speaking. We're on. Thank you. Appreciate it. If you could, state your name, if you'd like. Speaker 1: Hi, I'm Helen Gilliland. I've lived in. Speaker 4: Alameda for 35 years, so Alameda is my. Speaker 1: Hometown. I'm a. Speaker 4: Renter. The building I live in was sold about two years ago. Speaker 1: I don't know who owns it. It's run by a property manager in Oakland. My rent has increased 12 and. Speaker 4: A half percent in the last two years, and my salary has not. So. At night. Because I want to retire soon in like three years. At night I look on Craigslist at cities all over the country to see where I can afford to live. And it makes me really sad that I think I have to. Speaker 0: Move out to Alameda. Speaker 4: Because, like I said, it's my hometown. Thanks. Speaker 0: Thank you. Next speaker. Speaker 1: Evening. My name? Ninette Landes. I've spoken here once before. When? When we had a rent increase. And basically, I'm a preschool teacher. I my income is not increasing. I moved here from Oakland after being wrongfully evicted by someone who just wanted to make money by turning the apartment building into condos. And so I moved to an apartment here that was owned by a friend of the family, which they were then forced to sell the building. When they sold the building, the new owner increased the rent by $245. The first year and the second year wanted another $125 a month increase. And so I'm expecting another increase from January. And it's just kind of, you know, reaching the limit of being able to just make ends meet. I mean, my time's up. Speaker 0: You speak a little bit more. Speaker 1: So anyway, I I'm also responsible for my 84 year old mother. And so, you know, my income is is what we're living on with, along with her Social Security. So there's no there's no foreseeable increase in my income in the future. As and as, you know, this problem is throughout the Bay Area. I grew up in Oakland and I don't want to move. I don't know where to move. I wouldn't know where to move. I moved from Oakland, Alameda, because Alameda was, you know, felt like home. I had lived here in the eighties as well. So, you know, I hope that all of this discussion is going to lead to something positive for the working class people of this community. I'm also here on behalf of. Speaker 0: Other wind up. I'm sorry. Speaker 1: Okay. Other neighbors. I'm here on behalf of them as well. They don't speak English. They're disabled, they're elderly. The building I live in is an 11 unit building and they're not able to be here. I'm sick, but I'm here because I feel it's important that we, you know, bring this. Speaker 10: Side of this story forward. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Next speaker. Speaker 7: Hi. My name is Emile Floris, veteran. And. And I rented it from 2000 to 2000 and allow 12. Speaker 9: Or a baby farm. Speaker 7: And the owner decided to. Speaker 9: Sell their place. And at some point I was seeking another resident. Speaker 7: MM My kids. Speaker 9: Have been settled. Speaker 7: Here. I'm a single dad. And then I took a medical retirement and I was in search of a place and I did come across a gentleman and who ran it, ran it to me being. Speaker 9: A single father and a disabled vet. Then at a in 2012 and I just wanted to say that I hope things work out. Speaker 7: For people that are seeking assistance and but. Speaker 9: All renters are not the same. There are some good landlords and owner property. Speaker 7: Owners out there. Speaker 9: And I just want to speak on that. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 9: Thank you. Speaker 0: Next speaker. Speaker 9: Good evening. My name? Brian. And rather than testifying, what I would like to do is take a higher take an upper view looking down on this, because I know at the end of this you're going to be thinking about some policy issues. In 1995, the state passed the Cost Hawkins Act, which essentially removed rent control. So whenever you hear that term, it means nothing now. You need to understand that there is no rent control in California. There are some variations, though, and I'll delineate those for you in the people in the audience here at the best. Right now, what we have here in the Bay Area is Berkeley. Berkeley used to have a rent registry, but because of lack of rent control, that doesn't really apply much anymore. They also have what's called stabilization, which is very good. Below them is San Francisco. San Francisco has what we call stabilization. Now let's go into the negative. We've got Oakland. Oakland does have subtle aspects of stabilization, but in fact, it's what we call arbitration. You have to petition as a tenant. Otherwise you give up your rights and then just step below. There is nothing or what a lot of cities have is, which is called mediation. And mediation is very demoralizing because a tenant actually has to petition and then they have to sit there with a landlord. But, you know, landlords just can sit there and be polite and not agree to anything. So it really means nothing. You need to think this through stabilization and you must have just cause you've heard what all of the other tenants have said here must have just caused. Speaker 0: Thank you. Next speaker. Speaker 1: Hi. My name is Rachel Tisha. I'm very happy to say I have a wonderful landlord. I'm sorry if I get emotional. It's. It's an important cause. My husband and I moved here from Oakland in 2011, and for the first time since living in the Bay Area for ten years, I felt safe. I'm a licensed marriage family therapist with a specialty in working with families with young kids. I've done home visits in Hayward and Fruitvale, and I it felt so wonderful to come home to Alameda and feel safe. But the reason I'm speaking is I am so beyond appreciative for every landlord that has is is a is a real person and and considerate and mindful and on my end. Of course, rents are going to go up. But if there can be some predictability and to link it to something I saw last month that was so clear is last month in the city council, my husband and I came and before us was a young girl and her teacher and her mother and we're talking about some exercise campaign with the school. And I saw every single one of you light up in support of those kids. And the reason why I want to come up is as a therapist who specializes in families with young kids, is that lack of predictability, that scramble? One woman already spoke about they may not even adopt or have kids. And then if there's 50% renters in Alameda, you can do the numbers in the schools. And just to be cold and hard about it, that affects test scores. That makes kids anxious. And life is difficult. It's true. But if your parents don't know how they're going to make ends meet every 12 months, that impacts the schools and the kids. And if you don't see it now, it's going to start creeping up and you're going to need more funds for counseling within the schools and the test scores are going to go down. So. Please consider this. And I. It's clear how much you all cared about the kids. And thank you for listening to us. Speaker 0: Thank you. Next speaker. And then she is the last speaker at this point, from the Tennant perspective. Then we're going to take a short recess and we'll continue. Go ahead. Speaker 10: I'm Vicki Autumn. I just want to thank you for. Speaker 1: Taking the time to do this, to let the renter speak. I grew up in Berkeley. When I went to buy a house, when I had kids, I couldn't afford it. I was priced out. So I bought a house in Richmond. I owned it for 25 years. When I decided to give it up, as I was getting older, I went to do some traveling. I decided to move to Alameda because this is where my grandchildren are and their parents have lived here forever and I was lucky to find a really great rental. My sister and I lived together. We had wonderful landlord, the ghettos, amazing people, but they were in their eighties and decided they couldn't handle the property anymore and sold. And we knew we were going to get a rent increase because the guy paid more for it and the clients who paid for it and we did immediately got a $150 rent raise, which for us was not undoable. It was about 9%. And but we're still sitting there worried, you know, what's going to happen next because he wouldn't give us a lease. And so one of the tenants got evicted and for no cause. And we thought there might have been a cause and there wasn't. It turned out that was the guy's doing what he's doing with the eight units that he's evicting, one by one mildly upgrading and raising the rents about $1,000 for per unit. So when I tried to bring that to the rent control board, they said I didn't qualify because even though he offered us one of the units at the extra thousand dollars, that wasn't technically a rent increase because it was a different unit. So Catch 22, we did find another place, but it's, you know, through friends and it's temporary. And I don't know whether it'll be able to stay near my grandkids, but I hope I can. So good luck figuring it out for us. Thanks. Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. At this point, we're going to take a brief recess. It's my understanding I'm going to check on my staff at this point. Staff. My understanding is that we have other speakers then ready to go. All right. So hold up just a minute. So we're going to take a recess. But please stay in your seats because I'm going to still be talking to you over the mic at. Mike, please. All right. So we are still on recess, but we're getting ready to resume. I need everyone's attention to. Please take your seat. We are bringing in new people to sit. If you have been here, if you've already spoken, if you. We may need some room available for new people to speak. We are now going to be shifting to people from more of the landlord's perspective. But we're having people come in at this point. Come on in. We've got seats at last. And thank you very much for your cooperation. Speaker 9: No. Exotic. Speaker 5: Aaron's up. You have, Caryn Stark. Speaker 0: And they're going to be filling up the seat. Speaker 5: No. This just my own script. Speaker 7: I look at my script. Yeah. Speaker 2: I do too. But I couldn't find a middle. Speaker 9: I thought. Oh, yeah. Speaker 5: Amy. Speaker 0: All right. We are now resuming. We're going to the time is approximately 822. We're going to go for approximately half an hour from the next site. It might be a little more, might be less. I'm not sure how many more speakers we have, but we are doing the landlord perspective at this point. We may have people, more people joining us. So, you know, we'll do that as quietly as possible. Ms.. Lucas, your turn. And thank you very much for everyone's cooperation. Speaker 1: Thank you for letting me start again. My name is Karen Lucas. I have been a small rental property owner in Alameda for 40 years. I have always worked hard to upgrade my property and to maintain it well. My tenants now have been with me for. I have three sets of tenants for 28, ten and eight years. Their rents are below market rate because they are such. Speaker 4: Good tenants and I want to keep them. I do not. Speaker 1: Want to see the moratorium or any rent control. I feel that would interfere with my relationship with the tenants. Many other Alameda property owners feel the same. We take care of our small older properties and try to treat our tenants fairly. Give the newly strengthened. Speaker 0: Rent Review. Speaker 4: Advisory Commission a. Speaker 1: Chance to do its job. Hopefully the Commission. Speaker 4: Will be able to rein in unreasonable landlords. Now that you have passed a new ordinance requiring. Speaker 10: Landlord landlords to. Speaker 4: Appear and notify tenants that the Commission is there to help them. Speaker 1: Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 9: Good evening. My name is Doug Smith. I'm a third generation business owner of a 63 unit apartment building here in the city. We've owned it for over 30 years. I know that some tenants have received excessive double digit rent increases from a few owners, and others have been told to move so that owners can circumvent that increase . I don't support this type of behavior and any reasonable landlord in this room does not either. I believe that the current rent review ordinance has the power to stop these type of landlords from continuing their poor behavior without hurting the good, reasonable landlords. We need to give it a chance, make some tweaks to it, and we can make it work. Being a business owner in Alameda over the last 30 years, I understand that Alameda is very unique and special and I don't want to see it destroyed by bad policy. We're not San Francisco. We're not Oakland. We have amazing business owners, homeowners and renters that are all here for the quality of life that Alameda provides. They can still walk to the local coffee shop, run and run into their neighbors. Their children can walk to their amazing schools. I have four seeds. And our seniors can walk to the farmer's market and feel safe by adding a few provisions to the current ordinance. We can stop the excessive increases and the displaced tenants and still allow Alameda to thrive both socially and economically. There's a lot of talk about rent control. This is being spearheaded by a statewide activist group called Tenants Together. They don't care about Alameda. Their goal is to push rent control in every city in California. They are eroding relationships between tenants and owners in an effort to further their agenda. They're attempting to bully, threaten and extort city staff to agree with them or be voted out. I encourage you not to be intimidated by them and do what is best for the entire city. And that includes business owners. Speaker 0: Homeowners. He had four people fill out slips and submit their time, seed their time to him. So that's why he gets 5 minutes. And we had we've been doing that sometimes that that that has been allowed for both sides but still comes out the same 30 minutes per side. Go ahead. When he gets extra time for that. Speaker 9: I encourage you to what's do what's best for the entire city and that includes business owners, homeowners and renters. Equally, what you're not hearing about rent control, what will it do to Alameda, just like it did in Oakland and San Francisco and Berkeley, you will see higher rents due to supply and demand. You will see crime increase as the Oakland renters flee. Crime filled, poorly maintained, graffiti ridden, rent controlled housing in favor of our safe neighborhoods, top notch schools and well-maintained housing. Speaker 0: I'm sorry to interrupt again. I will have to have people leave the room. If you cannot be quiet, please be respectful. Thank you. And you get one warning. Thank you. Go ahead. Speaker 9: You'll see that property values fall, businesses closed, and seniors will no longer feel safe to walk the streets. And eventually Alameda will be. Oakland staff has done a great job gathering data and what it shows is far different than what activists are trying to convince you of. Yes, rents did increase 54% from 2000 to 2013, while wages only grew 29%. If you take the time to look at those numbers, you'll see that without any rent restrictions in place, the rents still only increased on average 4.15% per year, and tenants have $571 more per month after paying rent than they did back in 2000. Let's focus our efforts on the families with children, seniors and disabled and those that really need the help. Since 2000, the renting population over the age of 55 has grown by 81%, while the working renters have decreased by 16%. We need more quality, affordable housing for seniors. I pray that you can come together as a group and do what is best for all the people of Alameda. You each bring a vast array of knowledge to the table. I hope that you can respect each other and what each of you can contribute and come to a solution with this. This plan tonight that the tenants staged was on social media and I was aware of it and I have copies of it. I just, again, encourage you don't fall for the intimidation. Make the needed changes. That needs to be done. And let's get back to work. Speaker 0: Thank you. Next speaker. And if you have a speaker, are you speaking for the woman or do you have people have ceded their time to you? Speaker 9: I have one person that's needed time. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 9: My name is Tom Scott. I'm wearing two hats tonight. One, I'm the president of Cambridge Management Company, a company located in Santa Clara that has one property in Santa sent in in the city of Alameda we've had for 30 years. I'm also speaking primarily on behalf of the California Apartment Association. CAA represents many of the larger owners in Alameda, but also includes a number of smaller owners in Alameda, as well as many other cities in California. Our large owner members have agreed voluntarily before you've done anything to a 10% cap, as is evidenced by a letter we sent to you today. I don't know if you've received it, but if you have and I have copies to distribute. As a matter of policy, we do not support rent moratoriums as they do not address the underlying issues. But we do understand why many of you may feel the need to do so. And we just urge you that if you do pass a moratorium to limit it to increases over 10% and limit it to 45 days. It should also be noted that many of the CIA members, including myself, did work with the facilitator, Jeff Camara, to make the recent modifications to the Iraq ordinance. And with one minor exception, we fully support that. If further enhancements are needed to address more issues, we look forward to working with the city, but also to make sure that the Association uses its resources to assist with reining in the bad actors and garner support for reasonable solutions among its members. And quickly address those issues in a manner that suits all. I also agree with the comment that we can't look for a one size fits all. And in closing, I'll just say that CIA and its members are deeply committed to providing quality rental housing for Alameda residents. And we hope going forward that the city works with us, other property owners and other stakeholders groups to help solve the problems. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Next speaker. And may I ask, do you have anyone that has seeded their time to you? Speaker 9: I don't want one minute is sufficient. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 9: Good evening, Mayor Spencer. Members of the Council on City Staff. I'm John Sullivan, a housing provider in Alameda and also a member of the California Apartment Association. The tenants have identified two features of our rent or present rent of yours that, you know, that are lacking some teeth, some real consequences. And they list them as the extra large that the above 10% increase. Generally, it's one. The other is the 60 day notice without cause. No. To give these two features some teeth, some, you know, good consequences. We are open to giving much longer rent increases. I mean, increased notices to serve the 30, 60 days. It could be certainly longer than that. And adding a feature. Financial consequences. Essentially, any landlord has to compensate a tenant who moves out as a result of his actions under, you know, AOB. So what these major remedies, plus those put forward by John Lindsay's group, which we work close together, you know, I'd ask them, my good friends on the other side, the I and the Angela and Doyle and John and so forth, to let's say that's across the aisle that's come across the aisle. Sounded like John Lee and John Boehner and. You work together to put these remedies in as part of our our present orders. Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker. Speaker 9: Hi. My name is Malcolm Lee. I'm a small mom and pop landlord in Alameda for about 13 and a half years. Ever since I bought the building, there was I still have some of the tenants who I inherited from previous landlord and I fought for many years. In the beginning I did not increase rent, mainly because of the economic situation. Supply and demand works together. The and I don't increase rent until the last few years, mainly because I had to put a new roof. I had two new roof will be for their 15 unit building. It cost about 40,000 to put new roof. And on top of that, I had exterior painting. It costs about 15,000, and that was after getting at many, many bids from many contractors. So what I'm saying, yes, is I have very good working relationship with my tenant. We have very good bonding. And recently I had to evict one tenant, mainly because she was threatening to burn down my my neighbor's building. It was very hard to get rid of a bad tenant. And if we had that just causing eviction or rent control, it is it's going to be very, very hot for landlord to get bad apples off the building. Now, when you get rid of a bad tenant is is very costly time attorney for you court very costly and a lot and we even have to negotiate rent so that they can stay there before they find a not a not a place to live. So please do not do rent control and please do not do the just cost eviction. Not a point that I wanted to bring up. This is as an investor I come to I manage to party myself. I am in on a meet over on a weekly basis. In the beginning you have big time negative cash flow. It takes forever, even for 15 years to be able to in to to break even. And just after the the downturn back in 2000, eight, 2000, I couldn't even refinance my mortgage mainly because the value dropped and there was a lot of vacancy. This is just a time that I could take take a deep breath and catch my breath so that I could start seeing the return of my investment. So please do not do that. Okay. I think that's all I have. Thank you so much. Speaker 0: Next speaker. And where are we on time? Speaker 1: You are at. One minute. Speaker 0: Anytime. Speaker 9: Good evening, Mayor. Members of council. My name is Scott Brady. My wife and I are residents of. Speaker 0: Blaine in New York. Sorry, we got to hear you. Speaker 9: My wife and I are residents of Alameda. We're also small property owners. We're a large part of that body of Alameda residents who own a little bit of property. Our rental property is a large part of our retirement plan. Right now, the rental income covers costs of mortgage taxes, insurance and maintenance. Placing a moratorium on rent increases would impact our ability to fund repairs and improvements. Much of the information in the reports that were attached to the meeting agenda discuss issues related to large apartment buildings. Legislation imposed to control the actions of a few large apartment complex owners can have adverse effects on the many small property owners who have dealt with their tenants in good faith. Just one month ago, the council enacted the rent review ordinance to help stabilize rents here in Alameda. Yet here you are one month into the term of that ordinance and before any results could possibly be determined, looking at another ordinance to place a moratorium on rent increases and evictions. If you truly believe that that rent review ordinance is good legislation and since all five of you voted for it, I'm assuming you think that then give it a chance to achieve the results that you expect it will bring. Don't rush to approve additional legislation that may only compound the situation. Speaker 0: Thank you. Next speaker. Speaker 9: Hi. My name is Brad Drury. I'm a housing provider here in Alameda. I have been for over 15 years an owner here. And I really believe that it's paramount to treat my tenants with respect. I really actually enjoy, not enjoy it. I think it's really important for us to hear the stories of all the tenants that we've heard this evening. It's critical. And I think you have a body of owners on the site that's very unique from that study right there. 60% of the people that own property, the rental properties here live on the island. I'm not one of those people. I'm one of the other 40%, but I care. I've always cared. We didn't have any increases between 2002 and 2012, and then in the last few years we've had marginal increases, usually less than 10%. It's a unique time right now, and I really ask you to look at the unique character of Alameda and the unique character of you are owners that really care the small mom and pops that really want to work with the mediation. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Next speaker. Speaker 1: Good evening. Speaker 4: Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you all. I really appreciate the time and the effort that you're taking to hear both sides of the story. But I do. Speaker 1: Ask you not to allow the demonization of the two sides to to make you change your minds about how this should be handled. My brother and I invested in Alameda because we love this town. We think it is a wonderful place to live. And the people who live here are good people and reasonable people. Speaker 4: And I hope that we continue in this process of creating policy. Speaker 1: To be in that mode reasonable. We're all individuals and we all have stories to tell. In my other job. Speaker 4: I work in nonprofit housing, so I really sympathize with the dilemma that folks have not being able to continue to live where they live. But at the same time. Speaker 1: I look at what. Speaker 4: Happened my brother and I invested in 2007 during the height of the real estate bubble. As property fell, property values fell. Speaker 1: We developed a negative. We need our rent. Speaker 4: Increases to be able to survive. We don't want to have to sell the property, and we might have to. So we ask you to take that into consideration. We try very hard not to raise the. Speaker 1: Rents because we know that's going to affect our tenants. Thank you. Speaker 9: Barbara Castle. My name is Rick Stores and I'm on two five unit buildings in Alameda. But I speak to you more from the perspective of a long time landlord in both San Francisco and Berkeley. Mom and Pop, if you will. I was both a resident and a investor in those communities. And my experience as such tells me that rent control has really long term negative impacts on the community as a whole because it petrified the community. It petrified the existing housing stock because the landlords are not incentivized to maintain the properties and improve the properties. It petrified the community because it deters investment in more rental properties within those communities. It also petrified the tenant base in a different sense that the people that are fortunate enough to live in rent controlled properties are not able to move about and improve. Moved to a two bedroom apartment building, for instance, and they also are petrified in the sense that they're living in fear of being evicted from. Ellis act evictions and owner move and evictions. And while inequity exists I don't believe that rent control is is going to help that situation. I actually think it will exacerbate that situation. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Next speaker. Speaker 6: Council. My name is Todd Park. I majored in Environmental Economics and policy management at Cal Berkeley, and I just wanted to share. Speaker 9: My thoughts. Speaker 6: On policy and possible solutions to our rent control or this exact situation. One thing I learned is rent control is very detrimental and actually ends up increasing. Rent has all of these unexpected consequences. However, I want to propose that we do encourage increasing a lot of property and new developments in this city. I'm both a tenant and a landlord, and I know that if we increase the the supply of housing in the city, which means we don't impose a rent control, then more people will move in with roommates. Speaker 9: It also. Speaker 6: Means building more, more developments and. Speaker 9: Many, many different places for people to live. Speaker 6: And affordable housing. Speaker 9: That would actually produce a long term. Speaker 6: Result that would be good. Speaker 9: For more people without. Speaker 6: A dilapidated the environment in this wonderful city that we live in. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Next speaker. Speaker 9: I'm Christopher Hansen, and I am unknown to most of you. Although at one point in time, in a past life when I had hair, I was very involved in city politics and was served on committees and commissions and ran mayoral and council campaigns. So I offer you a political perspective. Alameda is a victim of its own success. In 1976, Alameda passed a measure which limited the stock of residential housing to a duplex. 50 years later, the unintended consequence of that measure has come to roost. We are in the Bay Area that is having an incredible surge of demand and we have an incredible lack of supply. Rent control or rent stabilization would have a similar unintended consequence. When you look at the rent study that's before you, you see 25% of the housing stock that is rented is single family dwelling. It is the first thing that will be sold to owner occupants. The second, 25% of rental stock is duplexes. 25% sold again, reducing the rental stock by 50%. If you think we have a problem today, imagine what it will be 20 and 30 years from today. Speaker 0: Thank you. Next speaker. Speaker 1: Hi. My name's Kim Peralta, and I'm here on behalf of my family who has owned property on San Antonio for the last 50 years. My mother is 91 and I would hate to think of her as a predatory landlord. Someone mentioned that it was clever that elderly landlords were the ones that spoke before you. The reason is they're the ones that invested their money here in Alameda. 50, 60, 70 years ago. And the family now has that property and owns it and can rent it. Most mom and pops are really, truly good landlords and don't raise their rent. My mom went 15 years on one of her units before she raised rent. Now this is her only income and is so afraid that with rent control she will get behind an eight ball and not be able to afford her property. So with this 10% supposedly set increase, she now feels that yearly she should raise it 10% to make sure she can afford to keep the property that has been in our family. There's no right, there's no wrong. There's probably no real solution except to go after the people who are raising the rents way too much on the renters. And they have a right to be upset. But don't take it out on the people that have supported Alameda, whose taxes have made it affordable and easy for the tenants here to have great parks, great schools. There are the ones that are really supporting the tenants, buy good rents and great places to live. I hope you have. Great, great sleep and can manage to figure out how to help make this happen. Because I wouldn't want to be in your shoes. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 1: Next speaker. Speaker 4: Good evening. Thanks for having me here. I want to talk about choices. Element of real estate. And the cost to live in this city has always been very, very expensive. It's been a choice of people to want better schools and better environment. Given the chance, we could all protest the cost of living today because it's high. I know I'm one of those old people that bought years ago when I was 21. I wanted to live in the Gold Coast, but, you know, I was dumb. 21 couldn't do it. I don't force anyone to rent for me. Not one person. I never knew that after years of struggling and buying day old bread, that I would now have silent partners telling me how to treat my property. Granted that there are some greedy landlords and there are some needy people. Shame on them for raising their rents that high. Shame on them. And shame on the tenants that make life miserable for their neighbors and their landlords and refuse to go. You know, it's a choice to live here. Not an entitlement. Please give me another minute. For every greedy provider, there are hardworking, honest property owners who appreciate tenants and give them a decent place to live. But for every bad tenant, there are wonderful, respectful, reliable, responsible tenants. I know I have rented under Section eight for over 32 years in this city. 70% of every one of the investments I've ever had. I rented to low cost people. Handicapped. Blind. Crippled. Retarded. That's not politically correct, but it's true. I can say that I have a daughter as special needs. I miss living in Alameda. But I made a choice to move to Elk Grove because there was a job opportunity there. And I took it was a hard choice to make. I love this city. This is my city. Please be fair to both sides. Let the rent ordinances work. Give them a chance. And don't penalize people that have paid their dues and tried their best to do this. Don't lump all of us and label us all. We're not all evil and we don't all wear the black coat and black hat. Thank you for your time. I appreciate it. Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. At this point, if you are in this room and you're here to speak on the landlord perspective, please raise your hand if you haven't spoken yet. Seeing no hands. I'm going to ask if you're in this room and you're here to speak on the tenant perspective, please raise your hand. All right, I see. One, two, three, four, five, six. All right. So those of you that are next stop, these line up on that wall. And who's ever in the front of the line. You'll be able to come up. State your name. We're going to. And. Staff. Amy, do you know if we have people in other rooms that are waiting to speak? It's my understanding we do not have speakers in any other rooms. If you are in another room watching us and you want to speak on this issue, please make your way here now. Thank you. All right. Next step. When you approach the mike, please state your name. You are not required to give your name, though. All right. We're ready to go. Speaker 9: Good evening, Mayor. Council members and staff. I'm Bill Smith and I think there's been a great hearing tonight. We've gotten a lot of passion, not a lot of ideas out. I want to address some things we've talked about from the individual point of view. And as one person talked about from policy point of view, we really have to consider the what's happening in the broader scheme to come with good policy. But one person said we need to build more to get out of this problem, but we can't build enough if we don't limit the jobs in Alameda, can't limit the jobs in the region. So that's not going to be a solution is to build our way out of it. And so if we don't build our way out of it, we're going to have a we're going to have a constraint. And so the way the free market works, it's not a free market. We have a constraint. So it's not a free market. So then we have a constraint. So that means that prices will go up and that'll serve the wealthiest of our communities. That'll drive up the prices. A lot of the hardships that you've heard here will continue. And it's not only on the individuals, but we have a lot of lower paid people that work at grocery stores, who work at teachers. We heard from a teacher tonight from professionals. We've heard from one of the new businesses this morning, athletic company, a person there, a good level position. She can't stay in the floor. It's going to be her business. If we put in rent control that can help individuals. It can serve as a recruiting tool for our businesses, too, and help develop alameda point and bring attract a business if we want it. Thank you. And best wishes with this decision. Speaker 0: Thank you. Next speaker. Speaker 1: Well evening. Thank you for having me. My name is Estella Moya, and I'm a teacher here in Alameda. I moved from Florida in 2011 to be close to my family. And every year I have noticed that my income stays the same in my rent is going higher in higher and up and proportionate way. And I'm afraid that in this coming year, when they rise, I have to sign the new contract is going to be so high that I had to move. And the purpose of me coming here from Florida was defeated because I will not be able to be close to my family. I live here and I love to live here and I love to teach here in Alameda. I would like to continue being here. And I will have to say something that for some people, maybe talking about 10% is not a lot, but for me, 10% every year. And this coming increase is going to represent a $180, which is a lot of money because for one little apartment, $180 in, I pay 1800 dollars. And another thing before, if you let me say something, I don't even know my landlord, because every time I ask for in the office, they say that there's people who live abroad , abroad, and they don't they don't even want me to know who they are. And that's something that it doesn't help me to have a personal relationship with them. And I don't know how to feel about it. Thank you. Good evening. Speaker 0: Thank you. Next speaker. Speaker 9: Good evening, mayor spencer and members of the council and staff. I'm John Spangler and this is probably the 10th or 15th time I've addressed you in the last three years on rent control and rent increases. Linda and I were homeowners for 12 years. Then we sold our house. Now we're renters. We've been renters for five years. I would rather own my own house. The power balance is really interesting. You do not have any power at all. Surrender. How many homeowners would like it if their bank said, Oh, we decided to raise your rent, your mortgage rate by 15% this year because we needed the money. After signing a 30 year mortgage. It doesn't work that way. Owning property comes. It makes gives you privileges. People who rent, especially people I've met since I've became involved with the only two renters coalition a couple of years ago. Need justice. They need fairness. If I can finish up. Speaker 0: Yes, you may. Speaker 9: Couple of misconceptions. One, tenants together. What is not a statewide conspiracy that's come to Alameda to take over this town. How many renters coalition went to tenants together to get help for people getting rent increases of 35% per year in successive years. And if you do not have some form of rent control, how has the rent the opponents of rent control who have been speaking in the last half hour say how else are you going to go after those so-called greedy landlords, except by some form of rent stabilization? It needs to be fair. Absolutely. None of us want to go after the mom and pop landlords. We want to go after the people who are doing the rent increases of 35%. We don't want our friends who are landlords in this town, including Rick Stores in Glasgow going to church with for 15 plus years. We don't want to go after them with hammer and tongs. We want to go after the people who deserve it. Thank you very much. Speaker 0: Thank you. Next speaker. Speaker 9: Hello. My name is David O'Sullivan. I've been a renter in Alameda for four years. This is going to be short and sweet. Unfortunately, I think the passion that you've seen tonight. From both sides. You're not going to please everyone on one side in these things. Politics, unfortunately, someone is not going to be happy. My plea to you tonight would be. If you, the poor, the vulnerable, the people who are scared. A lot of people are very, very scared in this town. I think that's what the reaction was tonight. People are very frightened about their lives. What's going to happen to them? I would ask you to remember the poor, the vulnerable, the scared people in your decision. Speaker 7: We are going to make this very important decision. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Before you speak, let me repeat. For anyone that's watching in any other room, please make your way down here. We have four more speakers on this item. Thank you. You may approach. Speaker 9: Good evening, Mary Spencer. City Council and staff. My name is Garfield. Ken Cross. You may be familiar with me. I've lived here 23 years and I've been a federal employee for 30 years. I make $60,000 a year and the median income in Alameda is 72,000. So I figured that out a ways back. What I've received from a limited liability company which has taken over the property for the last five or six years, they've issued to me a notice to terminate my tenancy. And I'm going to I'm proving that this is retaliatory for several reasons. One of them is my opposition to them trying to enter my unit without a 24 hour notice. And I took a video of 12 people lined up from, you know, prospective buyers to enter my apartment. And the and the onsite manager wouldn't even provide their provide me with, you know, the names of these people. Then they fired the property management company. I can't even contact them. And I've received this notice, you know, and the attorney told me that they violated the the ordinance or California state law against retaliation. You know, and I can't I have no one to no one to call. And they they participated in this committee mediation process, which set them off. You know, that was that created these people to retaliate against me. Now I'm losing my residency, and I don't have credit because I've tried to avoid paying people so I could keep my apartment, keep from being homeless. I'm going to I might be homeless if the hotel in San Francisco denies my application and I'll be living in my car and taking a shower at Saint Vincent de Paul. And I work for the government, but that just doesn't sit right with me. I know that we. Government. People are the enemy of these because we want to regulate these fascists, these corporatists, and they don't want us in the way they think that we're in the way and they've got the right to do as they please. I'm urging you to consider or to do something, put a cap on just on this rent increases and these eviction notices. Then they gave me a letter before the manager was fired that I'm a good tenant. You know, I'm a good tenant. I paid my rent on time every year, never a partial payment. And this is the treatment I'm getting. They're trying to blow blow smoke at me with this. I've already got an attorney that says it's totally illegal. That's retaliation is within three months of of them trying to come into my apartment with 12 strangers, tracks, track dirt all through my apartment and everything, and not even tell me who's going to get the key to it. This limited liability company is named Homes Business LLC and the apartment is Bayview Apartments in Alameda and Jeff Cambria tried to do some mediation with them and he succeeded in having the landlord show up to the rec committee. And we succeeded in getting a two and a half percent decrease from a 10% this year. And last year it was it was a 10% increase. 30 other showed up in this room. Now, they don't want to be a part of it. I'm an activist committee. They're all intimidated and they're turning against me because I had the I had the balconies on my. Speaker 0: List lined up. Speaker 9: They would replace all the balconies because of me. Now I'm getting the the hammer. Speaker 0: And sir, could you provide if you want your contact information so I could follow up. Thank you. Speaker 9: Thank you very much. Speaker 0: Next speaker. Speaker 1: Hello. My name is Kirsten Upson. I am a native of the Bay Area. I've been an Alameda resident for seven years as a tenant and just recently I am a homeowner. And truly being a homeowner was was something I've always aspired to. And I have a great job. I'm an administrator at a public university. It's been as a therapist were middle income and as a previous speaker talked about, you know, it's always the housing prices are going up, rents are going up. And it's always was just a little bit out of reach. But we liquidated our retirement. We finally did it. We have two kids and a public school system here. My life is here. My family is here. And truly becoming a homeowner was because I was terrified of being a tenant. If my apartment had been brought up to market rate. You know, we would have had to move out of state, probably we wouldn't have been able to stay in the area. So I'm here to support my my friends and my family who are renters. And I'm just hoping that. This dialog gives you all some reason to to come up with some good policy to give tenants an option to, you know, to. I don't know. Try it. Exorbitant raises and unjust. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Next speaker. Speaker 10: Good evening. Laura Thomas. Renewed Hope Housing Advocates. I'm here tonight to speak very briefly in support of the notion of. Setting the taking the redevelopment money that is coming back to the city and setting up a housing fund out of out of it. I think, you know, what I'm talking about is in the staff report, I know it hasn't been discussed, but so I won't say much more about that because you know what I'm talking about anyway. It's a very emotional hearing. It's been 15 years, 16 years since Renewed Hope was founded when the last big dot.com, the last big techno boom pushed a bunch of people out of Alameda, most of them from the West End. And then there's been, you know, the you know, the eviction of all the people that. Summer house, the building that was summer house. I find myself very emotionally. Speaker 4: Affected by this. Speaker 10: And I had some remarks. I'm not actually going to go into them because I know we're I know you're limiting the time. But I do want to say that this is an economic expulsion happening here. It's probably the one of the most serious things that's happened in this city in the 30 years that I've lived here. And I think it's incumbent upon you, because you are elected officials, to take a stand, to stop it. And a moratorium is not rent control. You are not enacting rent control tonight. You're only stopping the most egregious evictions. And stopping rent increases for a period of time while this could actually be discussed. And the landlords who are good could put forward as they have their point of view. And the issue about whether rent control is good or bad destroys the city, raises crime, all those other things can actually. Speaker 1: Be. Speaker 10: Discussed throughout. All you're doing is considering a moratorium tonight, and I hope you pass it, because I think there's plenty of reason. To protect the citizens of this town they are under in. Like I said, they are under the threat of economic expulsion. It's like a forced migration of people out of Alameda. Thank you for giving me the time. Speaker 11: He told your class, we have one more speaker. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 9: Good evening, Mayor. City council members. I guess I'm one of the tenant outsiders. Speaker 7: My name's Eddie Water from. Speaker 9: Oakland Tenants Union. And obviously tonight, in this very limited space of time, we can't really we can't discuss any kind of details we can't discuss about all the time that's needed to counter the specious arguments we've heard from the landlords. Or for us to discuss what a meaningful rent control ordinance which should look like. And Alameda does look, there's definitely need one. Hopefully you guys will you folks will consider a really quality law. I the beauty of this of this evening, though, is that this would not have happened if it wasn't the tenants advocating for it and working really hard for it in the last couple of years. And I think the other tenant other tenant activists in the Bay Area, in the state. Look at our pride with the folks here in Alameda and Richmond are doing. And if. Speaker 7: Even if the moratorium. Speaker 9: Passes for the tenants, their work is just beginning because. Speaker 7: What they need is a. Speaker 9: Permanent, solid rent control and just cause law in the books. And I and I trust that they will get it one way or another. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. At this point, we have no more no further speakers. We have we did not do staff presentation. We took this out of order. You may recall those of you that were here at this point. STAFF It's my understanding you have approximately 40 minutes to present. Speaker 1: We do. And including I think the most important portion of that presentation is Ms.. Potter's presentation, which talks about different options that you have. And I would really urge the Council to give her a chance to talk about that. Speaker 0: Because I appreciate that I just need your time estimate at this time because we may be taking a short break before we do that. Okay. Speaker 3: And my suggestion was going to be that we could walk through the three parts of the staff presentation. We could I could do the presentation, which is the overview of the options. Our staff would be available to answer specific questions of the Council. Speaker 0: All right, so it's my understanding that we do need to do some presentation. So your estimate, like 15 minutes. Half an hour. 40 minutes. I'm not asking you to reduce your time. I'm asking you what your time estimate is. Speaker 3: Is there an interest in having a presentation about the rent study, about the rack process, and an overview of the staff report? If that's the case, if that's the pleasure of the council, we would need 30 to 40 minutes. Speaker 1: To do. Speaker 0: That. My. So let me ask counsel. Are we sufficient having that on the record without having it presented to us in regards to if we decided to make any decision tonight legally? Is that on the record? Because it's already been prepared. Speaker 4: The staff report is on the record. And so if it pleases the council to not have the rent study and some of the other studies presented tonight, it is on the record. It's in your packet, it's available on the website. It is before you tonight. If you would like to have an overview of that and be able to ask some questions about it. And I would recommend that you go ahead and allow them to do maybe a brief report. However, it could be done. The rest of the of the staff report that Ms.. Potter is referencing is sort of laying out to you what your actual deliberations should be tonight. And that is, of course, critically important. Speaker 0: All right. So I would prefer if we jumped off that we would take a short recess. When we return, that we start with your options and check in on our time and then see how much more data we would like before that we can get to us deliberating. Speaker 9: Madam Mayor. Speaker 0: And we could go ahead. Speaker 5: I think it's important to have some context before we get to the options that that are going to be presented. Speaker 9: So I. Speaker 5: I, I would like to have a concise overview. And I mean concise. So there's context to the options, and that context can be balanced against what we've heard tonight. Speaker 0: So the only reason I thought that we didn't necessarily that I would prefer not starting with that is that it is in the staff report. We had the ability to read it in advance. This is no new information that's being provided to council. So at that being said, let me hear from the other council members. Thank you. Speaker 7: Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. I would agree with the vice mayor's comments that it's important for us to have the context. You know, often we always have staff reports, but, you know, having presentation, especially on an issue that's critical, I think is important. And I know we can be concise, you know, and precise about it. Speaker 0: That would be helpful in that regard. Speaker 7: Can I finish, Mike? Can I finish my my comments, please? And I'd also like to hope that, you know, we as council members can, you know, withhold our comments to the end. That way, staff can be as efficient as they can and because they've done a lot of hard work on this presentation. Speaker 0: Member De Saag. Speaker 6: But my strong sense is that what policy options will mull over have to flow out of the data that's been prepared. So I'm, I'm fine with having a review by area economics and their study and any other pertinent information. Speaker 2: And I would just. Speaker 0: Say and then we ask, do you. Speaker 2: Think you merit that? I feel that while we have all read the material, our staff report and all the many attachments that represents a lot of hard work by our staff, we want to also inform the public and I don't expect that everyone went through the hundreds of pages. So to have that brief overview and I know Ms.. Potter will do a nice, concise job, I think as everyone, almost everyone has said, well, we'll just add context to the very important decision we have before, as I don't think this is something I'm mindful of the hour, but I don't think this is the place to cut corners. Speaker 0: And for me personally, we've had four council members say that they do need a brief overview. I'm going to since no council member shared what they think a brief overview is, I will be making that decision. A brief overview of the facts will be 10 minutes. We are going to take a ten minute recess. Thank you. Speaker 2: I don't think any of us agreed to that. But we'll we'll leave it to. Speaker 1: We will. Speaker 3: We will endeavor to be expedient. Thank you. Speaker 2: We can appeal the ruling. Yes, we can. Speaker 6: It's going to be 15. Speaker 9: So I. Speaker 5: I want to make sure that we have babies. All right. Speaker 1: All right. Speaker 2: I want you to speak to. Speaker 1: Hey. Speaker 0: Lara, can I ask you where we are in the time on a recess? Speaker 1: It's 919. We have 920 right now if you want to. Speaker 0: All right. We're going to return from our recess. Thank you, everyone. We're going to resume with our presentation. Speaker 9: Thank you, Madam Mayor. Speaker 5: Just on the last comment that. The last comment that Miss Potter's presentation is going to be limited to 10 minutes. I want to make sure that we have the sufficient time to synthesize what we've heard in 3 hours of testimony and that we're going to be presented prior that's going to be presented prior to the options that we're going to have to deliberate on. And if if it has to go over 10 minutes, I want to make sure that we have that opportunity to continue so that we give this sufficient do. Speaker 0: And I appreciate that. However, I'm going to say when I asked for the reduction of actually when I asked in regards to how long our public speakers would have to speak, they normally have 3 minutes. We were then the same person is speaking now, I believe said one minute, which is a big reduction. And I and it's also my understanding that staff is ready to proceed. So thank you. Speaker 2: I think Mr. Eddy was going to say. Speaker 7: Well, I want to I'd like to make a motion that we actually allow staff to take as much time as they need to present this very important issue. Speaker 0: Could you put a time limit? Speaker 2: I'm willing to second that motion. Speaker 0: All right. Speaker 9: I mean, we've got to. Speaker 7: Have a chance to discuss that earlier. I mean, you made a decision. You walked off the dais and then, you know, that was the end of that. So, you know, this is a really big deal because we had never had as many speakers in this council and we haven't had as many as far as I can remember , from the sun count days. Speaker 0: It's my honor. Speaker 7: That there are not. Can you let me finish, please? If we can't sit here and get an informed information from staff, then I don't know how we can make it. Make a decision that that's going to be so monumental if we make it. Speaker 0: It's my understanding that staff, when I went up and I asked how much time she needs, she said she could do it in 5 minutes. Speaker 8: It's just my part. Speaker 0: That's right. Exactly. So we have one part and that's the part that we're we're going through. Speaker 2: And I, I would. Speaker 0: So we have her. Speaker 2: I would concur, though, with the vice mayor and also Councilmember Odie. This is a monumental decision before us. If we were to shortcut the analysis by somehow truncating the look at the the data and the information that we will be basing this very important decision on, I think we are cheating the public and I think they will feel that way and wonder what, you know, where we sneaking around? Were we doing something underhanded? So let's be transparent. Let's give the information that was painstakingly gathered over a period, a significant period of time. Let's give it its due. And Madame Mayor, I think you've done quite a good job with quite a difficult meeting tonight. But bear in mind that there are five of us on the council. Speaker 0: So there's a motion to have unlimited discussion now by staff before we get to our time. Is that correct? Is that the motion? Speaker 5: No, I believe the motion is that the staff is going to be allowed sufficient time to give context. Speaker 9: To. Speaker 5: Their presentation and context to the decision that we're about to make. And that's and that's for that's for our benefit in in conjunction with what we've heard in testimony. And I voted for one minute and you generously gave additional time so that people could fill that out. And I appreciate that. But we do need and it's it's only 925. I think it's important that we move that we move in a manner that allows staff with the direction to be concise, to present what they need to present to us. Speaker 6: Madam Mayor, if I may remember, I do believe that the saying measure twice, cut once is incredibly important here, which means that we should gather all information that we can from our staff, from our consultants, and we might have questions that, you know, push the boundaries of the time beyond 5 to 10 minutes. So we need to be open to that. The saving grace is it is 930. We do have time. And I think in the end we need to make a decision and have a deliberation that our residents will be proud of. So I do think having a little bit more time doesn't hurt, but it helps awfully on. Speaker 0: That being said, we have a motion and a second. All those in favor. Speaker 1: I. Speaker 0: Oppose. And can you clarify? This is the consultant presentation. If we can follow along online. Thank you. So you can all follow along online or you could have read it in advance, but you can go ahead. Thank you. Speaker 8: Okay. Thank you. So again, good evening. My name is Janet Smith Heimer, and I'm the owner of a firm called B.A Urban Economics in the City engaged our firm in June 2015 to do a two part study, most of its data study. And then I have a couple comments and there were several pairs at the end of our report that looked at a couple of policy choices. Among many that you have. I think Debbie is going to go through a greater detail on more of them. So that first page. Thank you as sorry. Go back to that. Just to remind you of what we were saying a couple of hours ago, there's two big data sources and I'm going to talk about them in a minute. And I was just trying to be very clear when I started last time to describe that one ends in 2013 and the other is less perfect. It's for 50 unit above projects, but it's more current. So that was really my main point in the beginning. Next page. Thank you. So we went through that. Alameda has about 16,500 households that are renters in 2013. That's about 55% of all households. And then there was the point that the median incomes for renters in Alameda was about half of the owner households, 55,000 versus 115,000. Next page, please. Okay. We were asked to figure out how many households of the renters are over are seniors. And the answer there are the 16, 5000, 16,500 is about 30. 100 are aged 65 and older. And among that group of 3100, about 1300 are aged 75 and older. We were asked to look at the length of time that the renters have been present in Alameda, as we mentioned before. And about 13% of our households who are renters in Alameda have been living in the community since 1999 or sooner or earlier, and that's a higher rate than for Alameda County overall. Next slide, please. This is the new material. I think I was we didn't get to this slide last time. As you as I think you're well aware of, you've had a measure for a long time which has constrained your multifamily building permit. So this slide shows a little bit of data in that regard. Since 2000, you've permitted 112 multifamily units there. In the full report, it shows year by year, and most of those were the last two years. We did a calculation to figure out the ratio of how many multifamily units have been permitted in city volume. You know, the city of Oakland, Alameda County in the Bay Area per 1000 residents in 2000. So if you think of different sized cities to normalize that information. So the city of Alameda comes out at 1.5 multifamily units per 1000 residents in 2000, whereas Oakland, the county and the Bay Area have higher production. So I think one of the main things to think about here is the region does have a shortage of housing. We've heard some of the repercussions tonight. And and so those are the ratios even amidst a shortage that are approaching 20 or 25 units per thousand residents with the city of our unit being a lot less. I just want to mention in the last couple of years with the density bonus that you've adopted in your multifamily overlay, those those things are going to shift that trend. And that is where most of the multifamily has occurred in the last two years. Any eight units of the 112. So we have a really interesting mix of housing supply that houses renters. One of the things that really does not get discussed much, although I heard it this evening, is that about a quarter of your rental households live in single family homes. And this is true for almost every city that I've worked in the Bay Area in my career. When you actually look at where do all renters live, a good number, 20 or 25% in most cities in the Bay Area are actually renting single family homes. As you consider forms of rent stabilization and you will be guided through that by others. And when you look at cost Hawkins, which does limit what can be done statewide, single family homes are exempt. So, so even if you were to adopt a regulation, about a quarter of your supply would would automatically be exempt from that. We'll talk more about that in a minute. Another large amount, 28%, is in small to to force for unit buildings. And at the other end, a spectrum of 50 plus units, which we'll talk more about in a minute, is about 13% of all your rental housing. Next slide, please. So a lot of we've heard a lot of testimony about rent increases. So we looked at two kinds of data. As I mentioned in the beginning, the first kind of American community survey and other census data spanning the period of 2000 to 2013. So it ends in 2013. During that long 13 year period, you had a 54% overall rent increase. These are self-reported rents and there are some other caveats. But in the sake of time, I'll skip those happy answer questions. That averages about 4% a year for that 13 year period. Those were what your rents look like for that period of time among everybody. Just to contrast to rent are household incomes. While rents went up over that 30 year period, 54% incomes went up 29%. So not keeping pace with rent. When we look at the other data that's were current just for the larger projects, 50 plus units we can, that's what the graph shows. We're showing oh 711 in 2015 and we have data for every year in between there. But we picked 11 to 2015 year to date because that's the recovery period. And so that's the most recent data. Thinking about the last four plus years, you've had a jump of 52%, which is an average of 13% a year, at least on those larger properties. I know that just just to anticipate a question you might ask, it's very hard to find data other than the American community survey for your smaller properties. One quick survey. But that's really the only way to do it. So there is no good other data covering the rest of your properties that we can show you. The final point here is in your 50 plus unit properties, the most recent data, the average rents, this is all sizes of units. Among those properties is over $2,000 a month. Next slide, please. Okay. Put it in perspective a little bit. Your your Almeida is experiencing a lot of rapid rent increases, but really so is everybody. So this is just for those same 50 plus unit projects, the sources, real answers. We're showing you all the cities in Alameda County. And this is kind of a quick way to say that munis average at just over $2,000 from those projects is less of a number than some of the other cities. So you can see Berkeley at the far end exceeding $3,000 across those larger properties. And at the end at the other end, San Leandro is much lower, 1500 something. That's that slide. Let's next slide. We wanted to really focus on need. I think that's one of the really key questions facing you is how do we get to answer and understand better about need, who's most at need of or impacted by these by the rents? One metric that I'm happy to answer more questions about, it's slightly old data too. It's from the federal government, but it's about the rent burden. So rent burden means how much of a percent of income do you pay for your housing costs? Just to be clear, rent burden in this context is both rent and utilities. So it's really your gross housing costs. So this data shows you just the cut of the very low income households in Alameda in 2012, as reported by the federal government, HUD, you had about 5125 very low income renter households. That means households earning 50% or less of the area, median income excuse me, about 40. Yes. Speaker 2: Clarifying question here. Could you put a number on that? I know we hear about the area median income, but just for our audience and for our. Speaker 0: It's hard to. Speaker 8: Do succinctly because it varies by the size of the household. So there are charts that we could pull that would tell you. But I think roughly a family of four oh stuff and you have the chart. Four. For a family of four at 50%, am I 46,000? Speaker 2: It's fair to say that again. Speaker 8: For a family of four in Alameda County. These very low income households. So 50% and their immune is 46,000. Is that right? Yeah. Though it varies by household size. I'll just read it really quickly here to give you the full spectrum. So a one person, very low income household makes 32,550. Or a person makes 46,450. Those are very low incomes. 50% am-I are below that. Speaker 1: How? Speaker 8: Okay. So back to this metric about needs, so you have about 5000 105,000, one or 25 real income households, you know, roughly earning between 32 five and 46 four essentially on this chart, if you assume they're mostly 1 to 4 person households and 4000 of those are paying more than a third of their income in rent. Again, this was in 2012, so it's likely that that was before the most recent spikes in rents that these numbers would probably shift upwards if one had the data. The the group considered the most at risk by most housing analysts are the group that pays that's very low income and pays half or more of their income for housing. And so among your 5125 households, you have about 3000 that are doing that. So they're earning somewhere between, you know, below 30, 25 to 46 five if depending on their household size and they're paying half of that in their housing costs, or at least they were in 2012. There are more detail in the full report about a few of the kinds of households that are in this data about senior housing and senior households in single households. But we did not. I like that for this, for brevity of presentation, we'll move on sort of back to the 50 units plus. This is a kind of a little out of order here, but this is placing you on vacancy. So the way to think about this is you saw a moment ago that you all the cities had high rents. Your rents have been rising. So of all the cities here is vacancy, which is one way to think about will this keep going? We all have very low vacancies in Alameda County. You remember that San Leandro had the lowest average rent on those large properties. On the other graph you're at showing as also the lowest vacancy rate. So the market will go where the rents are lower, but those usually then cause a higher rent increase. So when you get down that low, you will usually expect a rent increase. I forgot to mention that most analysts think of 5% as a healthy vacancy rate. Anything below five starts to lead to what you know the various terms for housing crunch, housing crisis. The reason it's five is that allows for turnover. So people do need to move around and 5% is considered sort of an imbalance healthy market. So then all cities in Alameda County right now are below that. You're registering at 2.7. Is there again only the larger properties, but those are the ones that are tracked. Next slide, please. Please. Almost finished. So stop. Asked us to try to make an estimate and we worked with staff to try to estimate made what units might be, what units are, how many units are on Alameda who are not automatically exempt from rent stabilization due to cost to Hopkins. I mentioned a moment ago that single family are exempt statewide. Also exempt are government subsidized units, affordable units, and other kinds of units that are owned by certain entities. Like in your case, you have Coast Guard units. So this is really taking all of the rental housing numbers from the latest data and subtracting our estimates of the number of units that would be exempt to get to a very rough number of what's left. So you recall before you had about 16,500 renter households, and that's almost the same as units because vacancy is so low. And so we're estimating that just under 12,000 of those, or about 71%, could be subject to some form of rent stabilization. And the remainder, the other 29% would be automatically exempt because of Costa Hawkins. Next slide. Speaker 6: A question on that. How does that apply to, say, section eight, since that's a certificate or voucher, but it's a privately held unit? Speaker 8: Yeah, it's kind of a complicated answer, Deputy. You want to make that answer? That answer or. Speaker 2: You have to taken the microphone. Speaker 8: If it's with the project, it's the government subsidized, if it's with the tenant, with the voucher moving around because there are two kinds of S.A, they're under their own kind of rent control because HUD controls what the amount of money is. And so that's what they're paying 3%, but the total is the amount of the voucher. And so it's really a landlord decision to accept that voucher. Speaker 6: I see. Yeah. Thank you. Speaker 8: Okay, next slide. You asked us to also look at how short term rental market like Airbnb might be affecting the situation in Alameda. And we're very fortunate that we've actually done some of the same kind of work for other cities, larger cities in the Bay Area. And over time, I've gotten to know some of the folks at Airbnb who are very nice to share some information. Not every. But you can get to this. But they looked and ran a little bit of data for us and told us that Alameda City has about 100 active hosts here, which means people who are posting something to rent on Airbnb. As most of you know, if you've looked at Airbnb or participate in it, this ranges anywhere from a spare bedroom or even a spare, you know, sleeping space to it can range to a whole unit, either your house or a second unit. So there are ways to refine this data and sort it. But because the total number was fairly small, we stopped there and wanted to report to you that they're showing about 100 active hosts on their data on their website. They gave us a median for the number of days that these that these any kind of you know, I hesitate to say, you know, any kind of rental is booked and the median Alameda City is 44 days a year, which we thought was not very long. And the median income for these hosts is 30 $800 a year. So what we're concluding from this is probably that level of activity and those kinds of numbers suggest that it's very unlikely many of these rented spaces are would otherwise be available for 12 month leases. Given the kinds of numbers that you're seeing here. Speaker 6: Just enough why we do the math of 100 active hosts at 3800 a year. That means that there are generating $380,000, which for the city of Alameda, if we apply, the top tax rate would be $38,000. Speaker 8: So and you certainly, you know, another day, another topic but certainly there is that there is that OC almost finished. So you had us do a couple of quick looks at some policies. We do. A lot of us work all over and we just had finished a long report on Just Cause. But Debbie is going to report to you on that. We did it for another national client. But just to go through the ones that we were asked to look at, one idea was what if we waive our transfer tax and dedicate those funds to help subsidize or reach agreements with landlords who might hold down rents for eligible parties? And so we didn't do a lot of analysis on this, but we do see that you have a $12 transfer tax locally. It's $12 on each thousand dollars of sale price, and it contributes about 7 million to senator, 7 million to your general fund, at least this year budget. We did a little bit of math on the side. There's a little bit mentioned in the report. Basically, if you start to try to figure out how you could apply those dollars because the affordable rents per the normal I levels of 30% of some of those very low income numbers are much lower amounts than what your market rate rents look like. You would have to be spending a fairly sizable amount of money depending on how you did it, to make that waiver pay for more than a few years. It's certainly something to consider, but it won't buy you on its own permanent, affordable units, or at least very many. We also look at direct subsidy. I think Debbie is going to report on more about boomerang funds, which is certainly one source that cities in the Bay Area and elsewhere in California have been rededicating to affordable housing. You certainly could do direct subsidy. The city already does. You have a number of programs that help fund some new housing production and some rehab. And so this would be really adding to what you're already doing. You certainly could consider doing some more. Most of that is added would be to add units to the supply. So a slightly different view than your existing rental stock. And the final thing I want to mention, which was asked slightly differently of us, but this is what we wanted to sort of bring before you, just so that you have a good understanding. There is something called low income housing tax credits. These are what most nonprofit housing developers use to build new units. It's a very common production mechanism. It usually needs other subsidy from cities like three or General Fund to help make those projects pencil. But one option and many nonprofits do do this is you can also acquire existing buildings. You usually have to pay market rates for those. So it can cost a lot of money, but then you can refinance that through low income housing tax credits if you do what's called substantial rehab. Which is about $12,000 a unit. So if you think about most of your older properties, usually a new kitchen and some wiring will actually equal the needs. And also making them accessible per ADA is often a really key improvement. So this is a fairly common approach that a number of the local nonprofits do do, or they acquire market on the market buildings and they they use this financing mechanism and some other subsidies are usually necessary. They do that kind of rehab and then those units are affordable for multiple decades. The federal is 20 years in the state I think is 30 years. So that's one way to create an affordable housing supply using that financing mechanism. That does not depend on only new construction. And there was interested in understanding how the property tax waiver plays into this. There are several sections in the state tax code that allow nonprofits and a few other select groups of kinds of owners, hospitals and a few others to, if they build affordable housing, to be exempt from property taxes. So that does help make the whole thing pencil. It's only part of the bigger puzzle. That's the end of my presentation. Sorry. It was a little longer than 5 minutes. I'm happy to answer questions. Speaker 0: All right. Clarifying questions. I'm going to start to my left member, Audie. Remember Day said. Speaker 6: I was. What struck me about the Boomerang fans was possibly looking at it as a rental subsidy. But in doing the math, let's say you divide the 16, the $1.6 million annually by 800 very elderly at risk. You know, the monthly subsidy is almost less than $100. Right. Speaker 8: So you need more like 1000 or more dollars a unit. Speaker 6: Exactly. Right. Speaker 9: So it's. Speaker 6: Completely possible that it would be done for purchasing or building a. Speaker 8: But that's how you could do it and you could do the tax credit layer. I think Debbie is going to talk some more about that, too. Speaker 0: Any other clarifying questions? All right. I have clarifying questions. Okay. All right. And in regards to this report, first of all, I don't see page numbers on it, so I'm not quite sure how to refer to pages. They were. All right. If you can turn to the page that says recent rental rate trends. Speaker 8: On the do you mean on the protesters? We just gave her on the fuller. Speaker 0: Report, the presentation we just made. Speaker 8: There are page numbers on it, I think. Well, maybe. Speaker 0: No, they're not on mine. Speaker 8: Sorry. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 2: So there is my pen. Speaker 0: So this your statement is rents across all rental household reportedly increased 54% between 2020 13. Does that mean that you tracked one person renting a place and you know that their income increased? Speaker 8: No, this is census data. So it's not from us. This is an American community survey data. This is tracking places. So you don't track people in that dataset. You track the place. Speaker 0: So if rents increased in between tenancies, do you have any data that shows what percentage of that is for a tenant that is a long term tenant or if there was any change in tenancy? Speaker 8: Unfortunately, as I mentioned, there's no real way to get to that city wide. The 50 unit above is a better data source, but it's only for those larger projects. And they do track that. Speaker 0: They track individuals. Speaker 8: They know they track again the units. But answering your second question, what we're talking about there is, is what they're reran to. Speaker 0: So my my concern is, do we have any data that tracks an individual renting? What rent increases do they get? What was their average increase if they stayed in one place for the past year? Do you have any data on that? No. About two years of the same tenant stays in one place for two years. Do you have any average data for that tenant? The average data for tenants. Speaker 8: Nobody does. So we don't know nobody. Speaker 0: So I just want to clarify. So we actually. Contrary to the data, the anecdotal evidence that we received this evening, you do not have any data that tracks individual tenants and what the impact has been. Speaker 8: There's a yes, but so I'm going to try to give the yes. But but what this data is doing is telling. Speaker 0: I'm sorry, I'm not asking for a yes, but I'm asking if you have direct data that tracks tenants in a field. Speaker 1: There is no. Speaker 8: Way to track individuals. Speaker 0: Thank you. I want to clarify. Okay. Speaker 2: All right. Clarifying question would be, what is the. Yes. Speaker 8: Okay. So what this data is doing and it's two kinds of data, but it's tracking the unit and what it rents for. So there is a slight distinction. Speaker 0: I had another question. So if we can study questions after. Speaker 8: Mine. Speaker 2: That thought. Speaker 0: Well, thanks. Okay. And I had already asked all the other people if they had any questions. So let's continue. You have another chart. Regional rental rate trends. That actually shows Alameda. It shows the eighth highest average of rental rate of 13 Alameda County cities. You could also say that we're the fifth lowest. And Berkeley is the first. And we're the highest. Do they have rent control? Speaker 8: Yes, they do. But again, it only applies to buildings built before 1990. Speaker 0: Okay. Well, could could our customer, could our city have any rent control that does anything different? Speaker 8: The units that are causing the 3000 a month are the market rate units, not the rent stabilized units in Berkeley, but. Speaker 0: Rent control in Berkeley would allow me to would still have cost to Hawkins, is that correct? Speaker 8: You are subject to it, yes. So newer units will go to market rate, all units will go to market rate when a tenant leaves. The combination of those two things in a high demand rent controlled city like Berkeley, some are exempt and and the rest go to market, which. Speaker 0: I appreciate that. Speaker 8: Creates a $3,000. Speaker 0: Average. My next question, does Oakland have rent rent control? Speaker 8: They have on a more moderate form. Speaker 0: Okay, Emeryville. Speaker 8: No. Speaker 0: Dublin. Speaker 8: No. Pleasanton. No. Speaker 0: Newark. Speaker 8: No. Speaker 0: Fremont. Speaker 8: No. But they've considered it. Speaker 0: Alameda is no. Union City. No. Livermore. Speaker 8: They've considered. Speaker 0: But the answer's no. Correct? No. Castro Valley? No. Speaker 8: Hayward here in San Leandro both considered it multiple times. Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. Member Ashcraft, your clarifying question. Speaker 8: Yes, I think Hayward has it. I'm sorry. You have a mild misspoke. Speaker 2: Do you do you remember the question this was you were being asked if the studies tracked individual renters, you said no units, but you said there was a yes but answer. Speaker 8: Yeah, that's the yes. But so there is no way. In other words. So let's just take an example. There's no way that you can say Mary Jo moved in in 1999. What has her rent increase been every year in Alameda in that four plex except asking her or the landlord? Nobody can track that. There is no anyone who alleges that they have data that they can say what that would. The answer would be there isn't any data like that. Long ago there was from the federal government, but it's all ended. So instead this is the only data there is. You call people at their unit as in 2012 and you say, How long have you been there? What did you pay last year and what are you paying this year? And that tells you how long they've lived there and what their most recent rent was. Okay. And you keep calling a statistical sample over and over in all these cities, and that's how you get data about the units and what they're renting for. In effect, that's the same thing because whether and it doesn't answer the mayor's question about certain individuals, but what it does describe to you is your market. So a market will respond to that same signal. So landlords will follow the market and generally raise rents. I don't know how landlords in Alameda behaved or certain groups have behaved. What we do know is that rents have risen, so we can't cut it any more fine grained than that with respect to individuals. Speaker 2: Thank you. Speaker 1: Mm. Speaker 0: Any other members want to ask any other clarifying questions. Remember Odie. Speaker 7: I think you just one on that slide. We were just going over the regional rental rate trends. Speaker 1: Uh huh. Speaker 7: So this data, it says data are only I'm sorry, data are for rental properties with 50 units or more. Speaker 8: The. Speaker 7: Larger that just Alameda or do all of these cities is this the 50 year unit more data. Speaker 8: Per minute. This is the larger projects, right. Speaker 7: Okay. So the that 3000 that doesn't include single family homes or for Plex's or any of that stuff. Speaker 8: Right. But not to confuse it with exempt from Costa Hawkins. It's just a private data vendor who only tracks large projects. So Berkeley has some you guys up. Some of these cities have some, but they're tracking those every quarter. They're calling a property manager and asking what's their vacancy, what rents are, what are the most recent rents on your one bedrooms? And then, you know, that's how the data comes to us. So you can track quarter by quarter. Speaker 7: Thank you. Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Speaker 6: Thank you very much. I really enjoyed that. The information that you put together and the policy suggestions that you put out the back. What really caught my eye was the runner by age on page 17. It was interesting because I was looking at 2002 thousand of the 15,700 renters or so, roughly 10%, 12% were age 65 and older. But then in the two for 2013, and I think that's a three year sample, you know, the number suddenly went up to 18%. So clearly, this is a a function of the aging baby boomer, for sure. Speaker 8: Where are the boomers? And we're urbanized. I am and we're aging. Speaker 6: But I think from a policy perspective, this is also a segment of demographics whose income is constrained. And in the other data that you show with regard to the the very low income. I'm remembering off the top of my head, of the very low income who are spending 50% or more of their income on rent. I think 20% of them. Where were the elderly or the elderly? So, you know, what this speaks to is, like I said from the outset, is, you know, getting at look at the data and then figuring out, you know, what are the appropriate policy steps. All right. I really appreciate this very much. Speaker 8: Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. So this is now Steph's presentation if you're following along online. Speaker 3: Good evening. And just to introduce myself again, I'm Debbie Potter, and I'm the city's community development director. And I'm going to be talking about an overview of the staff report. So my presentation this evening is going to touch on three things a brief summary of our current rent review system, the continuum of program and policy options that staff has gathered for counsel, and then recap the recommendations that are in the staff report regarding counsel. Direction to staff. So as has been referred to on multiple testimony this evening, the city currently has a rent review, rent mediation process. That process we are short shorthand for that is a rent review advisory committee or RAC. And I do want to say that the RAC has been in place actually since 1979. So it has been around for a long time. And the work that was done more recently was the council working to strengthen that process that has been in place since 1979. The RAC encourages dialog between property owners and tenants. It's really modeled on mediation and the idea that if you bring two parties together and two parties have an opportunity to talk through issues and concerns that you can reach a resolution that works for for both parties. The RAC, the mediation process applies to all rental properties in the city of Alameda. In fact, even somebody renting a room in a house would be able, under our rent review process, to to approach the RAC. Our system is initiated by tenants. Tenants are the ones who complete a rent increase complaint form a Rick and that Rick is submitted to staff. And that is the process that gets the RAC underway. That's what what what starts the process. And then once that Rick is filed, the tenant and the landlord appear before a public mediation which is presided over by the RAC board. And as the name implies, RACS decisions are non-binding and advisory only. So that's an important component of the mediation process. As also has been talked about this evening, there have been recent changes to the city's rent review process, the culmination of a yearlong community engagement process that was initiated by the community and was led on a volunteer basis by a community member. Mr. Jeff Canberra came forward with a series of six points that staff translated into an ordinance at the direction of council, and that ordinance went into effect on October 1st. The intent of the ordinance was to strengthen our existing rent review process. So we did a couple of things in that ordinance. One is that we really wanted to make sure all of the tenants in the community knew that they could. There was a process of mediation that they could avail themselves of. So one of the things that was put into place was a mandatory noticing so that property owners have to notice tenants when their rent is increased of the availability of the rec process. So that was to really expand outreach and education functions. The second change that was that went into effect October one was to make the property owners participation mandatory in the event that a tenant filed a risk and wanted to have a hearing before the the rec. In the past, the landlord's participation was voluntary. The new changes made that participation by the landlord mandatory. And then that kind of the stick about all of this is that if a rent increase is not properly noticed, or if a landlord chooses not to participate in the mediation hearing the rent increase is null and void. And those were the two changes, the two primary changes that were put into effect and have been in place for the last five weeks or so. The second ordinance that went into effect on October 1st, what were were aimed at really kind of bringing the RAC into the fold of the city, family of boards and commissions since the rack had been around since 1979. And it was really set up by a motion of the council. It had never been quite as formalized as the rest of the city's boards and commissions. So the ordinance did a couple of things. The second ordinance, it added the rack to the municipal code and kind of aligned the racks operational requirements to be consistent with our boards and commissions. So going forward, black members are nominated by the mayor and appointed by the council. Members are eligible to serve a maximum of two four year terms. And then the composition of the rack as it is a mediation body is two members are tenants, two members are housing providers and one member is a neutral property owner. So there was some discussion at council's October 20th meeting about how whether or not they wanted to move forward with appointing new RAC members. We have several vacancies under the rubric of the new ordinance or not, or if there was a desire to discuss potentially restructuring the RAC as an outcome of some of the direction that we might receive tonight. I will say at this time that staff is recommending that the Council continue forward with its appointment process as it's contained in the existing ordinance that went into effect on October 1st. So I want to talk a little bit about the continuum of tenant protections and really that that continuum is all about the amount of government regulation in the landlord tenant relationship and then that if the government is going to get more or less involved in that relationship, what are the, you know, the amount of sort of city resources that need to be dedicated to carrying out those tenant protections. So on one end of the spectrum, you have non-binding mediation. That is what we have in the city of Alameda. And then you have a spectrum along which on the kind of on the other side of that continuum is rent control, the non-binding mediation. And rent. Tenant protections that are less than rent control apply to all units or have the ability to be applied to all you all rental units in the city. When you continue on the spectrum and get rent control, you are then limited by what we refer to as the Costa Hawkins, which is state legislation that preempts essentially the amount of local government discretion in setting, you know, rent control. So we are limited by by the parameters of Costa Hawkins and we'll talk a little bit more about what those limitations are. But we don't have a complete free hand in how rent control would be set up or structured. So given that given that continuum between non-binding mediation, voluntary mediation and rent control, to talk a little bit, you heard from speakers this evening about keeping the RAC process and looking for ways to strengthen the mediation program, our rent review program here in the city of Alameda. So I want to just highlight some some possible strategies for for strengthening the mediation program. One, some people have talked this evening about just give the recent changes time to work. And initially, that's what staff was proposing. These ordinances will go in place. They'll be in place in 12 months. We'll come back and report on progress. I think it's become apparent that perhaps there needs to be a little bit more be a little bit more proactive about ways to continue to strengthen our mediation system. So these these next bullet points there. They're not mutually exclusive. And they are options that the council could consider some all or none of these. But I'm just starting and running through the list. We don't limit there is no regulation limiting the number of times rents are increased here in the city of Alameda. So one idea is to make it more explicit that rent increases could only be given once a year whether you have a lease or not. And some cities, Palo Alto and Mountain View is going to be looking at this. They have programs where they actually require the landlord to offer that. A landlord has to offer a lease. They can't just do a month to month. So that's kind of that gets at the same issue. That's a strategy that gets at that issue. Another suggestion that's been put forward is make them have a mandatory hearing for any rent increase over a certain percent, such that if you raise your rent over more than a certain percent, you'd have a mandatory appearance in front of the rack. The logic of that would be that perhaps that would be a deterrent to raising a rent up to that percentage because you might not want to go before the rack to mediate that rent increase. The another suggestion that's been put forward is expand the role of rack to mediate. No cause evictions. You heard a lot tonight about the kind of work arounds that might be going on, but loopholes, I think it was referred to in lieu of giving rent increases and having to notice your tenant and go through the the mediation, perhaps you you do a 30 or 60 day of action. Something like this might help with that. We've also heard that tenants might not be availing themselves of the rack process as much as they might otherwise if they were feeling less intimidated or a little bit less overwhelmed about the process. So another suggestion brought forward was the city could hire an ombudsperson, a staff person who would work with the tenant and help guide the tenant through the process, from filling out the report to talking to staff to appearing at the Rack meeting. And then the last suggestion that has been thought about is the city funding, third party mediation, just kind of making the mediation process here in Alameda more robust with an opportunity to to look at additional mediation efforts in addition to the rack. And then this is just kind of a sampling of cities that have mediation programs throughout the state and the Bay Area just to and we're not alone with our mediation program and there are other jurisdictions that do have mediation. So then I'm sorry. Speaker 2: Clarifying question, Madam Mayor. Thank you, Mr. Potter. Do you know if any of these cities that are listed on this slide have binding mediation programs? Speaker 3: I believe that these are all voluntary mediation. Speaker 2: Okay. Which which means, again, it's advisory and non-binding. So. That's correct. Speaker 4: Okay. Speaker 5: Very fine question. Speaker 0: Vice mayor. Speaker 5: Miss Potter, can you explain before we go on to the other the other rent stabilization points that are coming up in the presentation, can you explain the, uh, the standing that a tenant gets with the decision from the rack? Because I know that was talked about and when the ordinance without but when they it's it's non-binding it's advisory but what what. What happens when the tenant gets a ruling in their favor? And say there's an unlawful detainer filed by their landlord. How does that play into it? Speaker 2: Are you referring to if the noticing is improper? Speaker 1: Yes. Okay. Speaker 3: So. I'm sorry. Could you? I got confused when you were asking about the noticing. Speaker 5: Yes. Can you explain it? To make it more simple. What protections come along with the tenant with regard to court proceedings? Speaker 3: Well, if a tenant under the new ordinance that went into effect October 1st, if a tenant is not properly noticed about the availability of the rack, the rent increase is null and void until properly noticed. If a landlord were to serve a tenant with an unlawful detainer prior to re noticing properly, then the ordinance is is evidence in a court of law that they that the eviction was not warranted because the ordinance says you have to properly notice and if you don't properly notice it until you properly notice, the increase is not valid. And then in the in the alternative or in the other situation, if a landlord does not participate in the mediation hearing , then the rent increase is null and void and the rent cannot be increased for one year. And if, once again, if a tenant is served with an unlawful detainer, they can go with the ordinance in hand to the court, show the judge that this is the ordinance. And that becomes a defense in an unlawful detainer pursuant to. Speaker 0: Member. Speaker 7: Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to kind of follow up on that. So if if a tenant goes to the rec and they get an opinion from the rec that their position prevails, then then what happens? I mean. Speaker 3: So. So the way it works at a RAC meeting, the landlord, the tenant will present their their position about why they think the rent increase was was not warranted. And the landlord will present their, you know, their position about why they did the rent increase the way they did. The rack essentially asks questions of both parties and works to move the parties closer to a resolution. And if the parties agree, then the. Speaker 1: RAC will. Speaker 3: Issue. You know, essentially the RAC will say, okay, the parties agreed and this is what they recommended. If the Rockies saying we think that the rent increase probably makes more sense at 6%, let's say it was eight and the two parties agree to the 6%, then off they go to do to do their agreement. If the rec says 6%, we think that's more reasonable and the property owner says, I want my 8%. Then it's not a resolved case. And the the next recourse for the tenant is they can appeal to city council and request that the Council. Speaker 1: Uphold the. Speaker 3: RAX recommendation. But that's all the Council can do, that the property owner can still stay. Thank you very much, City Council, for your consideration. I'm still going to raise the rent 8%. Speaker 7: Thank you. Speaker 3: So continuing on the continuum of tenant protections on the other end from non-binding mediation is rent stabilization. As I mentioned, Costa Hawkins has several big presumptions. One is that single family homes and condominiums, as well as rental units built after 1995, are exempt from rent control. In addition to, as was mentioned by Janet. Government subsidized or government owned housing. So our estimate is that if the council were to move forward with rent stabilization, that tenant protection would apply to approximately 71% of the city's rental housing stock, taking into account primarily the single family homes being exempted. We had not that many multi-family units built after 1995, probably about 65 units or something. And the other big slug for us is government owned in government subsidized housing. So rent stabilization allows automatic rent increases. And those automatic rent increases, those annual automatic rent increases are set by the local jurisdictions. And those automatic rent increases can be a flat percentage increase. For example, in San Jose, they have a flat increase of 8%. They can be tied to CPI, for example. Oakland's is 100% of CPI. Or it could be. Speaker 2: Just for those who don't follow all the acronyms that the. Speaker 3: Price increase or it could be a percentage of the consumer price index, such as in Berkeley, where it's set at 60% of CPI. But that is the annual allowable increase. And then in addition to setting. And an annual automatic increase. Rent stabilization requires a hearing officer or a separate board to review return on investment and other types of petition petitions for rent control to be constitutional. It must guarantee the property owner a fair return on their investment. And therefore you need to have an infrastructure that has a hearing officer or a board to analyze and rule on the return on petitions for a return on investment. If you need to make a case that the annual automatic increase is not sufficient to guarantee your right to a fair return on investment, you need to have a mechanism to adjudicate those. And then you also need to be able to adjudicate other types of petitions having to do with things like capital improvements. People talked about, you know, new roofs, new you know, new capital, private investment that you have to recoup the cost of that. So you so you need that infrastructure. And then another thing that you would have to think about if you went down this road is if you're hearing officer and board decisions would be final or would they be advisory with an ability to appeal to the city council? Speaker 0: If they appealed to the city council, could they be would we have that same choice? Could they be final at city council? Speaker 3: Yeah, it would be final. That would be the administrative remedies and then it would be court would be the next recourse for that. Speaker 0: So if it's final. But what is that? Could that apply to all homes, including. Speaker 3: No. Now that we're talking about rent stabilization, we're in that we're in the realm of 71% of the city's housing stock. Speaker 0: All right. All right. Thank you. Speaker 6: I have a question on rent stabilization. And on the next slide of rent control, when we're using these phrases, are there, are there, are we using it in a particular legal manner? And I ask that because just just give you background to the question. One of the things I'm interested in is relocation assistance. I've had people tell me that relocation assistance is rent control, but but relocation assistance in the context of your presentation is another slide. So I think this might be a legal question as well. So when we talk about rent stabilization and rent control, is that mutually exclusive from relocation assistance? Speaker 3: So we as staff are using rent control and rent stabilization interchangeably so that that it's the same it's it has the same meaning. Rent stabilization. Rent control. And you'll see coming up, when we talk about relocation benefits, staff does not believe that relocation benefits are constrained by Costa Hawkins. And we have a slide about that. Speaker 6: I appreciate that. That's very helpful. Speaker 3: And then the other area where Costa Hawkins preempts local authority is in that type of rent control that you can have all rent control in the state of California must allow the landlord to establish the initial rate, rent rate for a vacant unit. So that's often referred to as vacancy control. The landlord can establish the rent for a vacant unit. Once a tenant is living in the unit, then the rent is is controlled based on those automatic annual increases and then any other adjustments that I was referring to in the prior slide. And that so it's called vacancy control. Re control. When that when that in place tenant moves out, the landlord can then raise the rent up to market. And then once again the unit is re controlled. So vacancy decontrol re control. And then the other type of rent control that is far less common is what's called permanent control, and that is rent control that when the or an ordinance is adopted, establishing rent control, it applies to tenants who are in place in their units at the time the ordinance is adopted. When that tenant moves out, the unit ceases to be covered by rent control and it's permanently controlled. So you would you know, you would you would shrink your inventory of rent controlled units under the permanent control. So those are the two types of rent control jurisdictions are allowed to have in the state of California. And then this was another point that was alluded to that some of the public speakers this evening, there's also within rent control, a continuum of enforcement and regulatory authority. So it was mentioned that some rent control programs, rent stabilization programs are a tenant complaint based program such as in Oakland. If you feel that your rent has been raised outside of what was allowed to be raised, then you can file a complaint so that it is initiated by the tenant, the city of Hayward. That's how their program, their rent control, works to. It's a tenant complaint based program. Speaker 2: How would you characterize Almeida's program, The Rack? Speaker 3: Well, that is also tenant complaint based. That's mediation versus the rent stabilization. Speaker 2: Okay. Okay. Speaker 3: And then on the other end of the continuum, you have landlord registration where landlords have to affirmatively register their unit. The city notifies tenants of the allowable rent increase and that there's it's a much more robust program in terms of the enforcement and the regulatory authority. A tenant complaint based system is there is it's less. There's less to do on staff's part, since it looks to the tenants to bring the complaints forward. So, for example, in the city of Hayward, their program cost less than $50,000 a year to run. And then when you get to the landlord registration, such as the city of Berkeley, the city of Berkeley's program costs $4 million a year. That's the annual budget for the rent control program in the city of Berkeley. So now moving into there are two other types of tenant protections that we want to talk about that are that are tenant protections but are not protections necessarily tied to protecting people against rent increases. And so that's going to just cause eviction is one and the relocation benefits is the other. So just cause eviction is like in its name implies that there that that is an eviction for cause. And typically when you talk about evictions for cause, you're talking about nonpayment of rent, a tenant conducting illegal activities in their unit, being a disturbance to their neighbors, not allowing the quiet enjoyment of their neighbors unit. Those kinds of things are considered for cause and just cause. And then there is no cause eviction. And you heard a lot this evening about No Cause eviction where people were talking about getting a notice, eviction notices that were most probably or maybe one could speculate where in lieu of rent increases. And so just cause eviction ordinances are really aimed at regulating the types of evictions that are allowed in a jurisdiction. So allowing just cause evictions and prohibiting no cause evictions is really what that's about. In most instances, rent controlled cities with mine controls have just cause eviction. Because if you didn't have just cause eviction protections in a city with rent control and you have vacancy control, the property owner is going to be incentivized to evict a tenant, to move in a tenant where they could adjust the rent up to market. Eviction for Cause Only is typically a feature of a just cause eviction ordinance. Just cause eviction is not constrained by Costa Hawkins, so just cause eviction could be applied to all of the city's rental units if the council were to pursue that. And typically when you have just cause eviction, there are special noticing requirements that the landlord has to provide a tenant stating the grounds of the eviction so that it can be determined whether it was for cause or not. If a tenant were to, you know, want to go to court and fight an unlawful detainer, they would have that. They would look at that notice in those supporting documents to rely on. Speaker 0: And Brody. Speaker 7: Thank you so. You brought up earlier the possibility of requiring that people have to have a lease. So how what's the interplay between for cause eviction, not for cause eviction and a lease, whether it be a year lease or whether it be a month to month lease. So when when can you do one? And under what reason? I mean, what reasons and how does it work today? Speaker 3: So I'm not sure they necessarily work together because in the jurisdictions that are. Palo Alto is the I think the only example we found as staff where they require a lease that a landlord to offer a tenant a 12 month lease. And Mountain View is now considering that their council voted to consider that in October. And neither of those jurisdictions have just cause eviction. Speaker 7: So if you have a 12 month lease, you can't be given a no cause eviction until the lease. Speaker 3: Yes, right. That's correct. Speaker 7: So if you have month to month, you can get the 30 or 60 day notice. Speaker 3: And just kind of along those same lines, A has a requirement in their rent control ordinance. They don't have just cause eviction, but their ordinance requires a 90 day notice as opposed to 60. And and in and if you agree not to go to binding arbitration over the the eviction proceedings, you could get a 90 day notice . And then they also lengthen that notice to 120 days when the rental market is constrained. Janet was talking earlier about 5% being considered a healthy rental market and San Jose has requirements of vacancy rates dip below a certain rate. The requirement is 120 days for the eviction. There's not no, they don't have a just cause eviction, but they do have longer timeframes for the eviction notice. Speaker 7: Thank you. Speaker 2: Number three, clarification, I think perhaps in as it has what's called minimal Jessica's eviction, it can't be for the primary dominant motive. Can't be retaliatory. I mean. Speaker 3: Well, I believe that's the under law, right? I believe that's the state law. Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 6: But just if I may, what was kind of interesting, what you said about San Jose's case is that there is there are indicators that San Jose officials are tracking in real time. And the indicators trigger or don't trigger certain policies or they scale the policies in one way or another. I mean, that's quite fascinating. Speaker 3: Fascinating and potentially staff intensive. Speaker 2: San Jose may have a larger staff in Alameda, but. Speaker 7: I'm sorry, I'm an American. So but they're the places that are requiring leases. Are they requiring one year leases? Speaker 1: Yes. Speaker 7: Okay. So a tenant that doesn't want a one year lease and. Speaker 3: They can happen. They can they can decline it, but the landlord has to offer it. Speaker 7: Oh, okay. Yes. Thank you. Speaker 3: And then I think the next. Speaker 0: Oh, sorry. Sorry. Move on. Is there a way to have. Have a landlord have to go through RAC if they want to do an eviction for four of a tenant that is current in their rent. Could that be something that we could add to our rack? Speaker 3: So if if a landlord wanted to give a no cause eviction, that they would have to go to the rack first. So that was one of the options that I put forward earlier about ways to strengthen strengthen the mediation process. Speaker 0: Okay. And then if they come to wrap with that issue now, that would apply to all types of homes, right? That's correct. That's okay. And then depending upon what the decision is from. Then could it go to council and be a binding decision? Or it could. Speaker 3: I believe that if the council wanted to make that a binding decision at the council level, it could there would be not that I don't think there's anything to preclude the council from from making it. I'm looking over at the attorney who's been working with me on all of this. I think that's right. He's going to come up. Speaker 9: Michael Rausch from the City Attorney's Office, Marin Counsel. The question would be. The question is. If there was a a no cause eviction. Speaker 0: Actually, I didn't say no cause I said if they were current in their rent because there's lots of different types of cars. Right. If a tenant is current in their rent and you have a landlord that wants to give them an eviction notice. Is there a way that we could have that that type of eviction notice where the landlord has to come first to rec and essentially received permission from RAC for whatever reason, whether it's on the landlord to come to rec. And could that be a binding decision or could it be? Actually, I would bet that then, depending upon what that decision is, be appealed to the Council and be binding by the council. Speaker 9: Essentially you're creating a no cause eviction policy. I mean, that's that's the way the ordinance would read, because if the council determined that that was not cause to evict, that would be the same as having a no cause eviction regulation. So the answer is yes. It's just it would have to be drafted in that way. But essentially the answer would be yes, because that would be a defense. Then if the the landlord brought unlawful detainer action, the tenant would have the finding that there was no cause for the eviction because I had been paying my rent all the way along. Speaker 0: Well, no, what I said was because when when the landlord then comes to rock, then they could say, there's these reasons why I want to evict, even though the tenant is current on the rent. And at that point you would have a mediation. Our rec committee be able to weigh the landlord's concerns. And make a determination as to whether or not they think it's appropriate to allow the eviction. Or for whatever the reasons are that the landlord wants to create the eviction. And then based upon that. Yes. And could. And then they could appeal. Could they appeal then, depending upon what the decision is, the. The landlord or the tenant could appeal to a council and have it be a final decision. Speaker 9: The answer is that that could be done, but it's sort of feeling like a just cause eviction process. But the answer is yes, it could be done that way. Speaker 0: But with. But but with mediation. Speaker 9: I mean, you're just you're just adding that into the into the mix. Correct. Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. Speaker 7: I did immediate every single eviction. I mean, I'm not sure if. That's possible or legal. Speaker 3: Right. I mean, but the council could give we can create a local ordinance. We can create the ordinance that the council might want. So if it's a complaint based by the tenant and the tenant, we're the one to initiate it. It probably wouldn't be every eviction, but that would be you know, it's a lot we we have a lot of local leeway or a local opportunity to craft an ordinance that we think would be appropriate here in Alameda. Speaker 0: Thank you. Any other questions? Remember Ashcroft. Speaker 2: So would the process that the mayor just described, if I understood it correctly, would that be more streamlined or less than just enacting a just cause eviction ordinance that enumerated the the different types of causes for an eviction that are a go by state law? Speaker 3: I think it sounds like the idea was to require mediation first. And if mediation wasn't successful, to then have an opportunity to bring that that eviction request to the council with a final decision. So it's probably an additional. Speaker 1: Step. Huh? Thank you. Speaker 0: Of mediation. Yes. Member de SAG. Speaker 6: Thank you very much, Ms.. Potter, for. Your answers to our questions. One of the questions I have is in looking at the example of Jessica's eviction for the city of Glendale, a city of 200,000 in Southern California. They have embedded in there Jessica's eviction, relocation assistance. And looking at the pros and cons, it doesn't look like we if we contemplate relocation assistance, not just as a standalone item, but something that's also embedded within a Jessica's. Speaker 3: Relocation assistance could be part of a just cause eviction ordinance. It could be a separate standalone ordinance that would really be at the pleasure of the council. Speaker 6: Thank you. Speaker 2: I well, I was going to say isn't when it comes to, I think, the relocation assistance, at least in the reviews of different jurisdictions. Codes that I've seen suggest that relocation assistance would assistance wouldn't be available for just any eviction. Because if you're being evicted because you're violating the law in your unit, you're causing a disturbance to your neighbors, your family to pay the rent. And it's also unclear to me why you would need to mediate those. That seems kind of cut and dried. But if those are the reasons you're being evicted, it shouldn't follow that a landlord pays relocation assistance, but there's what's called no fault just cause evictions. So say you live in a building and the landlord says, I want my family member to move in or I'm going to do substantial rehabilitation and it requires the person moving out . There's several different categories. So in that case, the tenant's being evicted, but through no fault of their own. And they we could design an ordinance that says, well, yes, you, you are deserving of some assistance and a council member. Speaker 6: So in that case, that that is the Glendale and the city of Richmond. Speaker 3: Right. Speaker 6: And they're basically the same. I just saw. Speaker 3: The slides are coming up on that. Speaker 2: Page. Speaker 3: And and so just once again, this is a smattering of jurisdictions that have just cause eviction ordinances. You'll notice that a number of them are also cities with rent control. And as we mentioned earlier, rent control is usually linked with a just cause eviction ordinance. Okay. Now we're going to talk about relocation assistance, which is the third category of tenant protections. Right. Measures to protect tenants from rent increases, measures to protect tenants from no cause evictions. And then what happens if you do get evicted through no fault of your own or for for no cause? There are a number of jurisdictions that require relocation assistance in those scenarios. I don't think we've come across a single example where people get relocation assistance if it's for cause. Although a landlord, some people talk this evening about how hard it is to win their way through the system. So there are sometimes deals that are worked out, but I don't know that it would be anything we would want to sanction through a formal. Ordnance or that kind of thing. So when there when there is an eviction for no cause or no fault in it, there are laws that allow and once again, the state law, the Ellis Act for people who are familiar with the last act, which allows landlords to move in family members or to, you know, going out of business or as the councilmember, as he Ashcraft was saying, if a significant rehab is going on and you need to move. That's no fault. And so these ordinances are usually tied to that kind of eviction. And so some things to think about, about what relocation assistance might look like. And it could be relocation assistance could be offered to anyone that was facing that kind of no cause or no fault eviction. Or it could be tied to length of tenancy, income, special needs, status of the tenant. There are different ways you could slice eligibility. And then there are how do you set the amount of assistance? You tie it to rent. Is it a flat amount? Is it both? So that's another thing to look at. And then lastly, just to note that relocation assistance is not constrained by cost to Hawkins. And so once again, that is a protection that could be applied to all the rental units in the city of Alameda. Speaker 9: Well. Speaker 6: Madumere, one of the things that I'm interested in is relocation assistance that's tied to the rack process. So that from the outset, while there might be a formula for how much relocation assistance is possible, that it would be ultimately up to the rec process to determine the final number. There might be a minimum, there might be a maximum, but something in between so that people are brought to the table. I don't I don't know if any kind of a mediation relocation assistance model. I don't know. Speaker 3: So I don't think we came across any model like that. Typically, it's spelled out in the ordinance what relocation benefit would be, but that wouldn't preclude the council from doing something like that if it was so inclined. Speaker 0: Nebraska. Speaker 2: So, I mean, it seems to me a couple of things. The I think the advantage of a formula is that you would be assured that this principle or this this feature is applied evenly to all tenants, if it has to do with length of tenancy. How much the rent? You know, sometimes I think it's a the average of two months rent of a comparable unit. And then I did hear second hand that our housing authority director mentioned that an unintended consequence perhaps of specifying certain categories that might get extra assistance might be landlords being less likely to rent to seniors or somebody if they knew that that would engender or would generate a higher level of relocation assistance rather than just applying the same formula across the board. Speaker 3: That is definitely something that we would recommend that council consider. Speaker 7: And that's illegal. Speaker 0: So at this point we're still in our clarifying questions. Member De. Speaker 6: Well, actually what I was about to ask you and my council colleagues is in terms of moving forward, I think each of us have different of the models that were presented mediation, rent control, rent stabilization, just cause and and relocation assistance of the five or so different models that were present. And I think each of us has certain things that we like, maybe. It's altogether possible that tonight we can just get knee deep into the policy minutia of how to actually structure it. Or is it a wiser use of time to give direction to staff as to within the models that we like? What are the elements that that we're interested in? For example, let me give you example. We can get into a knee deep discussion tonight about if there's going to be relocation assistance. What are the triggering events? Is it 15% is a 5% is a 10%, is it 9%? We can have that discussion or we can say or those council members who are so interested in a relocation assistance, among other issues, one item that we might take, we want staff to come back to us would be, you know, looking at the triggering events, things like that. I don't know if that's helpful for purposes of discussion. Speaker 1: So if you wouldn't. Speaker 3: Mind holding that thought that that's exactly what we're going to be asking the council to do. So I'm. Okay. Then once again, I'm just part of this is just to kind of reinforce that if Alameda were to move forward with any of these range of options, we would not be kind of acting out of context of what's going on in a number of jurisdictions. I want to shift very briefly away from tenant protections and just talk about the kind of the supply side that has been brought up. Also this evening about the recognized need for more affordable housing as a way to, you know, sort of address the, you know, the the housing challenges that are being faced in jurisdictions throughout the Bay Area. So boomerang funds have been referenced this evening. And boomerang funds just quickly are funds that that previously went to the former redevelopment agency here in Alameda, the CIC. But with the disillusion of redevelopment now go to the city's general fund. I think all of the council members have heard me say in the past that redevelopment was the second largest source of funding for affordable housing in the state of California. Behind the federal government. When redevelopment went away, that was a huge blow to the production of affordable housing throughout the state and was, as was mentioned earlier and as we heard in Assembly Member Bonds presentation last night, the State has not yet been able to plug that hole in any meaningful way. So therefore, as often happens with big policy issues, local jurisdictions step in and work to kind of address these issues. We have projected that the general fund will receive approximately $16 million in boomerang funds over the next ten years. A number of local jurisdictions, including Alameda County, the city of Oakland, the city of San Leandro, San Mateo and Santa Clara counties have all already set aside a percentage of their boomerang funds to be earmarked for affordable housing and staff is asking that council consider giving us direction to move forward with a program that we would then bring back and discuss with council and flesh out details. So I just wanted. Speaker 0: To address, to give you direction on that issue tonight. Speaker 3: That's one of the recommendations. Yes. So okay. Now, if the council wants to give direction to staff this evening, which is what we're requesting and the council wants to we're staff is looking for as clear and as precise direction as possible so that we then have the ability to go off and craft the necessary legislation and have it really align and be responsive to the the direction that we were given. And that could take some time. So in your packet there is a draft urgency ordinance that would establish a moratorium that's on the way it's drafted. It establishes a 65 day moratorium on rent increases and no cause evictions. The logic or the idea behind that is to give give staff sufficient time to respond to the direction we get this evening to come back to council with with programs and policies that council could act on. If the council were interested in the moratorium, it would require it requires a 4/5 vote and it's a supermajority. It would take effect immediately as drafted. It is a 65 day moratorium that would prohibit rent increases and no cause evictions. Like I said, it would give us time to draft the regulations needed to enact policies for which we received direction on this evening. From staff's perspective, we believe that a moratorium may not be needed if the direction was focused on enhanced mediation or relocation assistance. And then lastly, I just want to recap. Speaker 0: I'm sorry, can you clarify that last year? Speaker 1: That's interesting. Speaker 0: If council wanted to proceed with an enhanced mediation or relocation assistance, could we make that decision tonight? Speaker 1: Yes. Speaker 0: And when would it be effective? Speaker 3: Well, we would what you would do is give us direction, and we would have to go back and try and craft the legislation so that if we came back, for example, at the December 15th Council meeting, you would introduce an ordinance on first reading, second reading January 4th and 30 days later. Speaker 1: The ordinance would be effective. Speaker 0: All right. So if we had a concern that people were being. Evicted without cause. And we're not receiving this relocation assistance. And our. Do you have that is there. How could you fashion it so that they received relocation assistance? Or we would have to then say that we cannot go forward with a no cause eviction. Or could you have it immediately? Speaker 3: So if I understand a moratorium could for 65 days put a moratorium on no cause evictions. And that way you wouldn't need relocation benefits, right. While we were crafting them, because they wouldn't be allowed to do no cause evictions if there was no moratorium. People where we're not, you wouldn't be proposing just cause eviction. You would just be proposing relocation benefits in the event that somebody is evicted further out. Cause so you might not need the moratorium because you're not working towards a No Cause eviction ordinance. You're working towards relocation benefits. Speaker 0: But if your goal is to provide relocation assistance to people that are currently being evicted without cause. Far as I can tell, the only way you could do would be the moratorium, because the ordinance would not be effective. Speaker 1: If you. Speaker 3: Wanted to preclude people from being evicted until the relocation benefits were in place. That's correct. Speaker 0: And how many days would it take to have if we had our first reading and then our second reading? If if staff comes back, would staff be in a position to come back at the next council meeting? Speaker 3: Now, we couldn't comply with the Sunshine Act, and so we really December 15th would be the earliest and depending on the comprehensive direction we get, it'll either be we predict or project that it would be December 15 or January four. Speaker 0: So December 15th could be a first reading. Yes, that's and then January 4th could be second reading. Speaker 3: That's correct. Speaker 0: Though. And when you do your 65 days from today, where does that take you? Speaker 1: January 4th? Speaker 0: Once a down the same exact date as the second reading. Thank you. November day. Speaker 6: Yes, madam. Just to make sure I heard you correctly. I think I heard you say that if we go down the path of relocation assistance. We don't have to do a temporary 65 day moratorium on rent increases. Did I hear you say that? Speaker 3: Well, I'm I'm just saying from staff's staff's recommendations, right. Is that if you were only going to focus on enhanced mediation or relocation benefits, the moratorium is probably not required because you're not looking to put in place a rent control or a no cause eviction ordinance. Okay. And what you're really trying to preclude with the urgency ordinance is people increasing rents and doing no cause evictions ahead of the permanent rent control or no cause eviction going in in place. And if you're not going to go down that road, I may not need the moratorium. Speaker 6: I think there's been substantial testimony indicating that. There's widespread community desire to address rent increases, even if on a standalone basis and even if temporary. So I in that vein, and I'm not really seeing relocation assistance as being mutually exclusive with us. I mean, it's a policy decision we have to make. Speaker 3: Absolutely. The council could decide to do a moratorium as well as give staff direction about coming back with legislation regarding relocation assistance. That that's absolutely the case. Speaker 9: You know, I should just answer the question. Speaker 2: And and I think, oh, I'm sorry. Speaker 4: Go ahead. Speaker 7: Thank you. So the question two questions. We've been faced with the possibility of a moratorium before and we were told 45 days. So can you kind of explain the legal difference between what gets us from 45 to 65 and if it can be extended at all? Speaker 3: I'm going to give a really high level answer. And if you want more detail, I'm going to ask Michael. The 45 day ordinances under state law, the 65 days is being proposed pursuant to the city charter. Okay. So different authority. Speaker 7: And the other question is. If we do do a moratorium, what happens to people's leases who expire? Or that expire. Speaker 3: So if a lease expires and the moratorium included no cause eviction, they would not be able to be evicted for. Speaker 7: So they go to a month to month tenancy unless they come to some other agreement. Yes. Speaker 9: Okay. Speaker 3: During the 65 day period. Speaker 0: Amber Ashcroft. Speaker 2: So if I understand correctly from the staff report, the one of the main reasons other than giving staff well needed time to craft whatever counsel directs them to do, the one of the principal reasons for doing the moratorium is to protect tenants from those, you know, certainly not the landlords who testified before us today. But I had a sneaking suspicion that anyone who's doing 50% increases probably wasn't going to come here tonight. But to protect people from some sort of reaction to hearing that, oh, this is what they're working on, they're going to come up with a just cause ordinance or enhance the rack. And so I better do whatever I want to do before that goes into effect. So it's a it's essentially a tenant protection measure. Speaker 3: That's correct. Speaker 1: Thank you. Speaker 3: And I have one last slide. And that slide is just to recap the recommendations in the staff report. Our first recommendation is that you receive the Bee report and then you already conducted the public hearings. So we're looking for direction regarding all of the options that I just highlighted, the enhanced mediation, rent stabilization, Jessica's eviction, relocation benefit , composition of the rack, use of boomerang funds. And these are once again, they're not mutually exclusive. And it could be, you know, some all or none. And then depending on the direction that is given, consider passage of an emergency ordinance to protect tenants. If landlords feel like they need to get in and raise rents or evict tenants ahead of any kind of legislation and allow staff to, um, the time it needs to to do its work. I'm. So that concludes the staff presentation. Speaker 0: Member Day. Speaker 6: Thank you. Miss Potter, if I can ask just one more question. One of the things that I'm also interested in when it comes to a moratorium on rent increases is defining a threshold. Is that because my reading of what staff recommendation is a moratorium outright? So is that correct? Speaker 3: Yes. The ordinance as drafted would put a moratorium on any rent increases and no just cause evictions for 65 days. That's a draft ordinance. That ordinance can be modified by the council as it sees fit, and council could adopt a modified ordinance this evening. Speaker 6: Thank you. Speaker 0: All right. Speaker 7: Brody, are you ready to go into the. Speaker 0: So it's my understanding staff reports have done that public comment. Speaker 3: That's correct. And I would like to add that Vanessa Cooper, executive director of the Housing Authority, is here, Claudia Young from the Housing Authority, who staffs the rent. And Angie Watson, Jim, who's been here from Echo, are also resources. As you enter your deliberations, if you have questions for any or all of us, we are prepared to assist. Speaker 0: All right. Speaker 3: Thank you. Thank you. Speaker 0: All right. So at this point, we're going to continue now with the council. But it deliberation and then make our decision. Speaker 7: Member Odie I guess so. I'll go first then. So first of all, I want to thank everyone who came out today. This was a very emotional issue. I mean, the tension between a basic human right and a basic human need of shelter was on display versus the, you know, tension of a property owners to earn a reasonable rate of return from their investment. And some of those property owners, those investments actually, you know, are they're living or are their retirement. So but I think if you if you have to balance and we all have to balance, that's why we're here. You know, we chose to be in this position. I know there was a lot of sympathy out there, but, you know, we asked for this. So we have to balance. And I think when you have a situation where you have people's insecurities about a basic need, whether it be food or shelter, then the scale tilts to that basic need over the need for profit. With that said, you know, I think there are you know, we have to be careful about what we do on this. You know, I saw the staff report and it seems to me, you know, we've been put in this position. One of the speakers talked about it over 40 years. And we've made a political policy decision that we are going to constrain our housing stock. And our voters have, you know, consistently sent people to the council with that philosophy. So good or bad or indifferent, you know, I'm not here to to criticize, but if we're going to make that decision, you know, we have the responsibility to deal with the repercussions of that of those decisions. So that's why we're here today. You know, it's simple supply and demand. You know, I got a C plus in economics, so I'm not going to maybe explain it the best way. But, you know, we have supply constraints, low vacancy rate, housing shortage. What that's going to do is push up price. So we have increased rents. And you saw the numbers. We built 1.49 multifamily units per 1000 population compared to 20.96 multi-family per 1000 population for the Bay Area. So we've put ourselves in this spot and now we have to figure out a way out of it. One of the speakers said we can't build our way out of it. You know, I agree with that. You know, we'll see that political discussion for another day. And, you know, I think also a lot of I heard from tenants the insecurity of housing and the insecurity of having to leave Alameda. And that that's something that, you know, I hear in my day job in Oakland and Alameda and statewide. And it's a national issue. I mean, incomes are not keeping up. You know, incomes not only for low income people, but for the workforce, you know, for the teachers, you know, for the people making 55,000. So while I'm sympathetic to the, you know, desire that property owners make a reasonable rate of return. You know, the real fact is the rest of us are not getting, you know, those increases in our salaries, in our incomes. So that's kind of where, you know, I look at it from a high level view. You know, we have a lot of pressure, downward pressure on wages. And maybe someday we'll we'll take the step of working on increasing those. But we're stuck with what we have now, which is increasing rents. And we saw the slides in the top 20 units, you know, 53% or 54% over the course of the last four years. So that's not something that that's sustainable for our population. But I look at other cities and the mayor correctly pointed out one of the slides, and I say, well, well, what do they do? And you look at places like San Francisco where there's a real strict rent control, and you see this dichotomy where it's either really poor people and really rich people and the folks in the middle are getting squeezed out. So they have a rent control ordinance. Yet the vibrant African-American community in the Fillmore you saw 40 years ago is not there anymore. You see in the mission. And there was big controversy, the ballot measure that that failed yesterday. You see that the Latino population in the mission is also disappearing. So what we are seeing in San Francisco with the strict rent control ordinance of two or three or 1% depending on CPI, is not really solving the problem, which is allowing middle income people to stay in their homes. So that's one. You look at Oakland. Look at Oakland and it's gentrifying faster than, you know, we can see. You know, techies are moving in to West Oakland. You know, Oakland used to be 40% African-American. Now that's dropped 22%. We are losing, you know, our diverse middle class in Oakland. And I fear that they have rent control, too. So if the goal of rent control is to protect the diversity of our city, it's not working in Oakland either. And I look at Berkeley and the same thing. You know, the mayor pointed out they have the highest rental rates of people or units of 50 or higher. So you look at that and you wonder, well, is that been successful? And, you know, before Berkeley did their rent control, you know, there was. Hundreds of African-American property owners. Another gone. Those units were either taken off the market or they were bought out by corporations. Now we heard from mostly land or actually all of our landlords, I believe, were small property owners. They weren't corporate owners. And they all talked about how responsible they are. These are the type of landlords we want to keep in Alameda. So if we do something like Berkeley and we end up losing these quality owners, then I don't think that's going to solve the problem either. So then I look at what type of ordinance might work that that that we could look at. I think we have, you know, two issues. One is we have landlords that are raising rents to over 10% in certain properties or 15% or 20. We've heard some of the numbers. And we have these 30, 60 day no cause evictions that are designed so they can just turn around and rent the unit for $1,000 more a month. So those are the things where I think, you know, if we're going to give direction to council, we should focus. So. This is my starting point, and. Oh, I'm sorry. No, we don't have to. Speaker 0: We actually have to. Speaker 7: Sunshine Ordinance. Speaker 0: Right. So we will need to make a motion to continue pass 11. I can do that at this point. I was going to let you finish your. Well, I. Speaker 7: Have probably three more minutes, but. Speaker 0: Yeah. So yeah. So at this point though, do we need a motion to continue pass. So I'll move to second. All those in favor of. Speaker 9: My. Speaker 0: Motion carries unanimously. Thank you. Speaker 7: Thank you, Madam Chair. So. What can we do? And let's look at something that, you know, might not be so extreme but can also have some protection for our tenants. And first of all, I like the idea of, you know, having to offer a lease. You know, I'm not sure if one year is the right length or six months is the right length. But, you know, hopefully my colleagues can kind of weigh in on that one. I strongly in favor of the idea that you get one rent increase per year. I mean, if you're doing every three months or every month, you know that that it has to be once a year. So I look at the San Jose ordinance and the San Jose ordinance. You know, it's arbitration. It's a model of arbitration. So pardon me if I read because I haven't memorized it exactly. But under San Jose's rent control ordinance, rent increases are not subject to a hearing. If they are limited to 8% rent increase in a 12 month period, which is one 8% increase or a 21% increase in a 24 month period, that's one 21% increase in two years. I'm not wedded to those numbers. I think 8% is a is a good number to start at. And I think also, given what we've seen in Alameda over the last year and two, that we consider doing a look back period and saying, well, maybe you get maybe you don't have to go to a hearing if you do 8%. But if you did 25% last year and you want to do 8% this year, then maybe you got to go to a hearing because, you know, cumulatively now that that's a problem. I like the idea of an arbitrator, whether it's the RAC, whether it is a city appointed person, whether it's the city council. I think if there's some. Sharing of that thought with my colleagues. And, you know, I'm willing to talk about that. The problem with that. Yes. If you go to arbitration, then legally it's called rent control. So we are limited to the folks that we can actually help. And it's only, you know, the 70 some percent that are not in single family or townhouses. Oh. I looked at San Jose also has. And when I went to think I think the mayor was also correct in pointing out is that we don't really have the data and I'd like to see ongoing that we that we require landlords to file their rent increases with the city so we could track that data and then we could tell if we are seeing large increases in single family homes, if we're seeing large increases in the top ten buildings. But on the flip side of that. So maybe we'll find out that. Everybody is only doing four or 5% and perhaps this is not necessary. So my thought on that is perhaps we sunset, you know, any type of arbitration ordinance that we put in and that we only let it go for two years. And then we come back and take a look at it because we really don't have all of the data that I think we need to put any permanent arbitration or any permanent rent control ordinance in place. What I'd also like to see and again, my colleagues can can weigh in on that. You know, I think a lot of the complaints we heard from tenants was that they have a corporate landlord. You know, their landlord is an LLC, the owners of Glass Building in Walnut Creek. You know, their landlord is not living upstairs from them or their landlord is not living next door to them. And a lot of the folks that are actually doing good and not behaving badly, you know, our landlords that you can knock on their door, that you know their name, that as one of the landlords said, you can send Christmas cards to. So I think we should consider, you know, exempting buildings of four units or less that the landlord either lives in the building or, you know, lives within 100 feet, you know, in case they're next door. I like the idea of a navigator or an ombudsman on relocation versus just cause, you know, we'll probably going to have a longer discussion on that. I'd like to have staff come back with with some more information on that. The reason I have a problem with relocation is similar to what we saw in San Francisco, is that you're just going to get I call social cleansing. You're going to have. Landline just buying out middle income tenants and re renting and they're just going to pay that out and just have it as a cost of doing business. So if we could find a sweet spot that's, you know, high enough that, you know, it's going to cause a landlord grief if they actually have to pay it, but low enough that all of the tenants aren't going to just grab at it. I think we have to. I don't know what that sweet spot is. Maybe my colleagues have some ideas, maybe staff has some some research. But, you know, I'm open to that. But I really I don't like the idea that, you know, we can just buy out almeida's middle class and ship them to Antioch, you know, for a few thousand dollars. That just that just grates at me right there just cause, again, you know, I think we should be a little more pinpoint and precise in the problem that we're trying to solve. And if the problem we're trying to solve is landlords renting or giving these 30, 60 day notices in order to jack up the rent to a new tenant. And that's what we should focus on. You know, the San Jose ordinance, again, you know, it has if you do this copy of, you have to file a copy of termination notice. But you all have to indicate a signed statement that you're not being you're not evicting the tenant in order to raise the rent. So, I mean, that might be helpful also. And then the other thing about San Jose that I also found interesting was the the timeline on the notice to vacate, you know, depending on the vacancy rate. And we were we were at what, 2.7 or whatever it was, 3%. If you're at a high if you had a low vacancy rate, then if we're not doing just cause, extend the time period. And then if we go back to a higher vacancy rate, you know, we can go back to, you know, 30 or 60 days, but, you know, give people who you are evicting. And if the council does not want to go towards a just cause eviction, you know, I think we should consider extending the notice period. I think you can extend that up to 120 days in San Jose if the vacancy rate is 3% or less so quickly. Just some last few points on the. I hear from a lot of friends that they're afraid to go to Iraq. And I guess, you know, I don't know if I would want to go up there and say I can't afford my rent. You know, I don't make enough money. And your your image is preserved on video saying that for all eternity. So perhaps we consider, you know, privatizing some of some of the Iraq or if there's an arbitration, you know, though, maybe we make it so. Tenants are not afraid to go do it. The moratorium. I think Councilmember Jason brought it up. You know, if if we're thinking of something along the lines of San Jose, where we have an 8%, you know, arbitration cut off, then the moratorium should be on everything over 8%. I mean, I don't think we should have a moratorium for 65 days and say nobody gets no rent increases at all. I mean, I think that's a little extreme. And, you know, we don't have a problem with three, four, five, six, you know, percent rent increases. I think the problem is with the ten, 12, 25. And I'd like to see if we can do a moratorium on, again, you know, be it precise and targeted to what it is that the problem is. And the problem is evicting people, getting them out of the unit and then jacking up the rent to the next to the next tenant. So the cost the cost concerns me. You know, I don't want to have a $4 million bureaucracy in the city like like Berkeley has on the rack. I think we really has a public need to be pay more attention to these individuals if they're going to be even if they just have mediation authority, I I'd be willing to consider, you know, elected body again with the same, you know, two tenants, two landlords, you know, one independent. But again, if my colleagues disagree, then, you know, I'll be in the minority on that one. I think it's important that if we as we go forward and I don't want to do legislation by committee, but if we go forward, that staff engages, you know, both the landlords and the tenants, you know, as we draft that ordinance. And lastly, you know, on the boomerang, I think we should staff should to come back with, you know, different ways that we can find funding for affordable housing, whether it's boomerang, whether it's affordable housing bond. They just passed one in San Francisco yesterday. If we have to join up with, you know, Oakland and San Leandro or the county or, you know, the East Bay communities on the Hill, there's Councilmember Gilani's proposed this in Oakland. And I think it's something that, you know, we could partnership with, you know, after these the infrastructure, finance, revitalization districts. You know, we kind of dismissed that idea when that came up. And the state also put some money in cap and trade as set aside for affordable housing so we can find ways that we can we can access these funds and and use our city as a laboratory of democracy when the governor refuses to act. I'd like to see that happen. Thank you very much. Speaker 0: Member Day Thank. Speaker 6: You. Thank you very much. Thank you very much to all the residents who came out tonight. If nothing else, the testimony indicates that we are a tale of two cities. One Alameda is of homeowners generally well-off, as the VA study shows, and another Alameda is of renters whose constrained incomes have lagged behind rising rents, especially in the face of excessive rent increases. Without a doubt, it's time to bring our city together again. Over the past several months. The problem I have heard in talking with friends I grew up with here in meeting residents during my office hours. The problem I have heard is that a number of out-of-town landlords have gone off the deep end in charging excessive rent increases. Renters I've been in touch with understand that landlords, especially small mom and pop landlords. Renters understand that landlords need to raise rents now and then people get how the American system works. But the American system is based on fairness. Also, it requires reasonableness on all parts of everyone. Right now, our system is out of kilter. It's unfair that some out-of-town landlord and stick comedians with 20 to 30 and even 15% rent increases. The typical rent increase issued by local mom and pop landlords, if it happens at all in a given year, is somewhere between 4 to 8%. Now it's important to underscore the phrase if it happens at all. This is so because not all mom and pop landlords charge rent increases every year, and when they do, it's typically reasonable . What's interesting is that when you look at the renewed hope document included in the package tonight, persons subject to rent increases responded that typical rent increases. Their typical rent increase was about 5.7%, which is almost the very midpoint between the 4 to 8% range discussed by the local landlords. A number of respondents to renewed hopes for survey also said that they received no rent increase. Which goes back to my point that our Alameda based. Landlords don't always raise rents year in, year out. In researching what constitutes excessive rent increases in Alameda, among other things, I looked to the rent review advisory committee data. And there I found that when renters and single rooms come to the rent review advisory committee, on average it was because of a 10% increase. Renters of two or more rooms went to RC, usually because of the shock of a 20% increase. So the rent review advisory committee data points to the 10% number as a triggering point. I realize some of you are wondering why have a threshold at all and percent or otherwise, why not disallow any rent increases during the 65 day moratorium? But keep this in mind. Our enemy is not the locally based mom and pop landlord. These people have been reasonable fellow. Alameda is doing their part to keep Alameda as one. The mom and pop Alameda is like you. They've played by the rules. And I know many are just as upset as you are about what's happening in our town. So the 65 day moratorium, therefore, in my opinion, should be targeted. It be calibrated on landlords seeking 15 to 20 to 25% rent increases. Those landlords. So for the people who are here tonight and for the people who are watching on TV, I'm reaching out because I need your help. I need you to look long and hard into your cells and think about what I said. On why I think we need to go with a 65 day moratorium. As I laid out. Let the 10% threshold be accumulative as the 12 months prior to the start of the moratorium as well. So that we take into account if someone, for example, raised the rent by 6% this past June, that per this moratorium, they couldn't they can raise the rent no more than 4% more. Or if they already raised the rent by 10% in the past 12 months, then they are not allowed to raise the rent. So let it let the 10% threshold be a cumulative number. Now a number of you will rightly say, but, Tony, if you say no and rent increase is greater than 10%, you would over not. During the moratorium period. Won't those unscrupulous landlords just limit themselves to 9.99% over the next 65 days? I hear you. It's 9.99% is high. Well, at least we, for the moment with a 65 days, has stopped them from charging 15% to 20% to 25%. Is that perfect? No. But we're looking out for renters and small mom and pop landlords who've played fair by the rules while clipping the wings of those who have come to our town to game the system. During the 65 days. This is what I would like. I would like to see the staff focus their attention on relocation assistance tailored to an excessive rent increase threshold discussion for which I'm sure will be rich and robust over the next 35 days. I also want the staff to pursue just cause eviction. And like other council members, I join my fellow colleagues and in my excitement about the boomerang funds and how that could be stimulated to increase the supply of housing. My hope is that the supply would be targeted to moderate income households as well as the elderly. I know many of you who have given so much already, you've given a lot not just in terms of the insufferable rent increases, but to the pain and the family anguish that comes with that. But I'm asking you for your help in making our town a place where renters and small mom and pop landlords know that we have a system of fair play in place for them. And that there will be a new system with rules targeting unfair landlords charging excessive rent increases. Thank you. Speaker 0: Okay. Um, I have to go next. All right. Thanks. Off of questions in regards and I'm not. Wasn't quite sure exactly what you would have they thought implement. But you're sticking if you had the moratorium right after the moratorium. But moving on with. But my concern is. I see this as a regional issue. In regards to the we're also an island, but we are on the island. Right. We have a lot of different things we've tried to balance at this point, though. That that aside. The the the excessive that I want to call excessive rent increases have to be addressed. The. No fault evictions have to be addressed. And so what I want to ask is, in regards to Iraq, we currently have. So it's on the tenant to file rack and come to us. Could could we make could we make it so that if if a landlord wants to have an increase above a certain amount, that then it's on the landlord and I act. I would consider the 8%, I believe number three. That's the number we used. And at that point, if it comes to when the landlord comes to rack. If the. If Iraq makes a decision that they don't, they know that one side doesn't appreciate and then they appeal it to council. Can it be binding? Or all. Or does it still this Costa Hawkins apply to that sort of process? Speaker 9: Michael Roush again from the city attorney's office. If the if the ordinance redrafted where there would be a a binding decision that would put a certain percentage on it that that would be subject to cost to Hopkins because essentially you're imposing a rent control situation. And if you if that were part of your the council direction in the ordinance, you would then also have to have a procedure in place that would allow a a landlord to seek an amount above that percentage in order to demonstrate to get a fair return on investment. Speaker 0: All right. So we have landlords that when we've heard this, that they have legitimate. Speaker 1: Legitimate costs. Speaker 0: So then they could come to RAC and they could explain why they need to increase whatever, whatever amount that it would be for them to increase above the 8% and have it on the landlord to come to rack and say, we have these costs and thus we we need to increase it, whatever the percentages. And that could then be mediated. So I would be agreeable to making it, but shifting the burden, if you will, to the landlord have it. So that and the percentage I have said 8%. I don't. So far that's you know I in November remember said that then when it comes to rack. It could be so it could be binding or all of them that fall under it that it could apply to and the ones that don't apply to. Then what happens? Right. So what happens to those? Okay. So what I think would happen actually and I don't. So I think then we would be able to start accumulating real data because for a landlord to do an increase above, I would say 8%, they would have to come back. Otherwise, I think then it could be null and void if they didn't go through the process. So they would have to come through Iraq and then we would accumulate data. So we would actually know who is who is increasing above the 8%. And that's how we would find out who these landlords are. And then if in fact that happens, then we could think about a next step. So my preference would be to continue to strengthen Iraq. And based upon every landlord that showed up today and spoke. It suggests that we would not have any landlords come down here and say anything that would be these these other landlords. They would have to come down if they wanted to do it, and then we would know who they are. And I would want it actually, so that it's an owner, not a property manager that comes down. In regards to a moratorium, I'm fine with a moratorium that is for rents above 8%. But it would be and with the average of I think it's actually I'd like to go back at least two years of that if. If they've had if, you know, whatever rent increase they want to do makes it more than 8% on average for the last two years. As opposed to just one year because we have had that, you know, I would be fine with that. And then we have this other phenomenon happening in regards to new costs, parking fees, storage dog fees, all those. I would. Could we include those in regards to rent and that be treated as part of the percentage? If so, any new costs that are being added, I would want those, if possible, to be part of the 8%. Whatever, whatever it is, if it's a new cost to the tenant. In regards to the no fault evictions. I would want that to come through RAC. And again, I, I, I think that I would allow the mediation process. And that could be binding. Right on, everybody. The appeal could be binding on all, and there's no cost to Hawkins on that. So I would want it to go to Rack. And then the AP and I would and I want it to be so that if the landlord wants to. Do any an eviction for anyone that's current on their rent. But then they would have to file to go to Iraq to get that permission. And otherwise it would be null and void. And if they come and they and they file and they go through the process and then they can explain what's happening. Or I can make the decision. But I would not make that be a final decision. I would have it so that then to make it binding. If someone wants to appeal it, then they could appeal. I mean, so if anyone wanted to challenge it, it could be binding at the rank level. If if either side wanted to appeal it, then it would be appealable up to council. My preference would be to and continue to give back as much, you know, strengthen Iraq, continue to do what we've been doing, however, shift the the burden on the landlords for these things that we think are our good landlords are not doing anyway. So we want to see them. This. And then the and then the landlords that are doing these things would have to come through Iraq and then we would see them and make it be the property owner and not the property manager. Relocation assistance if there's a. An eviction for without cause I. For instance, they want to sell. And that's something I think that is happening right now or moving back into their own home. I would like to come up with some. Dollar actually a percentage based upon the rent that they're paying. Of what would be paid. And it could be a formula. Or it could. Or it could. Speaker 1: Be. Speaker 0: So it could be a form of that includes the number of years that your tenant's been in the home and. The amount of rent that's been paid. It could also go through Iraq and have Iraq decide what they think is fair and be appealable to counsel. But but I do. But if it's without cause, I think that would address some of these issues. I mean, if it's an eviction. Yeah. Cause. Right. And then that would kick in. I think if there's any other issues. So. Okay. And then the composition. I would keep it the same way. To landlords, to renters. One homeowner and continue with the same process that we've had. I don't see the composition of Iraq being an issue. Speaker 1: I swear. Speaker 5: Thank you. I think we've all understand the fact that Alameda residents have been experiencing excessive rents and these 30, 60 day terminations of tenancy. And that has been on the upswing. What we put into effect on October 1st, I'd like to see it given a chance to work. As far as mediating rent increases. And I do see that there's a hole. And I'd like to add to the ranks role and roles and responsibilities to include a no fault 3060 day tenancy terminations. And in that mediation process to incorporate the. The. Basically the penalty for this is welfare. And I know we've had a council member already mentioned this kind of a bailout, but I'd like to have the mediation process have that as an option. I think that's where where it could fit in nicely in the existing ordinance. And that would be a very, I think, a fairly streamlined activity for staff to put together so that we can have something ready in a quick period of time. The second component that I'm looking at is trying to expand affordable housing without overbuilding. And one of the things I'd like to see happen is that we really push the envelope on our amnesty program for illegal units, illegal residential units, and except for health and safety code violations, we give amnesty in exchange for a deed restricted, affordable unit, just like we do to large developers. That ordinance or code change is going to take a little bit more time. So within the envelope of a of a moratorium, which I agree with people who showed up here, even if it's just the people who showed up here told their story, they need relief. And we can if you look at 65 days now, I think it should be unconditional. And the only condition that should be in our moratorium ordinance is that if some landlord has a extraordinary circumstance, they can appeal it out and ask for an exemption to the ordinance. But I think if we tie a percentage because an 8% on top of it, a higher percentage granted earlier in the year could break somebody's back. And I think that's the rationale for if a more to a moratorium is meant as a cooling off period, it also sends a signal that we're serious about this and that we're moving in increments. I wouldn't hold the staff to providing this amnesty enhancement incentive to within the envelope of of the moratorium 65 days. Because I think that one has to be looked at very carefully with some very clear criteria for what we allow. But I think that one, in the long run is the way to grow affordable housing stock here. And it actually gives smaller owners the same benefit that we've given to large developers. And then because this is a regional issue. And some of this some of the pressures that we're feeling are are not our own. They may have been our own doing measure a, but some of the pressures that are on every anyone who makes a mid-range salary these days are not our own doing. I would like to see additional affordable housing built and we had in our legislation a report up our efforts to increase tax credits. And I think we need to extend that. As I mentioned last night, to the federal level. But even that kind of works around the edge of who benefits directly. And I'd like us as a council to talk to our instruct our lobbyists to contact our representative both on the federal and state level. To explore a tax deduction for rent paid. And that gives that gives the same benefit that those who hold the mortgage have someone who's in the position they have to rent. I mean, it's a matter of fairness because. And and I know people have rolled their eyes on this, say it'll never happen. Well, we're guaranteed that it will never happen if we don't start the process. So I think through the League of California Cities, it's got to be a full court press and it's got to be concurrent with what we're doing here. So that's what I would like to see. And then as we as we can generate the Alameda experience through our park, so it should be monitored. And as far as the whatever we put into ordinance, if we're talking about a sunset, I'd rather see a reevaluation date so that the process continues while we reevaluate, it doesn't stop . So I think if we're going to sunset anything, it it's not sunset reevaluated. And the burden is on us to to decide whether to a successor counsels me. Someone else takes my place to look at how how this is going. And, um, but it continues to operate until it's either changed, modified or kept or affirmed in place. As far as the rack as it's constituted now, I'm all for keeping it the way it is now. And I would actually like to have some really good training for new members and existing members that reflect what we heard tonight on both sides of the coin. As far as boomerang funds come in. My understanding is if the math is right, it's $1.6 million a year projected. I think we need to check where that money is going in next year's budget. And then we make a decision based on on weighing what benefit $1.6 million would give us to alleviate this problem versus the benefit that was decided on when we approved the budget last June. Speaker 2: Thank you. Speaker 0: Before you continue, so what was your proposal in regards to rent increases? Did you want to keep going through Iraq? Speaker 5: Yes. Leave the rack as we did on October 1st or rent as it was. Okay. And add to it. Modify that ordinance to include. The 30 to 60 day termination of tenancy. Not for. Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Speaker 2: Thank you. First of all, I want to thank everyone who's still here in the audience and maybe some are still watching on television. But everyone who came out tonight for all of you meeting with me, talking with me on the phone, your emails, your letters, our hardworking city staff, you've done a lot of work on this issue in the last several months. So I want to start with what I looked at as the overarching goal. Why? Why are we here tonight? Why did council add yet another meeting to our fairly crowded schedule? There are two paragraphs in the draft urgency ordinance that is a part of this packet that answered that question for me and I will read them quickly. Between 2020 13, the median household income for those who rent in Alameda increased by 29%, which has not kept pace with rising rents that increased by 54% over the same 13 year period and has created a growing affordability gap. And Councilmember De Saag called it a tale of two cities between incomes and rents. And given the increased housing cost burden faced by many Alameda residents, excessive rental increases threaten the public health, safety and welfare of Alameda residents, including seniors. This is a growing segment of our rental population those on fixed incomes, those with very low, low and moderate income levels, and those with other special needs. To the extent that such persons may be forced to choose between paying rent and providing food, clothing and medical care for themselves and their families. As a councilmember, and I think I speak for all of us up here, we have a responsibility to our constituents, all of our constituents. I want to hasten to say, though, that I don't want to see landlords and tenants pitted against each other. We will come to the most successful, constructive, productive resolution of this issue that is facing us if we work together. And I think there's room at the table as we move forward to craft the ordinance to bring the landlords and the tenants voices into that process. But I we still have a responsibility to seek ways to address the needs of each of these groups. We don't favor one over the other, starting with the end in mind. What do I want to see? This special meeting and all the preparation that went into it achieve three things. I have three goals. Number one, I want to provide renters a measure of residential security. We've we've heard that term used that people live in fear of another rent increase that might just drive them out of that home, out of this town. A rent stabilization ordinance that enables landlords to obtain fair returns on their rental properties while ensuring that tenants have the certainty that their rents will not increase more than a certain amount per year. And it should be completely obvious that only one rent increase a year. I'm almost certain that we need to say that, but we have had information from ranchers who have gotten more than one increase in a year. And number two, I want to see that we maintain quality rental housing stock and also increase the quantity. So this means that property owners must earn a reasonable return on their investment to allow them to maintain Almeida's aging rental stock. This also means that the City Council needs to look seriously at adding more housing stock, especially affordable and multifamily units, while aggressively pursuing ways to address the traffic. Because that's always what we hear when we talk about more building. But it's something this council has to face. And then the last goal and I am actually lifting this from a letter that I got from a small rental property owner who talked about wanting to maintain the city's reputation as a safe and fair arena in which to live and do business. So a fair arena, fair to housing providers, the decent housing providers, not the ones who would gouge their tenants. And also to assure this fairness to all, I would propose that whatever mechanisms this council decides to put into motion tonight be brought back to the Council for a review. Yeah, the term sunset implies to me that, you know, the sun goes down, it ends. Tax measures have sunset. This would be. A review one year from now, and I wouldn't wait two years because this is something we're trying for the first time. I want to see how it works. We we need to gather data, but we also need to check in and see were there unintended consequences? Is something working better? Something not working so well. But a year from now to come back, hopefully staff wouldn't have to put quite so much time and effort into gathering the data that will be collected in the course of this year. Let me talk briefly about the RAC. What, because it's one of the things we're asked to comment on. I did attend the RAC meeting this past Monday. It was my first opportunity to do so. I challenged a number of them. But there hasn't been Iraq meeting since June because they kept getting pulled from the calendar for various reasons. Here are my concerns. First of all, when we heard testimony tonight from tenants who are afraid to even ask their landlords to make basic needed, necessary repairs because they are so afraid that the rent is going to be raised, there was a stairway that needed repair. The tenant asked for it. She got a $300 rent increase. One tenant told us that she tries to, I'm paraphrasing, but keep a low profile, kind of keep under the radar. How do we realistically expect those tenants living in those circumstances to come before the RAC to face that landlord and say, hey, you know, this is what I want you to do or not do or do differently when at the end of the day, all the RAC can do is say, you know, we really suggest that you do this. And I have to just comment on the RAC and I appreciate Karen Miller sitting there in the front row and she emailed me after the the RAC meeting because this is Alameda and people know what I've done before. I walk out the door and she said, okay, I heard you went to the RAC meeting, but I heard it wasn't a full complement of the board. And you're right, it wasn't. Only three board members were there and two of them, I think maybe it was their first time or they were very new. And I'm someone who works part time as an arbitrator for the Better Business Bureau. I went through extensive training and still have to do refresher training every year. So the first thing is we've got to give our people that have this serious responsibility the the tools to be able to do it effectively. I know we had some long serving RAC members, but we need to equip these folks because we won't adequately serve our community without that. Secondly, we got to get the hearing out of this room. I'm sorry, having these people, it was like shuttling. They would walk up to the podium, the landlord, and she'd say Her piece or the tenant go sit down, Lander goes, have it. When they were going back and forth, at one point they asked, Could we just stand here together? And they were told, No, no, we never allow that. It's a mediation, for crying out loud. You sit around a table, you look at each other, you've got papers, you spread them out. Anyway, I've done an email to staff. They will pass it on. But the more really the most serious thing you have to think about is when when the RAC has no teeth, there are people who are not going to risk without unless we put some other protections in place. There are people who are that's just too great a risk. They don't want to they don't want to rock the boat. So what I would say and then this is the other thing, I've had a number of conversations with very responsible landlords who are represented in this room who were really trying to talk me out of doing anything besides just letting the RAC take their course. And I would say, But so-and-so, you tell me it's not you and it's not the mom and pop landlords doing these egregious things. Why do you think that someone who is and I have the data to show imposing a 30% of 50%, a 20% rent increase is going to come before a body that has no teeth, no power to to impose that that remedy and say. Oh, no, I. You want me to lower the rent? I happen to, like, 20%. I'm not budging. Why would they do anything different? And the answer that came back was public shaming. I'm sorry. I think that, you know, for people in those situations, the almighty dollar speaks louder. So there's a place for the rack. But we have to we have to do more or we're putting our tenants are vulnerable tenants at risk. So what I would like to see is for a staff to work on some form of rent stabilization. I know I've also looked at the San Jose ordinance. I will say that I've heard it said that San Jose's looking at reducing that 8% cap that that might have come about at one time when the Consumer Price Index or the cost of living index really was 8%. But the reason that I might be okay with starting out with an 8% cap is that for those landlords and a lot of them are small mom and pop operators who really have tried to keep the tenant burden down, who have gone several years without doing a rent increase . But the building's getting older. If we were too drastic in limiting what they could increase, they may not be able to keep up that housing stock. So for the first year, if my colleagues agree, I could live with 8%. It's happening in San Jose right now. But what I would say, though, is whatever we decide to do and direct staff to do, we're not a big city. We're not San Jose. We don't have that kind of staff and bandwidth and budget. And so we need to keep our remedies, especially as we start out simple, streamlined. Let's keep our administrative costs low. Although I am intrigued by the idea of registration fees for landlords that they would register, they pay a fee. That fee goes to funding a program that oversees whatever it is we're going to propose. And that's also a way to assure that we're keeping good records going forward. I and again, only one rent increase per year and I want to see vacancy decontrol so that a rent is stabilized while the particular tenant resides in the unit . But when the unit is vacated, the landlord can rent at market rate. And again, this goes to the fairness to both sides. Um, I do want to see a just cause eviction statute. I think that's a pretty big burden to hand to the the rack. And I'm not sure that I want to see council come and decide whether this reason was really a good one. I think you put it in an ordinance, it's spelled out, it's not rocket science because a number of other jurisdictions do it. There's there's reasons. And then for the no fault evictions, I would also want a mechanism to verify that whatever you said, okay. You said that you're moving this family member in. You said that your you know, whatever the reason is, there has to be a way to go back and verify that that happened and there has to be a penalty if the landlord didn't do what they say they would do. And and I do I do believe in relocation assistance, notwithstanding my colleague's concern that it would be social engineering or whatever the term was. I think that there are landlords who will just need to have a unit vacated, and the tenant should not then bear the burden of relocation costs that the moving costs, the deposit that you have to put down on a new and a new unit. So I think that's something that I want to see staff bring back to us. And I actually would be hesitant to limit these a rent stabilization ordinance or to omit buildings of four or less units where the landlord lives there. I think that we just you know, we do this for all of our renters and and even in our mom and pop landlords, there just might be a a bad apple somewhere . So I just and again, we apply these things equally and evenly across the boards. My only concern about requiring that the property owner and not the manager be present is some properties are owned by a corporation. We don't as we saw from the the information in the report, we don't have many out of state landlords, but if it's a corporation, they're going to send a they're going to send a representative. But again, I don't care if they send Santa Clause if. They sit there and the rack tells them what they think they should do, but they don't want to do it. End of story. So anyway, again, thank you to everyone. And then just finally and lastly to staff. And I know it sounds cumbersome that I do think we will craft the best ordinances and remedies if you can pull in the voices of the landlord community and the tenant community or vetted by them so that we make sure we're not just imposing on people. But again, thank you to everyone for your time and effort over these months. As I think the vice mayor and I was saying, everyone's going to leave and happy with something that we did. But what I hope to be most proud of this council for doing is actually taking action for now. It's so easy to slide in to say this is a regional problem. We didn't create this. But you know what? We've got 76,000 people that we answer to, and so we have the opportunity to do something. It's time to step up to the plate now. So let's get going. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. At this point, I don't know if. We should go down the list and see where we are, where all of us are. Speaker 7: I don't think we have a consensus. Speaker 0: I don't think we are. Speaker 2: On the moratorium. Speaker 6: I thought I heard a consensus on. Yes, cause eviction. Speaker 1: Do you want to use the last slide? Least as a list of possible. Speaker 2: So this is on page 18 of the staff report, the recommendations. Speaker 0: So actually I'd like to go back and remember de SAC, if you could clarify. When were you supportive of the current RAC for rent increases or what was your position on rent increases. Speaker 6: For the more for purposes of the moratorium? Speaker 9: For purposes of. Speaker 0: Policy? Speaker 6: Of policy? Well, my my focus is on dealing with what I call excessive rent increases through a relocation assistant assistance program. Because that's what I heard people are concerned about. Speaker 2: I'm sorry. Speaker 6: People. My concern is about relocation assistance to deal with excessive rent increases, because I think that will begin to cool the market. And I think the policy discussion is what's the triggering threshold? You know. Everything that I've collected indicates that 10% is a reasonable triggering threshold. I think members of the community have indicated or members of the council are looking at something south of that, an 8%. You know, staff can come back and we'll work it out in conjunction with the community renters and the small landlords and any other affected stakeholder. I think my suggestion is not to say what the threshold is tonight, but that there ought to be a threshold with regard to relocation assistance. Speaker 0: So then do you support Barack? Speaker 6: Oh, yeah. You know, I would have the RAC be the one who would go through that process because as indicated in the report that I put up, put together, one of the things I want to do is give the power of RAC to determine the final relocation amount, whatever the formula is, you know, rely on staff or I've seen models like the Glendale Richmond model. But, you know, maybe there are better ways. Some people say percentage or whatever. But I would like the RAC then to also weigh in. And if it's appeal to council, then then so be it. Speaker 0: Okay. So we actually might have some sort of census, I think at least. Speaker 2: And the. Speaker 0: Three. Speaker 5: Of us go on emotion. Speaker 2: Well, what are we talking about? What are we talking about? Is that the relocation assistance being. Speaker 9: A one tool? Speaker 2: Well, I thought it was for. If we're. Okay. Help me understand, Mr. Desai, if we're going to limit. Rent increases to a certain percentage, then doesn't that removes the risk of excessive. Speaker 6: Oh, that's because I'm focusing simply on I'm not I'm not working within the rent stabilization or the rent control model. I'm working within the relocation assist because there were five models that were put out there. The mediation model, rent control rent stabilization model, just cause eviction and rental financial relocation assistance. I like I like the last two models and I'm open to the first model. Speaker 5: Oh. Speaker 0: Vice Mayor. Speaker 5: Madam Mayor, on the what I understand what Councilmember de Stokes driving at is. What I would fit into a direction. Two staff who. RFI The Rent Review Advisory Committee Ordinance to include. The 30 to 60 day no cause termination of tendance tendency with the authority of Iraq to assign. Relocation assistance or a tenant that may be displaced by this process? In this process. According to a formula that staff devise. Speaker 6: True. But the one trigger event in terms of for me and the other councilmembers that might have might not agree, but one trigger event for relocation assistance is, you know, a certain threshold. If there is if a landlord is proposing to increase rents by 10% or more than the the relocation assistance process. Speaker 9: It's the same. Speaker 5: Person leaves. After the person who is. Speaker 6: You know. Speaker 9: Is terminally ill during. Speaker 6: That during the process. Speaker 9: During the. Speaker 6: Yeah there the. Okay. Let's say on January 1st, a tenant gets a notice that her or his rent is going to increase by 25%. The tenant then goes to the rent review advisory board and a exercise. Speaker 5: Understand you understand what you're going. Speaker 6: To do. So. But but let's be clear. I understand that there's policy discussions as to what is the right triggering event. I'll leave it at that. So. Speaker 7: There's also policy discussions and if that's the only thing we want to do. I mean, if if if we're just saying, you know, we should have just caused and be we should have relocation, it still doesn't solve the problem. Speaker 6: And I agree with you that it's just it's just two things. Speaker 7: I mean, I think it has to be a component that we discuss. And, you know, I'm not quite add just cause yet, but, you know, maybe we come back and discuss things. But, you know, without any any type of finality or, you know, arbitration where there's a decision one way or the other, you know, it's still all voluntary. So, I mean, we're still not giving any teeth and we're still not providing any protections. I mean, it's bad enough we're not going to be able to protect the 20 some percent that live in single family homes. But now we're basically saying, you know, we don't want to have, you know, any protections except, you know, the right process. And we still want to keep that advisory. We don't want to make it binding. And that's kind of where where I'm I'm struggling. Speaker 6: Let me address that question this way. In 2004, when we went through the Harbor Island mass eviction process, we the city of council Beverly was the mayor, I believe Frank and myself. Speaker 9: Barbara and Barbara, her okay. Speaker 6: And Barbara Kerr when we went through the process to deal with a mass eviction of over 400 families from Harbor Island, we went to and we fought for relocation assistance. Unfortunately, the amount that we got was quite paltry. As part of that fight, we also went to the local courts, the state courts, and it was actually Judge William Alsup, who was the judge who presided over it. At the end of the day, Judge Alsup said, okay, you know what, 15 group, the Florida group who was kicking everyone out has met whatever burden that they had to meet. So the tenants who are at Harbor Island and believe we had tenants here that night. And as a council member, I had to say that, you know what, unfortunately, this is America. Things like that happen. We're going to try as we're going to fight as hard as we can. We're going to provide relocations to cool the market as we can. And we're going to provide the relocation, hopefully is as high as it is it can be. And the other day, the property owner, if it's her or his property, and they want to go a different way as a council member. We've got to turn to the residents here and tell them the way that our system works. It's not a perfect system, but at least we can give some kind of some kind of relocation assistance as families go through this kind of a painful, painful experience. You know, I dealt with that back in 2004. I had to say to the families there that, okay, we tried our best, but it is time to move. But now it's possible that we're in the same situation. But now we can we can write that by creating a new ordinance that gives a measure of relief through some kind of financial relocation assistance that wasn't there years ago. Speaker 0: Ms. It sounds like you would not be agreeable to a binding decision. Speaker 6: A binding. Speaker 0: Binding decision? Speaker 6: What's that mean? Speaker 0: So that's. Trying to give the rack some teeth. And that's what I. Speaker 1: Was asked earlier. The binding. Yeah. Speaker 0: If we made RAC binding. And so my, my idea of having it be if a landlord wants to increase, make an increase above 8% or higher, then have the landlord come and decide at some point, you know, come to council or it can be binding at the RAC. I would actually like it to come to council if it's going to be binding because we are the true elected officials. But then and then it would only be binding. It's my understanding on the homes that are not. Single family homes. Anything that's not exempted from cost to Hawkins, but it could be binding on those. And then and we have our rack that is made up of two landlords, two renters and a homeowner. You get this in there. Then it comes to us. Speaker 6: I know council member Ashcraft can say something real quick, but if I can answer that real quickly, my when I hear you say binding with regard to how I'm laying it out, this this is how to me what mean, what binding means. And it gets hit with a rent notice of 20% or more and it goes to the rack review process and says, Hey you. The city of Alameda and the RAC have an ordinance in place that says that I am eligible for some form of relocation assistance. Rent Review Advisor Board. Brings the. The property owner and the tenant because that's our current. Now current. What's a process they molded over and then it went if the rent review advisory board says, well, we're going to give you what is 100% of the formula, and let's just say hypothetically, it turns out to be $5,000, $1,000 plus two months worth of rent, which is the Glendale model. Let's say the rent review board says you're relocation assistance, because as these guys don't want to go below 10%, they want to stick out their original 25%. You, the tenant, your relocation assistance is $5,000. In that sense, to me, that's binding. Speaker 0: Got it. All right. Member Ashcroft. Speaker 2: So I would favor an approach that actually gives the tenants protection from that 20 to 30% increase. And this is why the figure 8% actually seems reasonable to me. I didn't just pull it out of thin air or off my table with the way that these cities are doing. When I met with various landlords and landlords representatives, I hounded them to tell me what kind of increase do you need reasonably to make in your rents each year? So you're you're paying your expenses. We get that the economy fluctuates. You need to have to be building a nest egg that reserve for the rainy day. If it's an LLC, a limited liability corporation, and some of them are including some of our locals, there's profits that are distributed. But I mean, you distribute profits, but you still hold back your reserve. And they actually gave me data and nobody had a figure that was two figures. They didn't even get to 8%, quite frankly. So I it seems to me that I don't want to do something that is somehow protecting those landlords who did make the 20 and 30% increases, because I think we have to at least make a good faith effort to help tenants stay here. I mean, they they get that rents go up, they can absorb something, maybe, maybe not some on the fixed incomes, but 20 to 30%. I just feel like that's not doing enough to protect tenants. It's buying them out, buying them off, sending them wherever they can go with that $5,000. I think we need to do more to protect them from what I would consider an egregious rent increase. Speaker 0: So let me follow up for clarification, though, which you're proposing that would not apply to all units? Correct. You would have the cost to Hawkins that only apply. It would be subject to cost to Hawkins. Speaker 2: It would be subject to cost to Harkins. Here's Mr. Rausch. Speaker 9: Well, I think part of the difficulty is, on one hand, we're talking about relocation assistance, and on the other hand, we're talking about a percentage increase and different rules apply to those two different things. So. You can if you're talking about relocation assistance, you don't have to worry about the cost. The Hawkins issue when you're talking about percentage increases, then. Then you do have to be concerned about that. So we're kind of jumping back and forth. That's understandable. But but we need to keep those concepts separate. Speaker 2: Thank you for that reminder. You're right. And so I just so if we are trying to somehow skate around Costa Hawkins, I stop and remember that 25% of our renters are in single family housing. Is that what it was? It was 72 or something. But anyway, I think maybe the solutions are not mutually exclusive. Speaker 6: They're not they're just simply two different models. And I think the way for me to to. Addressed this issue is basically to say this. As incredibly awful it is for families to be subject to 15 to 20 to 25% increases, as incredibly awful as that is. And that happens in Alameda. This is the American system. So what we need to do is we need to soften it by providing relocation assistance. Now for others, may be the way to soften it is by stopping anything above 8%. There's so there's a difference in the models. I get it. Speaker 0: I wanted to go in regards to what you're seeking. If if a landlord wants to or he has costs, then they can go to rack. If they have costs, if they have costs, you know, a new roof or whatnot. But we saw in this in San Jose, then they go to some board and they can get permission for that. Yep. Speaker 2: That's the mechanism that you can use that the a threshold number say 8%. And if a landlord could come with showing and this is where probably I would actually favor staff member or some sort of that simply because it gets into a lot of financial data and the landlord has to come forth with the forward with them data that shows I'm doing these repairs and it's amortized over these years and, and this is why I need to increase it this much because they don't, you know, they're not going to burden the tenant with the cost of the new roof all in one year. But you amortize it over however many years, you amortize a new roof. So I think some of that gets a little beyond the scope of of the the rack. But I think that with the additional rental, the registration fees that we could find, either somebody who's already in it's on staff or the housing authority. I think it can be it can be done. So for as far as the additional costs, Mayor, that one, I would yes, there should be a process whereby a landlord who needs to who wants to make a showing of the need for more than the threshold increase can come before some entity. But I wouldn't think that one should be the rack. Speaker 0: So would you have a need for Iraq? Speaker 2: But I have a need for Iraq. Well, I think that. Speaker 4: For. Speaker 2: That's a good question. Speaker 0: Because if it's. Well, what I'm hearing is you would not. And that's why I'm out. Speaker 2: And, you know, which is. Speaker 0: Different from the way I would arrive at that may turn out to be, I think in some ways the same. But I would go through a mediation process and as opposed to just. Saying We're not doing Iraq anymore. We're going to. I have an 8% or. Speaker 2: I think given the 90 speakers we heard and actually I didn't do the tally, but maybe 50% renters. 50% landlords, I don't know. I would have to say that for a variety of reasons. The process the process wasn't working. And that's nothing against the the volunteers who've served know very faithfully on the rack. But there are other forces in play that are keeping people from getting there. That even attaching the notice of the existence of the rack to your rental increase are not going to address if we don't do something as a council. So I but I, as we were as I was listening to the presentation, that same question was going through my mind. And so at this point, I'm going to say I'm not sure, but I would I am intrigued by Councilmember de Thug's relocation assistance over certain percentages of increases because that would address the properties that don't fall within Costa Hawkins. But I still for the other 70 to 74%, I think we need to protect them from egregious rent increases. Speaker 0: And for the properties that don't fall within Costa Hawkins, which you won't rack or you would do is wrong for those people to. Speaker 2: You know, that's that's a question that I think I would probably back into when I see what all the other remedies we might be willing to put in place are. His right now is currently okay. And the other thing I'm just going to say, and I said this at the I think at previous council meeting, I actually would like to see the composition of the RAC changed slightly. I'm fine with two rent or representatives. I'm fine with two representatives of income, property owners or managers. I don't think that that fifth person member needs to also be a property owner because again, this is a body that's meant to oversee and make decisions about rents that people are being charged. What if we got a business owner or somebody who was was chosen for that reason? Just because here's the other thing that happened. It just depends on who shows up that night. There could be a quorum, but it could be all three of your property owners because three out of five is is a quorum. So anyway and right now, without some more training to really handle these kinds of media issues we're talking about, I wouldn't feel confident based on what I saw Monday night, and I wouldn't. Speaker 0: All right. MEMBER Audie. Speaker 7: Thank you, Madam Mayor. So I want to go back to one you know, one thing. You know, under the the San Jose model that I was advocating, I would still think we should still have a rack process for those under that 8%. And we could still have mediation if somebody thinks that 8% is, you know, 5% is too much. And of course, we'd have to have some option for the the single family owners, because what I've been hearing is there's a lot of issues with single family homes being, you know, evicted. But this is Mr. Rushton. San Francisco had a a relocation. Expense hike that just got kicked out by the courts. Can you kind of describe that a little? And then I want to comment. Speaker 2: On the Ellis act was. Speaker 7: Well, just let him. Speaker 9: I'm going somewhat from memory on it. I, I think that it had to do with the fact that the relocation benefits were set so high that the court found that to be confiscatory. In other words, it wasn't. Most of the ones that I've seen, that's usually like, you know, one or two times the rent plus maybe $1,000 . And my recollection is that the one in San Francisco was like ten times that amount. So it was like 36 or $40,000. And the court said there's really no reasonable relationship between that relocation benefit and and moving out that it was really just punitive and confiscatory. And I think that's why the the court and I think was the superior court invalidated it. Speaker 7: Okay. Thank you. So I still have a real visceral reaction to this this buyout, because if the issue we're trying to solve is, you know, helping tenants feel secure in their homes, helping tenants that have lived in Alameda for a long time. Stay in Alameda. Then putting a value on their tenancy and allowing them to get bought out is not going to solve the problem. In fact, I think it's going to exacerbate the issue because we're going to give an easy way for someone to be, you know, kicked out, basically told, we don't want you here anymore in Alameda . You need to go find housing somewhere else. Here's your 30 $500. Go off and do it. And then what's the result? The result is going to be a they don't get protection from a large rent increase because we're telling them to leave so that person is gone, done, and then B, someone else is going to move into that unit and they are going to get market rate, which is, you know, could be ten, 15, 30, 40% higher. So I, I still I have a visceral reaction. I think it's social cleansing. We're just telling people that can't afford to live here, that have lived here for a long time. We don't want you here. Take some money. Get the heck out of here. And I just have a big problem with that. Speaker 6: And that's not the way I see it. I see a relocation assistance, two month rent plus $1,000, which is what's being for Richmond and for Glendale. I see it as a mechanism that allows families who unfortunately have to go through a very painful decision, and it's a mechanism that assist them through that process. It's also a mechanism to send a message to the property owners. It's tailored to the property owners who are charging excessive rent increases because that's ultimately the difference here. The difference here is how we define what the problem is and from there flows. What are the solutions? To me, the problem is dealing with out of town landlords charging excessive rents. In that vein. Once you define the problem that way, then you tailor your your solutions to that. And and I feel like, you know, I can't I think I've said enough. But you define the problem as helping families. I get it. I get it. You know, then you have to have this greater, you know, rent stabilization rent control program in place to help to make that happen. But I believe that at the end of the day. That the amount of rent increases that are happening as as as unfortunate and as widespread as they are, that the relocation assistance is one way to begin to cool the market and make those charging 15%, 20% rent to think otherwise. That's that's my theory going into this. Speaker 7: But I think we could in a year already accepting the fact that, you know, somebody is in a bad spot and they're being forced to move. I mean, we could take steps to not even put them in that spot by limiting the amount of increase to a number, whether it's 8%, whether it's 10%, what or whatever, that a landlord has to demonstrate that, you know, they're entitled to that large increase. Or, you know, we could say, you know, we're not going to do 30, 60 day notices for no cause. So we don't put the tenant in that space a year already. In my in my opinion, you know, just conceding that this person has to go and I'd like to find a way to stop putting them in the position where they have to face having to go and have to face looking for a new place and needing a relocation expenses. And I still disagree economically. And, you know, maybe you're smarter than me on this, but if you kick people out. And you're going to be able to charge market rents. And I don't see how that cools off the rental market. Speaker 6: Because it makes landlords think twice about having to do that because suddenly they realize that there is an additional cost that they have to think about. Speaker 7: But if you're if you're 34. Real quick, if it's 3500, say, 3600, 300 a month for a year, and you could re rent the place for 600 more a month, you know, then. Now I'm going to take the 3600 and kick the person out and I still make 3600. You know, just. Speaker 0: So. All right. So I appreciate that. Speaker 2: Member Ashcroft. Thank you, Mayor. I want to address both of my colleagues on that side of the dais. So. So, Councilmember Odie, we have a situation with Costa Hawkins where we're not going to be able to limit the percentage rent increase on a single family home. So that tenant gets that 25, 30% rent increase you and it's an evicted it a constructive eviction for all intents and purposes, because they can't afford to stay here. You would be comfortable with saying you're going to walk away empty handed because to do otherwise would be what is it that you call it, social cleansing. That would be okay. So just hold that thought. And then Councilmember de thug. It seems like you're going out of your way to protect those egregious landlords that we've heard so much about that are making higher percentage increases than our local folks even say is necessary. And I mean, if I were sitting in their seats, I think I would feel somewhat offended that I'm not a part of the problem. We thought this was going to be about targeting and going after the ones who are causing the problem. And if I understood a large amount of what we were hearing about when we definitely heard about some no cause evictions, but mostly what I heard tonight was people who were getting these rent increases and didn't know how they were going to be able to deal with them. Speaker 6: My first responsibility is to do the best that I can or the residents in Alameda, whether they're renters or their homeowners or businesspeople. And in performing my responsibility, I have to look at the different policy options and I have to look at the facts as they are. We do live in a system where unfortunately prices now and then get incredibly high and for services as important as housing, it happens. We have differences of policy opinions or some. And I get it. I understand, you know, some you know, you want to pursue rent stabilization and rent control. I get it. I you know, it it does put it into play. It does help out families. I don't disagree with that. But I do also think, though, that if we pursued the rent. Assistance path at. That would also be a way to help out families and also to cool the market down. We just have differences of opinion. Speaker 0: So we have five people up here. I actually think at least three of us, if not four of us, may be very close. Speaker 7: In answering that question, though. First, briefly. Speaker 0: I'd actually like to try to focus on coming up with a consensus. Speaker 7: That because that's kind of what I was going to suggest. I think we need to we need to look at the two different segments differently. You know, the single family homes, which were limited on what we can do and target tailored remedy for them. And then on the homes that were or the units that were not limited, you know, then I think we can we can tailor a different remedy. If we have consensus. But I think that remedy has to be stronger than simply relocation. Speaker 9: Better. Speaker 0: Mayor, vice. Speaker 5: Mayor. And I think one of the assumptions that. Thank you, madam. I'm. I'm. I'm feeling from the comments. Is that a mediation that happens at RAC has been worthless? And I understand that there's been a number of successes. With that mediation in of with regard to rent increases bringing rent rent increases down. And one of the problems before we jump to the next solution, I think, is what are some protections we can provide for people who are afraid to go to Iraq now? Or as the testimony goes, they don't want to talk to their landlord at all because they're afraid that they're going to get a notice of eviction. So I think that's why it's important to put a mediation process in place at the RAC that allows people who receive that termination of not for cause to have a mediation. So it basically elevates that. And then. Is there. And maybe this is a question to to our staff and our city attorney. Is there a protection that can be provided that will be strong enough such that people are not afraid to go back? Speaker 0: So that's okay. I want to respond to that just if I could, because that's what I was thinking. If you shift the burden. That's not the tenant that has to file for permission or or you know, that on this that it would be the landlord that files and then the landlord has to show up, that they would have to come it would come to rec and that would be arbitrated. So I would address your issue of your tenants that say that they are afraid to come. It would put it's just your burden. And that's also why I suggest required mediation. Yes. If you want to do that. And I think that is how you do it because. It addresses that issue. Speaker 2: Well, it puts the outcome, though, Mayor, at when the landlord says, no, no, I like my 25% increase. Speaker 0: So he was first talking about the no fault. That's what I thought you spoke to first. Speaker 5: Yes. And there's also an and again, the I don't know. Speaker 0: So if a landlord wants to do a no fault, then my suggestion was that they would then come to Iraq. And they would have to get permission from ROC to do that. And and it can, in fact, have. It could be. So where is the teeth? Right. That. That. But even before that, Ken. Okay. So that was why I wanted to have that way, because it addresses that concern that it's on the landlord. And but it also gives credibility to the work that RAC has been doing that that is not. It is successful for many of the people that come here, but it has never been able to deal with the evictions then. If. So. For the no fault eviction. So then it would give the mediation opportunity in that situation. So I think it could address that at least be the next step. And I think. Speaker 9: And. Speaker 5: There was a second component that I had, I think that covers the second component is a number of speakers referred to tonight a. They're hunkered down because. They're afraid that they're going to get evicted. And they're not availing they they don't feel comfortable coming to Iraq. Speaker 0: And that's your rent increase, right? Speaker 5: How do we provide some is there some additional protection to prevent retaliation. Speaker 9: Even if it's. Yeah. Speaker 0: So. So that was why I suggested if the landlord wants to raise the rent 8% or higher, then they must come to rec. Then it's not on the tenant to file the complaint because the tenant would has concerns. So it addresses that issue. It puts it on the landlord. And Iraq has been, I submit, relatively successful. You have your outliers, really. We want to focus on that. But if you require if if any landlord wants to do an increase of 8% or higher, that they come to Iraq and explain their situation. Then that addresses why it. It forces mediation and that. Speaker 2: And pardon me. Speaker 0: No. I had actually said to consider having it be binding either there or the next level. But but it supports rack, which I think we which I do support. I would just like to strengthen it and I think it's an intermediate step and I actually think it could be very more successful than rent control per say, because with mediation, it allows your tenant to explain their their issues. And I have actually come to, I think, every rackmount meeting since I've been mayor. And when you watch the process, they do balance and they come up with decisions. And that what I have heard is that. They're missing the teeth part of it that you have landlords that are tenants that. So first of all, there's the fear element. If and how do you deal with more egregious rent increases? That's why you shift the burden to your landlord to have to file, to come through the process. And it's not on your tenant. Your tenant is not raising it. It's actually a determination to your landlord whether or not they want to do that increase, because then they will be coming to mediation. It will be part of the process. And, and then so that's why I was suggesting those nuances to address. But I hear and so if your landlord does have to avail themselves of coming to Iraq, which I don't think is a bad thing because I think rec works, I think the problem with RAC has been that it hasn't had teeth. But if you could get more people to come, then I think you would have more settlements and that would actually address a lot of these issues that you're right, you have tenants that are concerned, they don't come. But if we made it part of the process, then they would it would be it would be a part of the process. And then the second part I was suggesting was that you do add teeth, you make it binding. And I would actually say when it comes to council, because we are the actual direct elected people so we could review it, RAC had done and I would also continue to encourage all of us to attend RAC because then you see it and here it is. But then it would not. I know it would not be a binding for all. However, I think that quite often our settlements do work and then I don't have a problem with member de Saag your other way of handling it if it doesn't for your. For your vacancies or for you tenants that Costa Hawkins doesn't apply to. Then you come up with, if in fact all is going through mediation, done at work. You're right. We still have for part, we don't have to. But you can make it. Of what is it now? What was the word? I was just saying. Flannery. No, no. Binding. Binding. You can make it binding for the others once. It is not binding for then that's when you kick in your and you may want to do it, you know. But that's an option that can apply your formula and addresses those that otherwise would not be addressed. Speaker 5: Yes, I a staff question and I mean, pardon me. Speaker 0: Did you want to comment? No, I. Speaker 9: Just wanted to comment on. If the council hasn't established a threshold amount. That a landlord is entitled to get. Then. In order for anti-inflammatory watch to something above that, there has to be some sort of evidentiary hearing if it's going to be binding at some point. So whether that's going to be in front of the rack or in front of the city council. If you're if you're you, you're going to tell the landlord you don't get your 20%. The landlord has the opportunity to present evidence on that, and there has to be presumably counter evidence of that so that there's an evidentiary administrative record, so that if so, the landlord has the opportunity to say, You've denied me this, and now you have denied me a fair return on investment. So just keep that in mind as you as you go through your deliberative process here, that that if there's going to be a binding decision, it's going to be you know, there's going to be an administrative process involved in all of that. Speaker 0: And I also support the tradings for the rec people so that they are more able to be effective. Speaker 2: That's actually what I was maybe reading into Mr. Bush's comments is that this is and again, remember, this is a person's livelihood we're we're dealing with if there is an assertion of a taking that could lead back to liability for the city. And so if we're going to. Get into those waters. I really think that's the sort of decision that should be made at the council level, not the right. Speaker 0: So that was why I would have it start Iraq. And if they want to appeal it, as opposed to settling it, when it could come to our level. Speaker 9: And and again, to analogize it to other other jurisdictions. Typically in that kind of situation, you have the matter heard by whether it's an arbitrator or hearing officer or whatever that person conducts the hearing, makes findings, etc.. And then it can be advisory to the city council who could make the final decision. But then you have an administrative record that you're dealing with. You know, it's it's which is different. I mean, the concept is different than talking about. Requiring the landlord to go to the rack if it's a certain percentage or above. That's a different issue in my mind than saying regardless of what that what that number is. If you're going to not if you're going to have a threshold number above which a person doesn't get an automatic increase, then you've got to provide that administrative hearing process for that person. It can ultimately come back to the Council for a final decision and that the way and many jurisdictions do that. But you need you know, you need a more formal process. I mean, you don't want to be conducting, you know, a two day hearing on something like that. And that's what typically these things are, because you've got accountants, you have CPAs, you have real estate appraisers. They're they're involved processes. And you have lawyers on both sides. And they're they take a lot of time. And unless the council actually wants to do that. They're better off in a, you know, sort of hearing it after it's all done, but not in themselves conducting the hearing. Okay. Speaker 0: But you could. Could you not still have it so that we could use rec for the first layer? Oh, certainly. But still have it be if if someone wants to if a landlord wants to do an increase of I'm going to say 8% or higher that they file it. So that so that we end up having more of these hearings. And we would also get our data that would address our data if anyone in our town is doing a rent increase of 8% or higher. They would come to Iraq and we would have real data of who's doing it, when is that happening? And that's something that is missing right now. Speaker 2: But actually, it doesn't have to be the rack because there's a registration process whereby every rental property owner is going to be registered and there's a requirement that you before you do a rent increase, you file that with. Speaker 9: If if you have a registration program. That's correct. If you don't registration program, then you can put the onus on the landlord to have to do something in order to get the matter in front of the rack as opposed to having the tenant check. Speaker 2: Oh, I like the registration program because it also is a way that we bring in some fees to help fund the program. And I so I do think that with the accountants and everything, that's me and also the rack hearings aren't actually recorded. I mean, maybe that could be changed. But as far as building a record, there's it's not a recorded proceeding. Speaker 0: So let's talk about this registration part real quick. I o in regards to the registration, you're right. Member Ashcraft then there's fees because you end up with the system. Does anyone have an idea of how much from staff it costs to have a registration process? Speaker 4: But it's. Speaker 0: But, but that is. Speaker 2: What the fees are across the different. Speaker 0: What the cost would be to the city to implement that. Speaker 3: So what we would have to do to implement a new program if we had a mediation process fee or a registration fee. Speaker 0: I'm sorry, the registration fee of rent so that every landlord, when they do a rent increase would have to register it. Speaker 3: Right. And then the only one they do. Speaker 0: That's three she to speak that's we're talking about right now this is registration if you're doing a rent increase. Speaker 3: So when you adopt a new fee, regardless of what the fee is, you have to do a study to justify the fee. So we would have we would depending on the program and what the components of the program are, we would then do a study and the fee would have to be equivalent to what it costs to administer the program. Speaker 0: Okay. And to me, that would be another cost passed down to your tenants as opposed to of only requiring the landlord come. If it's 8% or higher, then then you don't add an additional. Speaker 3: Most jurisdictions cap the amount of the fee that can be passed through to the tenant. So there is an opportunity to to share that cost between the tenant and the landlord. Speaker 0: Okay. So I said let me ask my other council members up here. Is anyone besides member Ashcraft support this registration process? Speaker 7: I think I suggested that in the beginning. Also, I'm not quite sure how much we want to charge for that and who needs to bear it. I'd like to have more analysis on that from staff. Speaker 0: Any other members that would be interested in that? Speaker 2: And just just looking across the board, I have a table with Berkeley, Los Angeles, Oakland, San Francisco, San Jose, Santa monica and West Hollywood and Berkeley, high of $194 a year. Los Angeles 2451 a year. Oakland $30. So. San Francisco, $29. Speaker 0: So let me just find out. I'd like to poll all councilmembers. Would you be interested in a registration process? Every member? Speaker 7: Well, that allows us to get data. Yes. Speaker 0: Member de SAC this time. Speaker 6: No, I, I mean, I'm open to getting information. I, you know, whatever staff has to respond, but I just don't have a seat, see it, feel it, touch it, kind of. Response. Speaker 2: Is that something I could direct staff to look into and bring back to us? Speaker 0: So I don't think we have a majority. That's what I'd like to be able to ask each council member. Thank you and myself now. So at this point we do not have an interest in that. Speaker 4: So I have a question. Speaker 0: By vice mayor. Speaker 1: I'm sorry to interrupt. I just wanted to. The I'm not that I have an opinion, but I just want to say about the fee, what that fee captures. For example, we have roughly 16,000 rental units. That's just an approximation. Let's say you times it by 25,000, that's $25. That's about $40,000 a year. That allows us to capture some of the costs that I'm assuming there is going to be some cost to whatever it is that you are going to be asking us to do. So if you don't impose the fee, that's fine. But just know that that means it's going to have to come from somewhere else. Speaker 0: Mayor Yes. Vice Mayor. Speaker 5: Comment on that. And then my question, I think whatever we decide to do, we can make a fee that fits that. But rather than talking about a registration system or the purpose of gathering data and and or other, it doesn't fit. It's not fitted to an ordinance yet. So I think let's talk about that. When an ordinance comes on how to implement it. Speaker 2: Is that something that's. Speaker 1: All we have. Speaker 5: We give an ordinance when we give direction, they they should look on how we fund it if. Speaker 0: We end up. Speaker 5: My question came back to the toothless RAC is. When do we have any data? Any any batting average, if you will, on how many times at the end of the rack process, the landlord walked away and said, Well, thank you for your advice. I'm going to do it anyway. How many times out of total number of. Speaker 3: That scenario is very unusual. A handful of times since the end. The the success rate is well above 85% or something over that over the life of the rate for the number of cases that. Speaker 5: So I think the assumption that that it's the lack of teeth is causing the rack to fail. I think that challenges that assumption because I think the bigger problem is that people are afraid to come to the rack. That's that's the point. And I'd like staff. I don't have a solution to that, but I'd like staff to look into what kind of protections can we give a tenant who comes to the rack to keep them from getting kicked out? Speaker 3: So if I could just maybe weigh in with a few observations based on the discussion, it seems to me that the council could adopt sort of a layering of of options that when taken in total add up to kind of that protection that that's being talked about and what people are are striving to come up with. So for example, when we gave the presentation, we talked about ways to enhance the mediation process and we said that potentially an option was to require an appearance before the RAC if the rent is going to be increased above a certain percent along the lines of what the mayor has been discussing, if people feel like and that would be an obligation of the landlord, if the concern is that people want to fly under the radar, tenants not make waves. And perhaps you layer that with a just cause eviction ordinance so that as you do your deliberations, you may want to look at kind of a layering or taking taking aspects of the kinds of tenant protections in total so that you have a package where it's working together. And that then provides some of the the assurances so that you're not necessarily assuming that the rack is not successful, but you're addressing a problem. Let's let if we set a percentage threshold at which it's mandatory, perhaps that discourages tenant landlords from doing rent increases . More than that, that may be one piece of it. But if you want the ability of tenants to be able to come, perhaps it needs a just cause eviction ordinance to go with it. If you still have instances in which you will have no fault evictions, perhaps you want to layer on a relocation benefit so that you're taking your package in total and you're building your building that way to get a comprehensive package, which then provides that the protections. So that might be a way to to look at this and look at it. I want to repeat myself, but that kind of that layering concept might help put together a package that's just a suggestion Speaker 5: . And I'm also I'm also concerned about an assumption of something we just put in place on October 1st. That's when the notices went out. Right. That people have been noticing when there's going to be an increase. Speaker 1: It took effect. Speaker 4: That's correct. Yeah. Speaker 5: So we're one, two, three, four weeks into that and I I'm I'm not sure of the testimony tonight. Which post October 1st and what's pre October 1st and would have. Can we can we look at that to see if there's a difference in that action? Speaker 3: There has not been an uptick in the number of cases over the last four weeks. And I think staff is not necessarily anticipating seeing more more complaints. In line with kind of the issue that you were raising about the desire to fly under the radar and not sort of upset the apple cart and some of that. So that's been it's obviously been a very short period of time and everyone's getting used to it. But it it may be appropriate that given that or, you know, recognizing that some of our measures to strengthen the ordinance have been in place a short period of time, it may still be appropriate to build on some of that strengthening. And we're just you know, it's kind of a building blocks kind of thing and that it may that may be an appropriate approach to take or it may be that the counsel says we want to let it work. Leave it as it is. And then let's look at layer. Do we layer on just cause? Do we layer on relocation benefits and still kind of building building that a more comprehensive package. Speaker 6: And I really like the framework that you laid out. I don't know if that's enough to move forward under the color of the 65 day moratorium, but if it is, that'd be great. The second thing I'd like to say, if you're going to pursue a layering approach to have to add, because I think there's clear differences between how I feel about rent stabilization and rent control and and how others feel. So there might be a layering with that in a layering without it. But with everything else, there's something to think about. Speaker 3: Well, based I think based on the discussion that staff has heard so far, I think if we were to go back without more refined direction, we would be looking at ways to strengthen the mediation process when it comes to the tenant protection piece of this. And and I think we would then look at the just cause and look at the relocation benefits. But if there's an opportunity to give us more, more focused direction, then we we probably can. Speaker 0: Member. Speaker 7: Thank you. I also like that suggestion. Ms.. Potter thank you for that. But I do think you'll piggyback on to what the mayor was saying. You know, that is of making a binding you are making it arbitration, which is similar to what they have, you know, in San Jose. So there seems to be three of us that want some type of binding protection for the units that were allowed to do that on. We may differ on how you get there and whether the landlord brings it or whether it's, you know, whatever. But, you know, I think that's something we can work out. But the high level concept I think is there that we wanted some binding. Speaker 2: So and I would I would concur with that unless. Speaker 7: I'm wrong that they are in your. Speaker 2: Yeah. Ms.. Potter's the first scenario you put in place the the layering requirement for the landlord to appear but with a just cause eviction ordinance because and to the vice mayor's point I'm not so worried about the landlords that appeared in the tenants that appeared, although I will say on Monday the landlord and she seemed quite lovely but when they she was asked but she come down and her rent increase she very nicely said no, no and no again. And basically she went forward with, you know, just what the tenant was trying to get out of, although it turned out that Ken hadn't been paying the recycling fee for the last two years, but the landlord hadn't brought it to her attention. So that was I mean, it just I but the point being, I'm more concerned about the people we heard from today, and I think we believe them when they said they're afraid to even ask for basic repairs. So I think we need to address that. I really like the idea of requirement for the landlord to appear with just because eviction ordinance and and relocation assistance as well. And then Councilmember Ody, you know, Councilmember DESA, you wanted to also have as well. Speaker 6: I like relocation assistance and the just cause eviction, but embedded within it, the relocation assistance in the way that Richmond and Glendale have embedded it. So you know what the formula for the just cause eviction is. You know, I can rely on staff, but I think there are good examples like Glendale. Could it be higher? Sure. But we don't want to be as high as San Francisco because that's not going to pass legal muster. Speaker 0: All right. Speaker 1: I just want a clarification. The relocation assistance, I think, is with no cause, right? Mm hmm. Mm hmm. But that. Oh, yeah. Right. Speaker 2: Oh. Speaker 6: Yeah. Yeah. With no, that's within the within. Just cause eviction, you mean. Speaker 1: So the no cause is you want to explain that and why that is, right. There is no just cause I think that's under the a confusing terminology. Speaker 3: Right. Because in this instance, just cause and no cause are synonymous. And but I do understand that the idea is that relocation benefits would be available if people are being evicted for no fault of their own or for. Speaker 6: Yeah, exactly. That's the Glendale model. The Glendale model says if the landlord wants to take over their unit or a family or herself or himself and and then also, I think if the landlord has to move somebody because of a they're doing some kind of major renovation. And then there's a third item. They indicate that under those specific issue instances, then relocation assistance. But I'm also talking about relocation assistance along the line that I've talked about it. Speaker 3: Right. We would that we would craft what I'm understanding from the council is craft relocation benefits and a just cause eviction such that the work around not being required to go in front of the rack to defend a rent increase is just a 60 day notice. The idea would be that you couldn't do that. You could not pick someone or. For no cause if their current on their rent and you just want to get them out to increase the rent that that's. Speaker 6: You can't do that, right? Speaker 3: Yeah. In the language you've been using tonight about what we're trying to solve for. That's what you're trying to solve for, is that people are not being evicted just so that the line can be doubled and somebody else can be moved in. Speaker 2: So question on that. If if we bring to the rack 60 day notices of eviction that have no cause. What is the rack do? Decide whether your lack of causes is allowed. I mean, the. Isn't that why you have the specified reasons that you can? Speaker 3: That is the typical structure of a no cause. All right. Speaker 2: Just well, I mean, seriously, I. Does the does the RAC decide that in some cases you didn't need any reason to evict this tenant in other cases. Speaker 6: Well, there's several issues in terms of the RAC. One issue for the most part has always been about rent increase, though that's sometimes separate from whether someone is being evicted, under what conditions. So there's still room, there's still there's still work for the RAC to be done within the context of dealing with rent. Speaker 0: Well, Vice Mayor. Speaker 5: And I think my intention was that we've heard situations where someone has children that are in school and they get a notice three or four months before the end of the year that says you have to be out in 60 days and. That can be mediated. Even if it was for to put a family member in or to do a renovation, how how how do you help me out here? And I think. Speaker 2: Not. No, cause. Councilmember Murthy. No causes. You've got 60 days to get out of here. Speaker 5: That's why when I made my. But when I made my. Wish ever it was, it says to include evictions. Hear it, though. The racket here. Any eviction? And if the racket here, if it's a for cause, then they can say, I'm sorry, you have to go to court because you're in violation of state law. Or if it's this situation. Or we're talking about. Time in schools or or other personal circumstances that can be mediated. Speaker 0: So I think so. I'm very much on board with you on that. It's just that I wanted the landlord to be able to come, to have to come. If they want to do an eviction, go to rack if unless the tenant is current on rent, if they want to do an eviction for I mean I mean and I actually it's if your tenant's current on rent and they want to do the eviction, then they come to Iraq and then they discuss it and they try to mediate it. Speaker 7: And I'm not sure how legal that is because the the state has provided a accelerated process for evicting people that, you know, for nonpayment of rent, a three day notice and you get a five day response and then you get a trial within 21 days of asking. And the same thing, even if it's a nuisance, you get a five day notice and you don't abate. And you know, you got to answer in five days. And, you know, I don't know if we can if we can change that process. Speaker 0: No, no, but I'm sorry. I meant if they have their current in their rent and they want to do an eviction. Speaker 7: Well, there are other ways you could evict somebody's nuisance, for example. Speaker 0: Right. So then they've come to Iraq and have the discussion. Speaker 7: But that's a legitimate way to evict people on a five day notice. And then you're kind of tying the landlord. I mean, that's worse than. Speaker 5: A and that wasn't included in what I proposed, that if it's if it's within state law, then. Right. State law applies. It's anything short of that. Speaker 7: I don't think we have the the bandwidth or do we have the skill set on the rack to act as judges and try to mediate evictions when there is a summary procedure put in place in the law to evict people for cause. Right. And I don't I just think that's the purview of judges, not the purview of the city council or an unelected rack, because at least the judges are elected. Speaker 0: So member already you would you have in in 36 any terminations go through Iraq? Speaker 7: Well, I like the vice mayor's idea that if you know you're doing a move out or you know you're moving in your kid or your grandmother or whatever, you know, and the timing of that is such that you have the families in school. I don't have a problem with those being mediated. You know, for extra time snowfall. Speaker 2: And that is that is no final note because there's no fault on the tenant yet. But, yeah, I'm with you. Speaker 7: What are you you know, your question was valid, you know. Speaker 2: Well, what do so determining Iraq. The one of the problems we heard tonight is that people are getting these 30 and 60 day notices. I just talked to a gentleman this afternoon who told me that he got a 60 day notice. The landlord had been saying, you know, I can rent this unit for a lot more than I'm getting from you. And so he was kind of waiting for the other shoe to drop and have the rent increase. But instead he got a 60 day notice to just vacate. And that's because we allow this in Alameda, because we don't have an ordinance that says you have to have a reason to vacate someone. So to me, I'd like us to actually enact a just cause ordinance, which means you still could do what the vice mayor is saying. You've got the family members moving in. Councilmember decide the to the Glendale model of the San Jose model. Lots of other cities do this but we don't leave open that option that someone and again I'm not worried about all the nice folks who came before us today, but I did hear about this one fellow who actually is a local resident landlord, but anyway, who did this. But I would rather that not be an option available. It's your property and sure, you should be able to. You have the right to get someone out for all those enumerated legal reasons, criminal activity on your property, failure to pay rent, etc. But then if you I mean, there should be and then the other when you want to move a family member in and then I'd be fine with taking that to relocation assistance. But do we really want to leave open the fact that someone could just come in again? This is instead of a rent increase, you can vacate that that unit that way. I mean, is that behavior we want to protect? Speaker 9: And to make it clear that. State law allows a landlord to evict a tenant if if you want to move a family member in. Now, obviously, you need to make sure that, in fact happens, that it's not a ruse. But. It just seems that the RAC seems to be set up well to deal with rent increases. And as I think some of you have suggested, keeping that just cause you want to have that provision, perhaps keeping that out of the purview of the of the RAC, because there are certainly ample provisions under state law to deal with that. We would set it up where if you are going to evict the person for cause, we have them report that to the housing authority, etc. so we can keep track of that, have a record of it, but. It seems like the rack has worked well with respect to rent increases and I don't know whether you do them a service by now, increasing their responsibility to deal with this sort of just cause it's just cause issue because you can tie under your ordinance to just to the to the just cause issue with relocation benefits. And you can set that formula up so that it's provided if the person meets the criteria that you decide are is appropriate. Hmm. Speaker 7: Do we all like Miss Potter? Speaker 9: Yes, because it was. Speaker 2: And that was one of your layers, right? Speaker 7: Possibly. Speaker 1: Hi, Larry. Speaker 4: Know the. Speaker 0: The notice of termination would not go through Iraq. That's. Not appropriate for Iraq. That would. Speaker 4: Be a. Speaker 3: Yes. I think conceptually what staff is talking about is that the what we would be looking at by way of rent increases, keeping that under the purview of the RAC, that would be an enhancement of rent, rent increase protections and then layering on separate from the rack process just cause eviction and relocation so that you are hopefully reducing the fear factor and you are allowing people to feel comfortable to pursue the mediation process that we have in place. And by having relocation and just cause you are you are giving those those sort of layered on protections so that our mediation process becomes more effective, that that would be the goal. And if if that is a framework that works for the council staff, feels like we do have sufficient direction to be able to go back and and craft those ordinances. And the only question left for this evening would be how you want to handle the proposed moratorium, if that's something that you want to move forward with. Speaker 0: So before you go there, in regards to the layers, would we have a layer where it shifts to the landlord to file, to go to rack? That one, the layers. Speaker 7: I mean, if it's it's either automatic or the landlord has to file and I mean six one half dozen of the other mean. Speaker 2: Oh yeah. Could be automatic increase of 8% or any, any increase whatsoever. I mean that, I mean. Speaker 7: If it has to be arbitrated or there has to be some hearing, then somebody has to bring it. I mean, I don't really. Speaker 2: Think. Speaker 7: It matters who brings it. I mean, then, you know, I think. Speaker 2: That I think that. Speaker 7: They made a good. Speaker 1: Point, though. Speaker 2: That for some landlords, it might even be a deterrent to have to go through that process. But it does. I think that's where. The registration process comes into. Speaker 7: I mean, you could say rent increases are not subject to a hearing out there limit to 8%. And if they're not, then the landlord has to apply for permission and then have it be binding. I mean. Speaker 2: What about. Speaker 7: The how is not is really important to me is the what so if you know. Speaker 2: I think someone earlier said but what about if for a particular tenant that 8% would pose a burden? Should that be something? Speaker 7: I mean, I had originally thought that we could keep the rack remediation under 8%, but is that not is that not possible? If we put this this number on. Speaker 9: The you could set it up where you would say that the right now the rack hears any rent increase and the tenant generates that. You can set it up so that if the rent increase is x percent or greater, then the landlord has to trigger the process. That's not again, there's a mediation process. It isn't going to deny the landlord the right to impose a higher than 8%, but it shifts the focus. So the landlord has to bring it rather than the tenant has to bring it. Speaker 7: And you could say that you can. Well, I think you should try mediation on both, but you try mediation first. And then if you don't get a resolution, if it's still above eight, then there's an arbitration but still allow mediation for others. Speaker 9: Yes, you can do that then, but now you're really imposing essentially a rent stabilization ordinance as opposed to a non rent true stabilization. But the answer is yes. If you if you say anything above, you know, 8% has to be mediated. But if you don't agree to that, then then you have to go through a separate hearing process. The answer is yes. The ordinance can be crafted that way. Because then because then you have a hearing to justify why the landlord feels that he or she is entitled to more than the 8% that you say at least is is sort of a threshold. Speaker 7: But you can still do mediation for underage. Sure. And that doesn't get you into the trouble with allowing the reasonable rate of return that you mentioned. Speaker 9: No, because, again, you you but we would bring back to you is is some options with respect to that. And you can decide whether or not you want to set a threshold amount that a landlord would be entitled to. And you can also say, in any event, that has to be mediated if it's less than or more than 8%. There's a lot of things we can provide to you on that, which I think you've given directionally if you're interested in looking at. Speaker 6: But to be sure that 8% above which a landlord has to come to a rent review advisory committee meeting, that is a form of rent stabilization. Did I hear that correctly? Speaker 9: Not just for not. Not just to mediate it. It would be only if there was some process that said you are not allowed to get more than a certain percent without showing that that percentage denies you a fair rate of return. Speaker 6: If you say that extra language, then it is rent stabilization. But it is that if you just leave it open ended as some kind of threshold that a you have to come and be, you have to go through some mediation. So it's just basically saying we're going to do the rent review model, which at this point the there is a threshold and the threshold is zero. Speaker 9: Correct. Speaker 6: But now instead, we're going to move that threshold to eight. Speaker 9: Well, you got to move. If if you went with eight. Sorry, the landlord now has to do it as opposed to the tenant. That's that's the that's the difference. Speaker 6: Now, within that framework, though, we're still I still believe we were within the rent review advisory committee framework where the triggering of a person having to come in to the meeting and get mediated, that person, that landlord doesn't necessarily have to. Speaker 9: Agree, does not have to agree under at least that the scenario you and I are discussing at the moment. Speaker 6: Okay. All right. Speaker 7: If it's binding, it becomes stabilization by definition. Speaker 0: So if we did that. Speaker 9: Well, if you if you if you say that. If you say you cannot get more than X, Mr. Land, Mr. and Mrs. Landlord, you can't get more than x. Then you're into a rent stabilization situation because now you've put a cap on it. Above which the person has to prove that he or she is entitled, that in order to get a fair return on investment. Speaker 7: That's why I'm still confused that. Could you still mediate below that? Because. Speaker 2: For a tenant. Speaker 7: Because you're saying they're entitled. If we put that 8%, then are we saying they're entitled to at least eight? Speaker 9: Well, if if the ordinance says they're entitled to eight. The answer's yes. Speaker 0: But we don't have to know. We can keep track the same way it is right now. It's just that at that trigger, if it's 8%, whatever number it is, then the the landlord does have to file and go through Iraq. Speaker 9: It's not you want to get into the the evidentiary hearing. If you have set some kind of cap, whether it's CPI, percentage of CPI, 8%, 10%, 12%, whatever. And if you say if you want something more than that housing provider, then the burden is on you to demonstrate you need that in order to get a fair return on investment. Speaker 6: Now, the cap that you mentioned, you referenced certain mechanics that can be by which you can do the cap, CPI or whatever. Now it's altogether possible the media, me mediating process itself would result in a cap. Right. They could say, okay. Speaker 9: Yes. Yes. I mean, you go. I mean, the answer is yes. Let's say the ETS say you had a cap of 5% for sake of discussion. Landlord wanted 10% goes to mediation and it turns out that they reached an accord at seven and a half or eight. That's fine. That's just that. That's the way the system kind of works today. No, no need to go any further than that. The landlord and the tenant has to have agreed on a number percentage and everyone goes home, you know, relatively unhappy. Speaker 0: But in regards to making it binding at some point, then that's when it kicks in to the stabilization, if that's correct. Speaker 9: If you've. The answer is yes with the understanding that. That governments can set thresholds and above that threshold. And if you're going to try to make that binding, then that's where the evidentiary hearing kicks in. Speaker 1: I think the question is, if the RAC, through the mediation process, says it's going to be 8% and the landlord wanted six, but the RAC is saying eight and it's binding. Is that fall into the category of rent stabilization. Speaker 9: If they. If I'm sorry. If the landlord wanted. How much? Speaker 1: Six. And they went through the opposite. Right. All right. That's right. Sorry. Yeah. Speaker 2: Yes. Speaker 1: But whatever it is. So let's just say the landlord ends up with something less than they wanted. Yes. And the RAC says, well, you're going to get this. And it's mediated, but now it's binding. Does that. Is that considered rent stabilization? Speaker 9: Yes. Again, because. Speaker 1: It is. Speaker 9: Binding, because essentially you've you haven't set a threshold amount. It's basically whatever. And now you have a body that's been appointed by the city council to say that landlord, you're only going to get 6%. And you have to you have to have some sort of evidentiary hearing that in order to make that stick. That's why typically you try to set a threshold so that you don't have those kind of hearings all the time that people, they know automatically they're going to get either a CPI or you're going to get a 3% or a 6% or whatever. And consistent with what we've heard tonight, that if you set that, you know, you set that percentage at some number that most of the local landlords seem to say, yeah, this is fine with us. Then you're probably not going to have many hearings if what they're saying is true. And I have to believe that. Speaker 1: This Potter staff. Speaker 3: Actually has a suggestion that you may want to consider regarding the moratorium. So you may want to talk about a moratorium on no cause evictions and no rent increases above 8%. Since you're looking at increasing enhancing the mediation where you would require landlords to come at 8%, that you would link the moratorium to rent increases above 8% . And then you might want to talk about, if you want that, look back for. Speaker 1: 12 months. Speaker 3: Or 24 months as part of that discussion. So that might be a way that you would want to approach your discussion on the moratorium. Speaker 0: We'll talk about that right now. Speaker 5: Vice Mayor I would rather not put a figure in because I'm concerned that there'll be a bunch of 8% increases on top of whatever else has happened. I I'd much rather have a, an appeal process. So it's, it's a moratorium. No rent increases? No, no cause evictions for 65 days. If there is a hardship that that places on a. A property owner that suppose they've let the permits for a soft story and their amortization starts in December. They can come in and ask for an appeal for relief. Speaker 9: Ask who? Asked the. Speaker 5: City council. Speaker 1: Well. Speaker 2: You know, I think I actually. So following your reasoning, Vice Mayor, the we're going to stop all rent increases for the next 65 days. I'm at the end of that 65 days. Can people go back retroactively and or are they just forgoing any rent increases? Could they go back and say, capture the 4% increase they wanted to? Mr.. Otis shaking his head. No. Speaker 5: No. Oh, you you go to react with go to your tenant. If whatever. I'm not going to presume what our ordinance changes are, but. Okay. The same process, in fact, after. But will happen. There'll be a new process with whatever ordinance modifications we make with those layering. To help provide that protection. Speaker 0: And I want I want to ask clarifying question, what about additional fees? Because some people aren't. Could this apply to new fees that tenants are receiving or would you want it to apply to new fees? Because that's another thing we were. Speaker 2: Hearing staff to counsel. Can you help with. Speaker 0: That dog or pets? We're also hearing that there's this. Instead of having rent increases, there's an increase in. Speaker 5: Fees, you know, for those things like utilities. Speaker 0: Could the moratorium. Or are you proposing I don't know if, first of all, a moratorium could go with these new fees that are. Being charged. Speaker 1: And that's the first question. Speaker 4: Frankly, frankly, I'm sorry. We were talking about how we could craft the moratorium urgency ordinance to fit what we're hearing you say. So I'm sorry. That's all paying close attention to all of you. I apologize for that. I think if I'm understanding, though, the additional fees that would be passed on to the tenant, isn't that really part of the rent? I mean. Speaker 0: I'm not. Speaker 1: Here. Well. Speaker 0: So we have had you know, we've had tenants come and say that it's not a rent increase, it's a new fee. It's a utility fee is being passed on or it's a parking space. V Or it's a pet fee. Things like that. Speaker 8: So I was just asking. Speaker 0: How he meant those two. Speaker 1: Madmen. Speaker 0: You have that power? Yes. Speaker 6: You know, I'm fine with the thesis. I suspect it'll be okay to put a moratorium. I mean, if we're putting a moratorium on rent, you know, putting. Speaker 5: Us the I. Speaker 6: Think putting a moratorium on fees is a natural. I think for me, the question, you know, I know it's beating a dead horse, but I do still believe that 10% is a threshold, but I'm hearing 8%. So I would prefer to have a moratorium on rent increases above 8% and above, because to me, several things. One. You know, I see no reason to penalize the small mom and pop landlords who have who have, you know, done their part to make Alameda a great place. And I think the tenants understand that, too. And that 8% would be cumulative or in the past 12 months. And I say that because it's completely possible that someone had increased their rent by 6% six months ago. So we don't want them to have to. Increase it by 8% on top of 6% because that be 14%. So that's my druthers is to not penalize, you know, almeida's mom and pop landlords. They've done their share. And now, as we're moving forward with with our new groundbreaking legislation, you know, let's let's let's work with everyone. Speaker 2: I can go along with that. With regard to this. Speaker 4: If I might just add a piece of information, first of all, our definition of rent, we have just checked, we include extra fees. It's all in rent. So I think we're covered. Speaker 2: And utilities rent. Speaker 1: Yes. Speaker 4: It's all included in what is passing on what is defined as rent. Speaker 2: Well, it would go into the into figuring the percentage. Right. Speaker 9: So it's grocery. Speaker 0: So do we have a consensus that we would do the moratorium with the 8%? Speaker 7: And we still have the possibility that if somebody gets an 8%, they can go to rack? Speaker 1: Well, yeah. Speaker 0: But that's that's. Speaker 7: During the moratorium. Speaker 0: So. So it says that the rack would continue to do during this process. Speaker 7: I mean, I wouldn't have a moratorium. If there's like three votes for zero, then, you know, I'll go along with that. But if there's three votes for the eight, then I'll go along. Speaker 0: My preference is the 8%. If people want to weigh in. Speaker 2: I think I can live with the 8%. I think you do need to strike a balance and. And the moratorium that no rent increases above 8%, including, you know, utilities, parking, pets. But have you for the 65 days until we come back? Speaker 4: I mean, is that cumulative for the past year, 12 months as 12 months from the date of the increase? Speaker 0: Okay. Yes, it would have to be. Yes. But within the past 12 months, I'd agree on that. So if someone did an 8% two weeks ago, then they can get another 8%. Speaker 2: 6%? Speaker 7: Yeah, it would make sense if we're considering, you know, that you can only do it once a year. Speaker 0: So it can be. Speaker 7: Consistent with our direction. Speaker 0: Sounds like I'm hearing at least are concerned. Well, everyone would want at this point 8% of four. But but over the past 12 months in. Correct? Speaker 5: Yes, definitely. Because there's someone who could have raised the rents 15% or 20%. Now it's 28%. That's why I thought it's much cleaner to go zero. I think of accumulative for 60 or 65 days for someone to really raise the rent between Thanksgiving and Christmas. Speaker 2: Or it may have been a regularly scheduled time. So I. Speaker 5: Yeah. Speaker 2: I. Speaker 5: Think yeah, I, I think I'm just planning. Speaker 2: Okay. But you're allowed that it's one in the morning. Okay. Speaker 0: And so before you and I, I'm going to ask and it's going to complicate one more time before we're talking about averages. So if someone had done, you know, is that then. Speaker 9: By. Speaker 0: 15% over the past two years? Speaker 7: I mean, it's really complicating it. Okay, that's fair. Speaker 2: You know, like. Yeah. No, no, no. It's just that we were looking for something else. Yeah. And so, counsel, help us out. Are we. Do you want a separate vote on the moratorium? And then. Oh, you want a direction. Tell us what you want and we'll give it to you. Speaker 1: Okay. Reiterate it so it's fine. Speaker 4: Okay. So what. What I'm hearing is we believe that we have you have given us adequate direction to come back with an ordinance on just cause. Just cause eviction, rent control, rent stabilization. You know, enhancing. Maybe you better. Speaker 2: Yeah. Come to tell us about those layers again. Speaker 3: So, um, our staff's direction is to craft an ordinance, most likely an amendment to the existing ordinance that would deal with a mandatory appearance by landlords. If they're raising the rent 8% or higher, that would be giving more teeth to our mediation process. And then a separate ordinance dealing with just cause eviction and relocation benefits. Speaker 0: I have. Speaker 1: All right. Speaker 7: I see. Speaker 9: Yes. Speaker 3: So I. I were there. Yeah. I don't know that we miss Potter. Speaker 6: I think what we should do is two, three scenarios. Speaker 3: We can do that. Speaker 9: I'm fine with. Okay. Speaker 3: Okay. With the binding arbitration in the alternate. Speaker 0: So I have a question, a clarifying question on one of your charts. It had had expound row a rack to mediate. No cause the eviction. Speaker 3: That was an option. Speaker 0: So that was an option. Speaker 2: We're not going with. Speaker 0: Then it sounded like actually it's not necessarily legal to do that because my preference would still be to use RAC to mediate, you know, cause the eviction. Speaker 1: If I think. Speaker 3: We feel that that given state law and how state law governs for cause evictions and the rights of property owners to evict for cause that that would be more complicated and really not be helpful and that a standalone that's kind of the layer right a layer on top of the enhanced mediation. Speaker 0: So then I'm going to ask on each of these layers that we pause and pause and see where we are. All right, so. Speaker 2: Well, I. Yeah, we should. And they should all go together, too, but. Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 2: So what's your first place? Speaker 0: So what? The. Tip, Ms.. Potter. So if you could do what you want, you're. Speaker 2: Okay to go home. Speaker 1: Sorry. Speaker 0: So if you're going to look at what you're. Speaker 4: To start out with. Speaker 7: Okay. I think you had it better before when you said there were two options. Speaker 3: Yes. Speaker 7: So I don't. On each individual component. We should look at the totality of what we're doing. Right. Speaker 2: Together. Speaker 1: Okay. So. Speaker 0: So I just don't necessarily vote, but. Speaker 3: Maybe the polling could work like this on tenant protection measures for protections against rising rents. What staff is hearing is come back with with two different scenarios. One, that would be enhanced mediation, which would require landlord attendance at a hearing if they were raising the rent of 8% or more. And then the second step. Speaker 2: I don't think it's so much landlord attendance. We already required that in the last modification, it's that the landlord is the one who has to. Speaker 3: Yes, yes, landlord. That's what his landlord initiated. We understand. Speaker 1: That. Speaker 3: That to be the case, landlord initiated or essentially a command performance. Even if the tenant isn't filing a rec, you come if the rent if you're planning a rent increase 8% or higher. The in the alternative we will come back with with an alternative to that which is just the added layer of arbitration if there's not a desire to. To agree to the rent increase that's being recommended by by the RAC. So those are the two scenarios dealing with and increases how to handle rent increases. Speaker 6: And then layered on top of that. Speaker 3: Well, I thought I understood the mayor want to do a straw poll to make sure that that gets understood. Speaker 1: Well. So. Well, we're going to bring those two back. Yes, very similar size. Those two in a separate time. I think you all. Speaker 0: I'm thinking I'm I'm hoping that everyone is good with one of those two options. Speaker 6: And I. Speaker 7: Think that's a good debate that we have to. Speaker 0: Have. Okay. Speaker 7: Yeah. Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 3: So that's how we're proposing. That's how we would propose to come back with legislation regarding protecting rent and. Acting tenants against increasing rents. A second layer on top of. Speaker 0: That that the first one that you were saying when you're saying arbitration after Iraq, is that binding or non-binding? Speaker 3: Right. Arbitration implies binding versus mediation that is voluntary. Speaker 4: Okay. So if I can jump into it, to be really clear here, because I know it's getting late, we're all very tired. We're talking about really kind of a rent control or not. One is an enhanced rack where the landlord is required if they want to go and raise the rent over 8% to contact the rack and basically make their case. But it's a mediation. Speaker 5: Yes. Speaker 4: Not binding. That's option one. Option two is that they can't do it. They can't go over 8% without going through an actual arbitration, and that is the rent control trigger. So that would be the cost to Hawkins rent control. Those would be the two options we. Speaker 0: Would bring for. Speaker 1: You today. Speaker 3: But what I think what I heard is that the arbitration would kick in only if the mediation did not work. If the mediation was unsuccessful, only then would the arbitration kick in. But we. Speaker 7: Might want to do some mixture because some. Speaker 0: And we would get feedback. Speaker 7: Single family homes aren't eligible for the arbitration. Speaker 1: So. Right. Speaker 3: We would. That's right. Speaker 2: That what. Be looking into this. Right. Okay. Speaker 3: Okay. So that's that's that deals with protection against increase in rents. Then the second layer is the just cause. And staff would be drafting an ordinance outside of the rec and mediation process. That would be a just cause eviction. Ordinance, and it would also have relocation benefits as part of that ordinance. So that would be. Speaker 1: No. Speaker 3: And it would all deal with no fault. Speaker 1: Of the. Speaker 3: Ordinance would not address for I mean for cause you would have rights to evict or cause and there would be no obligation to pay our. Speaker 1: Location. Right. Okay. Speaker 7: And that come back with that. Speaker 3: Yes. And we would come back with that ordinance. Speaker 7: Some of us may not be committed to voting for it. Speaker 1: Right. Speaker 0: But you're going to come back. Speaker 1: Yes. Right. Speaker 7: I still think we should consider some type of review period, whether it's a sunset or, you know, we take a look at this again affirmatively. Speaker 6: Now, you said relocation and relocation within the just cause. Now there's what about relocation outside of the just cause dealing particularly with large excessive rent increases. Because that can happen. Speaker 2: In a casting couch situation. Speaker 0: Well, no, that can go to everyone. Speaker 3: Yeah, that's the relocation. And just cause would apply to all units. Speaker 1: Correct. Speaker 2: Right, right, right. Speaker 9: Right. By itself. Speaker 3: By itself. Okay. That's kind of the layer. Speaker 5: Thank you. Speaker 0: And that could. But the nonbinding. If we did that path, then that could be your layer help. Speaker 3: Exactly. For the. Speaker 0: Go together. Speaker 3: Right. So that. Speaker 1: Where. Speaker 3: People aren't fearing, you know, people aren't feeling intimidated and that kind. Speaker 1: Of thing and they're feeling. Speaker 3: Protected. Speaker 2: So the person in the single family home who gets the 30% increase could have the opportunity to get or could be entitled to. Speaker 3: Well, they would have they would have the ability to go to the rack for mutilation. Speaker 0: 30%. Speaker 1: And. Speaker 3: They would be able to be entitled to the relocation and the just cause protections. Speaker 7: I mean, and if we do that, you know, I think we need to also consider as one of the the elements of the package or the layer, the extended notice period. If we do decide that we're not going to do just cause and just go with relocation, you know, have some extended period. Speaker 3: Okay. We can come back with that. Speaker 7: I send the vacancy rate because if there's a 10% vacancy rate, then. Speaker 2: Well, and I think that's one of the things I mentioned when we come back. I'd like us to come back in a year. This is something staff can build around, but come back in a year for review and decide how we might want to go forward. We'll know in a year what the economy is doing, what the housing vacancy rate is, what the CPI is, and, you know, maybe decide. Speaker 1: What what. Speaker 2: Worked and didn't work. Speaker 3: So the existing rack ordinance already requires an annual report to the council. So we should be that should be covered. We should be prepared to do that. Speaker 0: Were there any other layers? Speaker 1: No. Speaker 3: Just the moratorium is the last thing I think that's on your list. Thank you. Speaker 2: So. So then. Is this because you want us to adopt this urgency ordinance, right? Speaker 0: You're right about. Speaker 1: Not making a recommendation. Speaker 4: Only if you want to adopt, right? Speaker 2: No. I mean, we should do that tonight. Speaker 0: So looking at that, and I'm sure I look for page number seven, I'll see him on after your warehouses. That's for section two. I think that's where you would do your increase. Notice an increase in. Speaker 8: Rent or. Speaker 0: Not to exceed 8%. Something like that. Speaker 2: Yeah. You're on page three of the emergency ordinance. And so it says from the effective date of this urgency ordinance and continuing for a period of 65 days, unless extended or until the effective date of any city adopted regulations relating to rent control. Just cause for eviction and or other tenant protection policies, whichever comes first. No housing provider shall. Eh? Well, let's see. I'm not sure. Speaker 0: What difference an A or B. Speaker 2: Well notice or increase in actually it needs to be shall I think notice an increase in rent or increase rent above 8% per. Speaker 0: Year before you continue on there that currently have increases that are kicking in during this time period. Speaker 6: A percent cumulatively looking back 12 months. Speaker 2: Yeah. Speaker 0: They would fall under this figure, right. Speaker 1: Over the past. It's. Hmm. Speaker 2: I think it's from this. Speaker 1: Date or we're doing. Yes. Speaker 6: The sum of which surpasses 8%. Speaker 4: Yeah, they write. Speaker 2: Okay. Or evicted. Or evicted tenant except for cause as set forth in exhibit eight of this ordinance. Because remember, that's one of our tenant protections. We didn't want landlords rushing to get rid of people. Speaker 0: So if someone already has received a notice that they're going to have their rent increase in 60 days, it's going to be more than 8%. But that would prevent that from. Speaker 4: Occurring because you can't increase the rent. Speaker 0: Either. So if they've already given the notice, but if they. Speaker 2: Already got the oh, they got this notice. Speaker 4: That they can't give you a notice, nor can they. Speaker 1: Increase the rent. Speaker 0: And that was the next. Speaker 2: Meeting they purchased where they'd gotten a notice for eviction, but. Speaker 0: It hasn't kicked in yet. Then it freezes also, right? Speaker 4: I think that's right. What they're saying is a notice to eviction having been given, but the eviction hasn't yet occurred. This urgency ordinance goes into effect they cannot evict during that period, even after the notice to evict has been served. Speaker 2: Well, because it's the language, the language that has. Speaker 0: Evolved as opposed to notice. Speaker 2: Through to the attorneys, which the language. Speaker 1: Says. Speaker 2: Cannot evict a tenant except for cause. So, I mean, the notice is the first step, but it's the actual. Speaker 4: Well, how about if we say in accordance with law, with state law or with law, and we'll have to check because we don't know right now. Speaker 2: Is that that sounds fair. Keep us keep us legal. Speaker 9: I think the concern is that if the notice to evict has been served, I don't think we can. I don't think we can trump that. And so the wording there should be on the notice of the notice to evict or whatever the language would be in the state law. Speaker 2: And, you know, actually, when you think about what Mr. Rausch is saying, what we're trying to guard against is the landlord who says, oh, the city council's just made a change. I am going to move to evict you. Speaker 7: And evict is a different word than, you know, serving a notice. So it. Speaker 2: Is. Speaker 9: Yeah. That the language will need to be tweaked there a little bit to confirm to conform to what the state law provides in terms of what you have to do in order to start the eviction process. Speaker 7: But right now, we any notices that have already been served. Speaker 9: I think with respect to the notices that have been served, I don't know that we can undo those. Speaker 0: But so that's what we're asking of. This could just say in accordance with state law, so that we're not precluding that at this point and gives you the opportunity to research it. All right. Now, what we're asking. Speaker 9: You, we will look into that. But I'm a little skeptical that we can undo that. If if we feel we have the authority to do that, we will try that. But I'm. Speaker 0: Southern. The language here would be in accordance with state law, which is what you were saying initially. Speaker 2: And I don't think it's in the spirit of what this urgency ordinance is intended to protect. Speaker 4: I would prefer to do that because, frankly, if we're going to adopt this now, we have to adopt it and we'll go into effect. So we are going to scribe quickly what you tell us. You're going to adopt it and we don't have time to do research. Speaker 2: Right, right, right. That's that's the urgency part of it. So. Okay. Okay. Speaker 0: So on section six. So I'll only be effective. The word be seen there. Speaker 2: Yes. Be effective for a period of 65 days. Speaker 0: And do we have a definition of rent in here that includes then the fees? Speaker 6: I think she's. Speaker 9: Well. Speaker 7: I don't think we have a definition. Speaker 0: And we have the definition of rent here so that it's clear that it is include. Now, you did refer to a definition that we have of rent that includes fees. But is that. I didn't see that in here. Speaker 7: Reference it. Speaker 0: But I. Speaker 2: Oh, I like this as defined in the city ordinance. Speaker 0: But I actually like the language to be included in the ordinance. So this is very clear. Speaker 2: Lifted from the city ordinance. Speaker 9: That's a good. Speaker 4: We can do that. Speaker 7: I have no problem with that either. But I have a question on the on back on section two. So 65 days unless extended or until the effective date of any city adopted regulations. Just looking back at what happened in Richmond. You know, with this include any period under which someone who's not in favor of this could go out and gather signatures to try to bring it to a referendum. Speaker 0: Or better. Speaker 9: Let's assume the Council adopted a regulation and an ordinance on that goes into effect in February. For example, there's a well, once the council adopts it, there's a 30 day referendum period from which people can collect signatures. If those signatures are collected within the 30 days, then the ordinance does not go into effect. So. So if the referendum petition is filed and the signatures are valid, the ordinance essentially is not in effect. And then the council has a decision whether to put it to a vote or to rescind. Speaker 7: Okay. Well, I will say now that if if that is if there is such an effort, then I would be in favor of extending the moratorium until that. Speaker 9: Well, I think what we're saying here is, is that let's assume that the 65 days are up, but the the council has not. It's maybe introduced the ordinance and it's perhaps even adopted the ordinance, but it hasn't gone into effect. We would want to keep the moratorium in effect until the new ordinance had gone into effect. So you may have two end of extending the moratorium, you know, some period, some short period of time in order to let those new the new ordinance run its course and get into effect. Speaker 7: But I'll just say today that if if this is challenged and it goes to the ballot, then I would be in favor of extending the moratorium until the ballot measure is is resolved. Speaker 0: But I don't think we have to decide that at this point. Speaker 7: But I'm just. Speaker 9: Trying. Speaker 7: To make sure that on. Speaker 0: The record I want. Speaker 9: To. Speaker 0: Got it. Speaker 1: And I guess I quickly pulled up the definition of base rent, if you all would like it read into the record so that it's quite clear. Speaker 0: Can you reduce your base? Speaker 1: Rent means the rental amount, including any amount paid directly to the housing provider or parking storage or any other fee or charge associated with the tenancy. And then there's a print other than fees or charges for utilities paid directly to the housing provider, plus that the tenant is required to pay the housing provider in the month immediately preceding the effective date of the rent increases. Speaker 0: And would that include pet fees if it. Speaker 2: All right. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 1: Any other feedback? Speaker 5: I mayor on a petition for relief from the moratorium. This has an 8%. Holt in it. I'm not going to. Speaker 9: I'm sorry when I had it. I'm sorry. You weren't listening? Speaker 0: No, I just. I don't know what that meant. Speaker 7: I do? Speaker 5: Yes. I originally said it should be a moratorium. Moratorium? Right. And that there could be a petition for relief from the moratorium if there was an extraordinary circumstance. Got it. But now it's not really I mean, it's a moratorium. A conditional moratorium. I don't think that. Really. Speaker 0: And you're in your agreement. Speaker 5: Within 65 days. I think that if it goes beyond 65 days, then that might be another. Speaker 0: And at this point, it sounds like you are trying to support that at this point. Speaker 2: All right. Thank you. Okay. And secondly, if. Speaker 4: We. Speaker 2: Have to. Speaker 0: Go ahead. Speaker 9: Yeah. What the intent of that was, was that if if the let's assume that for some reason the council decided to extend the moratorium for five months. And notwithstanding the fact that you've got a conditional moratorium, 8%. If the moratorium were extended further, we would want to provide a procedure so that a housing provider would have the opportunity to say, notwithstanding your 8%, I needed 15 and I need to have a procedure in place to make that pitch. That's what that is actually with that. Speaker 5: Yes. Thank you. Speaker 9: Yeah. Speaker 0: All right. Speaker 5: So let's leave it at this. Speaker 0: Okay. Any other clarifying questions or questions pertaining to the emergency ordinance? Speaker 7: Just one. Speaker 1: Member. Speaker 7: Can we have the wording read back to us of perfection? I think we're finance. Speaker 0: Okay, so section two, page three, section two. Could someone read back the language? Would that be correct, Laura? Speaker 1: Got it. Yeah. I'm not sure that they I think they're I think they think they're going to have to craft it added to A and B, right? Correct. Speaker 0: So it's not to exceed. Speaker 2: 2. Speaker 1: To. Speaker 0: 8% in the last 12 years. Think 12. Speaker 5: Months. Speaker 0: I'm sorry. Last 12 months. Sorry, sorry, sorry. Speaker 9: Okay, that's much higher. Speaker 0: That's why I have to get through this. Speaker 1: And that was added to both of them. So it's a notice to increase the rent increase of 8% in the last 12 months or be an increase of rent of 8% in the last 12 months. Speaker 0: Is that correct? And then as set forth, were we going to leave and exhibit A, is that what goes there then or is that a state law and. Speaker 1: In accordance with state. Speaker 0: Law? Okay. So an exhibit is about the just so and then we're not adding any language about. Speaker 1: It in the state law and in accordance with state law. Speaker 4: Oh, yes. I'm sorry. Speaker 1: That's right. Speaker 4: Though a tenet. Speaker 1: Right. Speaker 4: And as authorized by state law. Speaker 1: As other. Speaker 9: Tax. Speaker 0: All right. And then Section six, we were just adding the word, the. Speaker 1: Yes member. Speaker 0: For. Or does that satisfy your question? Speaker 7: I just want to make sure I knew the language I was voting on. Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. Speaker 1: Any other we adding the definition? Speaker 0: Sorry, the the rent. I do want that definition added to the. Speaker 1: Definition we added in in the pro life blueprint. Speaker 5: First place rent reference, correct? Speaker 0: Wherever you put definition as long as it's here. I'm good with that. Speaker 1: First place prentiss references. Speaker 0: Okay, fine. Speaker 2: I think it's section to actually. Speaker 4: Say for purposes of this of this ordinance definition of rent is and then. Speaker 1: Plug it. Speaker 0: Right then. So that being said, I think we could vote on the ordinance at this time, is that correct? Speaker 2: So, yeah, I'm assuming that approval of the emergency ordinance. Speaker 9: I can. Speaker 0: All the any discussion, although some favor. Speaker 1: I asked. Speaker 0: You now. Speaker 2: How many hours is. Speaker 0: Next? We already gave direction in return in regards to when it's coming back. That being said, I want to. We don't have any other. Okay. So that being said, I want to thank everyone for being so patient with us. I know this was a. Very late and. Thank you. And meeting adjourned.

Regular Agenda Item

Recommendation to Receive a Report Analyzing the Impact of Rising Rents on Alameda Residents; Public Hearing to Consider Additional Tenant Protections and Provide Direction to Staff about Policies to Pursue regarding Enhanced Mediation/Rent Stabilization, Just Cause Eviction Protection and/or Relocation Benefits, the Composition of the Rent Review Advisory Committee (RRAC), and the Use of Boomerang Funds to Expand the City’s Supply of Permanent Affordable Housing; and Consider Adoption of Urgency Ordinance Imposing within the City of Alameda a Temporary (65 Day) Moratorium on Certain Residential Rent Increases and on Evictions from All Residential Rental Units Except for Just Cause Eviction for the Immediate Preservation of Peace, Health or Safety. [Requires four affirmative votes] (City Manager 2110)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_11032015_2015-2188

Speaker 0: L is final passage of ordinance approving a lease an option to purchase authorizing the city manager to execute documents necessary to implement the terms of the ten year lease and option to purchase with 651 West Tower Avenue for Building 91 located at 61 West Tower Avenue, Alameda Point. Speaker 3: All right. So the staff have a presentation for this? Speaker 4: Yes. It's up to you. I'm Jennifer, our chief operating officer. From the point I'm happy to make a presentation or respond to some comments or questions you may have. Speaker 3: So I pulled these items because at the last this is for the second read. And at the last council meeting, I had noted that there was not mention in regard to the heading, for instance, that this included a purchase, an option to purchase these buildings, that both of these leases include options to purchase and or not. And and they were both silent in regards to other than the the purchase price. Any substantiation of how that was arrived, whether it meets the how how the city is able to recommend that that whether or not that meets the market value of the properties any. Any discussion as to the purchase price. And when this came back, I greatly appreciate that the heading was modified to add that it's a purchase of the building and these are buildings that are at Alameda Point that are the city's buildings that the city is selling. So the city is essentially now granting the option to sell off its assets. And as such, it does rise to a higher level of scrutiny by all of us and that it requires four votes to pass. And I believe that that it also requires that there be written discussion in the documentation that the public can read and see for themselves the analysis of arriving at the purchase price that was not included last time when it came back. I was expecting it to be addressed. It's it's there's still no discussion of it in the written documentation. And as such, I cannot support it. I think it's appropriate to have it return and have there be discussion of the purchase price. And I appreciate that sales prices can be can be discussed and negotiated in closed session. However, when it comes to the public, I think it's important to include a discussion about the sales price and not just state what it was. So that being said, if anyone else wants to make any comments to me or make a motion. Speaker 1: I move that we approve final passage of both items. I think I have a second. Speaker 5: All right, so I just. Speaker 1: I. I think that the presentation and the discussion last time highlighted that the fact that these these buildings are in need of great investment. And we've had past discussions about particularly the commercial potential commercial zones of Alameda Point having a term called negative value because of the lack of of infrastructure and and and the need for renovating and modernizing these buildings. I think the negotiation was fair. And there's also it's an option to buy and there'll be a decision and an opportunity to discuss that and great deal when when that option is about to be exercised. So I think we should move forward on this and seize the opportunity at this time. Speaker 8: And, Madam Mayor, for me, yes. I mean, I would just add that when back several years ago, in the last administration, when the the majority of Alameda point was conveyed from the Navy, I remember the saying we had back then is that we wanted to let especially the business community know that Alameda point is open for business . And we want to show people that this is a good place to come, take a risk, because if you've spent any time traveling around Alameda Point, you know, it's in pretty deplorable condition. So the folks who are making these first steps, I would like them to pioneers. It's it's a leap of faith. But I think they're going to make the journey that much easier for those who follow because they'll be able to show people this is what's possible. We started out with something that was in its dilapidated, deteriorating condition, and this is what was done with it. We have a report a little later about an award that was given for our Brownfield Development of Alameda Landing. And this is Alameda Landing and then some just because of the magnitude. So I completely and wholeheartedly second the vice mayor's motion because the longer we leave those buildings out there, the more at risk the city is not only have increasing costs of maintaining that, but, you know, people can be injured just from those sorts of businesses and hazards really remaining in our in our city. So thank you for that motion, vice mayor. Speaker 3: I remember days. Speaker 7: Ago. Thank you very much. As I was two weeks ago, when we first reviewed this matter, I am satisfied with the business terms that we're entering into because that's what this is about. This is about starting up a project based upon our direct negotiations with an entity who, with a number of partners, many of whom are locally based, approached Alameda with an idea of bringing two buildings that are, at this point, in substandard state. And that's an important point because so much of Alameda point is that way, not just the buildings, but the infrastructure underneath the ground. And what that means is when we're redeveloping Alameda Point, it's very different from, say, redeveloping a building over at Harvard I'll or building at Marina Village or in other business parks like Bishop Ranch and San Ramon. You know, those places while certainly marina villages built out that are very you know, those places have land on which, you know, you can just build and not worry about what's underneath anymore. But that's different in Alameda. So there's there's a certain amount of risk and some might even say incredible risk. But that doesn't mean that city staff or city council members are just going to give away the property. You know, we're going to do our due diligence. We're going to take a look at comparables when it comes to getting value or if or we're going to use other ways to to understand that we're getting the value that that the taxpayers expect of us. One of the another way of valuing land is taking into account the costs that have to go in to improving a certain site, something called a residual land value analysis, blah, blah, blah. So when you look at it on those terms, I think the city staff have exercised due diligence that everyone expects of them to. And the fact that a number of the partners are locally based with exciting products and services, I think this is something that we can all be excited about. But I think one of the points that the Mayor has expressed is something to keep in mind that as we move forward with the this and other real estate transactions , that we, you know, convey that information in an easily digestible manner, you know, what the per square foot sales price, etc.. You know, how does it you know, how did we arrive at the market value, things like that. But I am satisfied that that our staff and the Council has exercised a proper due diligence in terms for this transaction. Speaker 3: A member, Odie. Speaker 6: Thanks, Ben. Two quick questions, Massoud, if you. So without repeating everything that my three colleagues said. Everything. I agree with everything they said. But if you can. I think my notes were for for building nine. The developer was going to pour $33 Million into renovations and improvements. And for building 91, it was 6 million. Speaker 4: Right now it's actually you've got 29 million going into building nine and then 9 million going into building 91. Speaker 6: 29, nine. Okay, so that's $38 million and then, you know, an additional probably 8 million if. If they actually do the purchase because one is, what, 5.5 and the other. Speaker 4: One's three, so $8.5 million, right. Speaker 6: So we have someone who's willing to put in, you know, close over $45 million in two buildings that, you know, as my colleague said, were pretty dilapidated and will attract jobs. So I think that's a good thing. One last question, though, on this option to purchase, if they do do an option to purchase, does that come back to the council? Speaker 4: No, it does not. Speaker 5: Okay. Speaker 3: So I appreciate your last question. It does not come back to us that for both of these documents provided merely Building nine has a current option to purchase for $5.5 million. The option can be exercised upon the completion of a subdivision parcel map. Staff is working on the creation of the subdivision maps and will be presenting them to the Planning Board and City Council next year. That's going to be happening momentarily. That does not renegotiate the price the prices declared right here. That's what the council is agreeing to. That's all it says is what the total price is. And for building 91, it's exactly the same language, except it's 5.5 million. What I believe needs to be included here is not just what is decided in the back, behind closed doors, a negotiated price, but something more than that that shares with the public how this is arrived at to justify that this is in fact a fair market value and long term what the impact is to the city. For instance, on one of these, there's a monthly rent of $18,000. However, when it becomes that the purchase at 3 million, there will be a shift in revenue coming to the city instead of having a monthly revenue stream of, for instance, on that piece of property approximately 20,000 per month, the city will will receive the money, the 3 million, and then they're going to receive a property tax. And there should be my opinion set forth here what the property taxes and a comparison and how we're going to move forward as a city because we have expenses to incur five years down the road, ten years down the road, 20 years down the road. And we are making a choice now to sell off the people's property. And all we are telling them is this one set price. And so as much as there's these questions that go back and forth here, I think it's very important to be put in writing so that the public has the opportunity to review it and that it truly is transparent. And I don't think we are meeting that and I think it truly has to hold up to scrutiny by the public. I don't think it's appropriate to bring new slides as much as I appreciate that. But in the middle of the meeting, I think our our I know our community is entitled to when we are selling the community's assets to more because we're not putting the this is another difference. We're not saying we're going to be selling this building. Anyone can come and bid on it. What we are in fact doing is negotiating a lease that happens to have an option to purchase with that one person. That's that one entity that's doing the lease as opposed to having the building for sale at market value. So there is not going to be the competition, for instance, that occurs when any of us go to try it, try to buy a home or rent a piece of property. And none of that happens here. It's all negotiated. And then there is nothing set forth as part of this. The documents that we have intentionally looked at, the fiscal analysis moving forward and the differences of how a lease impacts versus a purchase. So all of that's what I'm looking for when it comes back to us. But I do appreciate that the heading was changed, that it now includes a purchase and option to purchase. But I really think it should be more than that. And in fact, that's something that we get called out for historically is the deal too negotiated behind closed doors and that the public doesn't really know how we arrive at those figures and that needs to happen, in my opinion. So that being said, did you want to respond? Speaker 2: I did want to respond. And what I want to just to offer is that all of last year, Miss Ott did essentially what you're talking about, the analysis regarding the infrastructure, how much was it? Each building's fair share. That analysis is available. It's on our website and I and I, so I understand that. And it is our fault and I think our our job to make sure that we continue to provide that information for new councilmembers and for the public as these things move forward. But much of that analysis has been done that was done last year, prior to prior to these things coming coming forward. But I think your point is well taken and will be sure to make sure that those individual items are identified on each of our staff reports moving forward. Speaker 5: Madam Chair. Speaker 3: And let me real quick respond to her and say I appreciate that. Speaker 8: And and I say I do agree with you that headings should encompass include all the information. But I also am going to take a little bit of exception about the way at least I'm interpreting you, talking about deals negotiated behind closed doors. There are certain topics that by law are discussed in closed session, and real estate transactions are one of those. And the reason for that is that if we were out there in the open bargaining for real estate prices and with negotiating in public, then we would be showing our hand and not getting as good a deal as we might. And so we all are aware that in closed session the council met with staff, including Ms. Odd and we gave authorization for parameters within which to carry out these negotiations, and that was done. So I mean, at some point certainly the sales price comes out and the lease prices come out and become public. That's what's in these items that are before us today. But it's not a matter that we're trying to hide something from the public. We are abiding by the law. And that's that's part of our responsibility as council members. Speaker 3: So I appreciate that. However, it's my understanding, and I'm happy to use our counsel here, it's my understanding that even when we negotiate a deal, that when it comes forward that we should be able to be held up to scrutiny by the public in regards to that number. Yes, that that is correct. Speaker 5: Once the deal has been has been arrived at with the developer purchasing party. It has to come before the council and it is all public. The terms of the deal are all made public and the analysis and scrutiny then is is available at that point in time before council would actually vote to approve the transaction. Speaker 3: So that's what I'm asking for, is more than just the purchase price, but the analysis be made public. Thank you. All right. So that being said, I'm going to call it a question. All those in favor. I oppose. I oppose. Motion carries a 4 to 1. Thank you. And now. And I apologize. We have one speaker, said Mr. Ernst. Five. Did you want to come and speak? Apologize for that. We have another item that was pulled 5mm. Speaker 0: Final passage ordinance approving a lease and authorizing the city manager to execute documents necessary to implement the terms of a ten year lease with and navigation company for building 167 located at 1500 Ferry Point. Alameda Point.

Consent Calendar Item

Final Passage of Ordinance Approving a Lease and an Option to Purchase and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a 10-Year Lease and Option to Purchase with 707 West Tower Avenue, LLC., a California Limited Liability Company, for Building 9 Located at 707 West Tower Avenue at Alameda Point. [Requires four affirmative votes] (Base Reuse 819099)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_11032015_2015-2239

Speaker 0: Final passage ordinance approving a lease and authorizing the city manager to execute documents necessary to implement the terms of a ten year lease with and navigation company for building 167 located at 1500 Ferry Point. Alameda Point. Speaker 7: Thank you, Madam Mayor. The reason why I pulled this is to remain consistent with how I voted last time. So I will continue to vote no. Speaker 3: All right. And this. Speaker 5: Go ahead. Speaker 3: All right, go ahead. Make your. Speaker 1: Motion. I move approval of. I'm five in second. Speaker 3: All right. And I want to share what we're speaking about of this came to us last council meeting. It's final passage of ordinance approving a lease and authorizing the city manager to execute documents necessary to implement the terms of a ten year lease with power. This is the correct one. Speaker 6: Meant. Speaker 3: With maps, and I apologize for that. And there were some changes made at that council meeting. And those corrections have those additions have been supplemented. Now, for instance, that the containers will not be stacked. There will be a cap of 36 containers and specifically where the containers can be placed. All right. That being said, all those in favor. Speaker 1: I. Speaker 5: I. Speaker 3: I suppose an emotion carries for two. One. Thank you. All right. Now, we've made it to regular agenda items, I believe, 6 a.m..

Consent Calendar Item

Final Passage of Ordinance Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a 10-Year Lease with Matson Navigation Company, Inc., a Hawaii Corporation, for Building 167 Located at 1500 Ferry Point at Alameda Point. [Requires four affirmative votes] (Base Reuse 819099)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_11032015_2015-2060

Speaker 0: Introduction of ordinance approving a lease and an option to purchase and authorizing the city manager to execute documents necessary to implement the terms of a ten year lease and option to purchase with Nortel Energy or Building 23, located at 24 one Monarch Street in Alameda Point. Speaker 4: Good evening, mayor councilmembers. My name's Jennifer Court Chief Operating Officer from me 2.8 I'm here and I I'm going to give a short presentation, try to answer some questions that have come up and then G.S. Snyder's here with Mattel Energy would like to give a short presentation. She's there working on some really exciting things. And so she's going to talk a little bit about what Nortel Energy's all about. So first I just want to give lease and option summary. We're talking about a 65,000 square foot building, building 23. There's a picture of it right here on kind of that hangar row on the western edge of the property that the city controls and owns. What you have before you tonight is a ten year lease with one five year renewal option at $0.54 per square foot of monthly rent with an annual escalator, which results in about $440,000 annually, or for 4.8 million over the ten years. There's a $8 million option price, which results in about a $91 per square foot building value and 25 per square foot excess land value. The reason we do that in this case on this building is because the land is much larger. The land premises is much larger than you would typically have for a typical kind of building. So in order to value it, you have to kind of separate out some of the excess land. And I have John McManus here with Cushman Wakefield that can talk a little bit about that as well. It is, we believe, supported by market values. And I recorder, I'm going to show you a table in a second to corroborate that. And then they're planning a $10 million investment in the actual building asset. Speaker 3: So the reason real quick, you're just not part of the this is not part of the presentation on here. Right? This is a the presentation. Speaker 4: A new hesitation. Speaker 3: Right. I mean, there was a presentation attached to the agenda item. Speaker 4: No. For this. Speaker 3: One. Yeah. So I actually want to speak to that. I want to thank you for putting this together. We did have an earlier discussion and she's come up with this. I really appreciate this. Will this be added to the the agenda item announcement? Thank you. Speaker 4: So the reason I think there are some questions and, you know, very valid questions about, well, why would we recommend sale of property? And so I want to just give a little bit more detail on why staff would recommend selling the city's property at alarming point. The first is given the amount the city doesn't, you know, we invest enough in these buildings to kind of keep them from standing up and not, you know, leaking. But we do not invest significant dollars in both the asset. We don't provide tenant improvement allowances, which are very typical in the market, commercial market. And so in order to attract really high quality tenants to these buildings, you really have to have someone that can attract significant investment capital and potential. And to really do that not you know, it's not exclusively, but really typically that kind of investment capital requires an ownership stake in the property to be able to finance that, to really be able to capture that investment capital. And and I think this is true of especially in the Bay Area, we have the market is so strong right now, businesses that are really high quality businesses like you have Nortel that's growing and expanding to be able to lock in a building and know that you're going to have it is really key to them being able to keep their position in the market as well as try to attract workforce, which for a lot of these companies is one of the hardest things to do, is attract and retain a workforce. And so being able to own your land is really what these high quality tenants are wanting and then definitely helps with financing this level of investment. The other is that we believe this compensates really for the city's inability to invest in the significant capital. We don't have this money, so if we don't sell the land to attract this capital, we aren't going to then invest in the buildings, $10 million in the building. So they're going to sit there without that investment. So we believe this is an important way to kind of save these buildings and continue to invest in them. Also, I think this is key to their plan and allow me to point is that generates significant upfront capital that's basically leveraging the value of the building to pay for infrastructure for manufacturing and uses an adaptive reuse area. If we were to try to build a manufacturing area from scratch right now, from new development, it would not support $1,000,000 an acre in infrastructure. So what we're trying to do with these buildings is essentially leverage the value of those buildings to help offset the impact, the cost of infrastructure in that adaptive reuse area so that we can have manufacturing jobs and we can have those types of jobs there in those types of uses. And remember, there's, you know, $600 million worth of infrastructure. And if we don't, we need a strategy that's a little more creative in this adaptive reuse area, because we're not going to just tear these buildings down and start from scratch. And then it helps correct infrastructure deficiencies that really creates, we believe, major annual long term liabilities to the city, that if we don't start correcting the infrastructure and generate funds to pay for that, to upgrade the infrastructure, we're going to continue to see our annual cost increase and then potentially have issues long term in some sort of major issue. So these are I just wanted and we're happy, you know, we wanted to make sure everyone understood that there is a lot of analysis and thought that goes into our recommendation and wanted to present that to you tonight. Market support for the option price a typical and we're we have a chart here and the you know our our expert here to to help us with this but is the typical average values in the I-80 corridor range from 55 to $65 a square foot for this type of Class C manufacturing space. The Nortel option price is about $91 a square foot, which exceeds that market value, primarily due to the views and the uniqueness of these types of assets. So we are we do believe we're getting a market value for this for this building. Here are some recent sales comps. There's four comps that we've had here for industrial manufacturing uses in the I-80 corridor. All of which you can kind of see in this area are in the 53 at the lowest $60 a square foot per square foot. We're far exceeding those comps in terms of what we're able to obtain with with this particular project. The fiscal impacts of the project. You know, I think this is again, I think, you know, as city manager one madam said, we've done a lot of analysis over the years and we need to continue to remember them to present that information to the new council members and to the community. And we will definitely do a better job at doing that. But we have prepared a fiscal impact analysis that was very extensive as part of our zoning amendment at the time. So we understood that we had a picture of what this would mean from a fiscal standpoint when we approve those plans. And then again, we updated that as part of the site development and not just for site but for the whole base, too. And so we've made, you know, as things change, we've tried to update that and all just want as a kind of reminder, all new development and property owners will pay a fair share of their municipal services special tax to offset any long term fiscal impacts to the city. The natal property will do that as well. They will, we believe, be generating about $67,000 per year in property tax. And I just want to kind of you know, this is something we talked about or, you know, some questions that came up about this today. We have to be a little careful about comparing that to lease revenues where you because what you really with the lease revenues those are revenues that you get but if you don't invest in infrastructure you kind of have to take into consideration if you're going to be a long term holder of property, then you're going to have to essentially kind of amortize, you know, create a capital reserve for infrastructure. And if you were to take a debt service on the infrastructure for this property, it's about $430,000 a year in debt service for a $5.2 million infrastructure burden. So we just have to be I just want to provide all that information. We are we do believe that that you have to kind of quantify that liability essentially if you're going to hold property long term and not sell it. So I just want to wanted to present that information, the pro rata share of infrastructure and, you know, the development impact fee, it was recently inflated as part of the last master fee schedule is merely essentially $1,000,000 per acre for commercial uses. Building 23 is 5.3 acres. That equals about a $5.3 million infrastructure burden with an $8 million purchase price. It exceeds the infrastructure burden by $2.7 million so far exceeding we're making, you know, as a minimum. We know that we're making more than the infrastructure burden that would have to be paid for for this project. And then I know there's some questions about what, you know, losing control. And it's something honestly, like, I wake up in the middle of night to thinking about this, how we've remembered everything. I mean, these are, you know, what? What are what do we have in place? So when we let go of this land, we know that, you know, like these parcels kind of go off and become part of the rest of the city like they are other places. And have we put in place all the restrictions and other things that we want. So once we lose control, we know that this is going to be developed. And because we do lose control, they could sell the property, things could happen, they could get developed in certain ways and do have we put into place all the regulations and things. And I believe the answer is yes. And, you know, I talked with the city planner about this. And I mean, his opinion is this is would you look at this long list of things, it's probably much more onerous than any other property in the rest of the city in terms of what they're going to have to deal with. And just quickly, you know, the city, there's a zoning ordinance which regulates use and form. What can occur there? There are mitigations for every project. If there is a development proposal or anything that comes before the city has to be reviewed under the California Environmental Quality Act. And if they want to rely on the city's environmental impact report, then they're going to have to comply with all kinds of biological traffic. Historic mitigations. The Navy, before it transferred the property to us, placed a declaration or restrictions on the entire property, which created very extensive biological restrictions to protect for the the endangered species that nest on the property. We have a resolution that the City Council passed for the master infrastructure plan. There's a development impact fee ordinance which sets into place that million dollars an acre. We have design, review, ordinance, zoning and changes to buildings and things that trigger design review will have to come to the planning board just like any other project. Historic Preservation Ordinance. The buildings, including this building 23 are contributors, historic district and are considered historic resources under the local law and would have to comply with the historic preservation ordinance and have an extra burden of review potential approval if there are certain things that had to be done. Sewer lateral ordinances will be coming to you, as was mentioned earlier, with a parcel map to create legal parcels for these adaptive reuse areas. And we will be placing conditions on that parcel map that essentially reiterate all of these things. But we're trying we're kind of taking this redundancy approach, which is there's no reason why not. We shouldn't have all of these things in our zoning. We shouldn't have them all there. But to make sure we all kind of don't forget about them as we go forward, we're going to additionally place them on the parcel map for these properties so that they're an extra reminder to anyone who owns these properties that you're going to have to comply with these different things. That includes a transportation demand management plan as well as city council approved. So even though you're letting go, there's we've worked very hard to create a really robust policy framework for moving forward so that once these become private properties, that the city's vision is will continue to be complied with. So I'm going to pass it over to Jim to go ahead and give her presentation. Thank you. Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. Spencer, and council members. I just have a brief presentation to run through a little bit about what we're doing. Speaker 8: We love, show and tell. Speaker 3: And can this also be added to the agenda item? Thank you. Speaker 2: But in the interest of show and tell. One of the things that we do quite regularly actually is do a little tours of of our facilities we have. It's always kind of interesting to bring in some of the things that we've done and kind of regularly with books from Berkeley, from UC Berkeley and also I think recently from a from an elementary school, we had, you know, it's always fun to help bring young folks in so they can kind of see what we're doing in the clean tech space is a little different is this combination of both high tech and not necessarily low tech, but certainly advanced manufacturing. So more of like building things and in this case, somewhat big things. It was always fun to give tours to help people understand what it is we're actually doing. So should anyone want one? We're happy to do that. So again, just wanted to to walk through what we're doing. A little bit of background on nutshell, why we're here in Alameda and what we're doing and our vision as we go forward and enter a new period of growth for us, why we want to continue to be here and why we're pretty excited if we are able to move forward and in the space what we'd like to do. So just to start very quickly and I'll get into a little bit more of this later on, but this is just a rendering to show some of what we envision as we go forward with doing the improvements of the space over time. So a little bit about us. So we are a water and energy innovation company based here in Alameda at Alameda Point. And what we do is distributed utility scale hydropower. And hydropower is a renewable energy source, just like wind and solar. But the way that we do it is different. If you think about hydro, you probably think Hoover Dam or Grand Coulee or Three Gorges, they're massive projects and they often carry with them pretty significant impacts. And what we said or what inspired us was could we do hydro better? We do it in a way that was distributed at a much smaller impact footprint, but still kept all the good things about hydro, which is that it is a reliable and just what's called a dispatchable energy source. And if we could do that, it would enable us to actually put more wind and solar on the grid and over time, help us really address things like climate change by having cheap, reliable domestic renewable energy. That was the big picture vision for us, and that required an innovation, the blue box that you see up there. And that was in the video earlier, you saw one of our cassettes being inserted into a blue housing in the video that was just shown earlier. That's the hydrogen and that's what we make. So we assemble it here in Alameda in our vision as we go forward is that we'd have our initial production facility here. Our entire supply chain is actually based in the U.S. and many of the companies that we work with to do our initial prototyping and even some of our initial supply are based here in the Bay Area. So, for example, our control system is made by a local supplier in the Bay Area. In terms of our history here, we we actually started here in 2009, so we moved in to the current location where we are at right now, which is at the tower and in 2009. And we've grown here locally. Majority of our employees live here in the East Bay, and the rest of us all commute. We're excited, actually, about things like how we expand transit and have better transit options because many of us, like I myself do and I regularly bike through the tunnel, for example. And so finding ways in which we have better transit options so we can have our employees, you know, live and have good commutes is a really important thing for us going forward. So long history here. We're really excited to contribute and to continue to grow here. In terms of just a quick couple of things on achievements. So we got started in 2009 and we're very fortunate to receive a lot of support from the Department of Energy, also from the U.S. Trade Development Agency, which is part of the Department of Commerce and the Small Business Business Innovation Research Program. So they were really critical in helping us do some of our early product development. Following that on, we were able to raise private capital, which is really funding a lot of our growth as we go forward now. And that's coming off of the fact that we were able to get a product to market and probably the, you know, big name up there in terms of our, you know, highlights from our sales pipeline is we just we closed the sale with Apple for sale with Apple last year and actually just delivered that project to Apple this summer. So lots of exciting things for us as we go forward and look to scale in terms of our vision here. Where we're headed is that we envision this space becoming our corporate headquarters, our engineering, R&D, primary location and our location for initial production. And that's what we'd like to build here. To do that, we think we forecast over the next five years that will be probably between 150 to 200 plus jobs here as well. And that in addition, given the again, because we have we work with a lot of local machine shops, some local suppliers, obviously, then additional support for us as we grow that that supports a number of indirect jobs in the area. In terms of the lease, this was already covered, but just wanted to recap quickly what the basic economics are and in terms of upgrades, to give you a little bit more. In terms of what we're planning to do. Picture on the left is what it is right now. And, you know, it's it is as it is. And just to give you a feel, again, some of our what we want to do is we take it forward, basically make it green. We want to add some landscaping and really make it a much more pleasant place to be. And things like easy chargers, again, that's pretty important to our employees. Exterior improvements, interior improvements and a big investment, of course, in our R&D and initial production facility. Again, the purchase option, this was already recapped, but just to put it up here so that it's clear and again what we plan to invest and I think really just to highlight so this is you know, it is it is this amazing view, right? That's very, very true. And that's we love being here again. You know, for us, when we we got here, when we first moved here, the fact that it is a little rough around the edges was was actually a really inspiring yeah, it was a really inspiring thing for us. And so it kind of challenged us and went along with our ethos, which is we want to create simple, sustainable and beautiful solutions for to solve our water energy challenges here in the state of California. But then also those solutions translate around the world. This is I've been up there a couple times. This is kind of where we where we want to take it. This is a quick aerial view just to give you a feel of what we're looking at. We want to build some have some nice outside collaborative spaces as well, you know, take to have it be pleasant and click click shot of our team. Yeah. And, and I'll just leave it there. Speaker 4: Gigi. I just want to say one thing because I want to make sure this is disclosed. And I had it in my notes and I forgot to say it is that they will have some containers. This came up before and I wanted to make sure this was clearly disclosed. They will have they're allowed under the lease to have up to 20 containers. They have to be single stacked. They have to be in good condition, esthetically similar. There there's a exhibit. I don't know if you guys can pull that up. They would take about 4000 at 4800 square feet of land, which about 3%. So out of out of 175,000 square feet of outdoor land space, there would be 1400 square feet at the maximum if they used all of it for the 20 containers. That's about 3% of the outdoor land area. And then there's also in the exhibit really in line with the direction that the council had. And there's an exhibit in the lease which we're just going to pull up to make sure that we discloses and show this is where they have to be pushed back so that they're really trying to minimize the views from, you know, monarch and so that and maintain the views. So you'll see the container storage has to be kind of but between those lines are really off of the streets, not here on the southern area, but really contained there. And then you saw the exhibit that they had there or the renderings that they had. But I just wanted to make sure that that was clearly disclosed and the council understood that going forward. Speaker 3: Okay. So I appreciate all these presentations and I, I really appreciate the additional information in regards to the, the ordinance itself. It doesn't have the language of approving a lease and an option to buy. So I'd like the ordinance modified to include the option to purchase in the heading and authorizing the city manager to execute documents necessary to implement the terms of ten year lease. So so the heading then is that the same we had in the you had on your the item itself it's missing the whereas that of. Whereas this building, however you're describing at 23, has an option to purchase pending the completion of. And I think it's the same language. The language is missing here. So that. Whereas can be added. Yes. All right. And then in regards to section one there also of the ordinance, city manager's designee is hereby authorized to negotiate, executed a lease with that. And wherever you want to add that, it says for ten years and an option to purchase. Yes with the option to purchase and then the additional. Whereas I want to make sure that's all in the before. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Speaker 1: This agreement to the additions that the mayor mentioned with the filling out the language to include the option to buy. I'm. I'd like to see this go forward. I'm ready to make a motion because this is green energy supporting company. It's manufacturing. Its growth. And it's taken another difficult building and it's required to stay in repurposing. And it does fulfill the original of Base Reuse and Base Realignment and Closure Act. That said, our main purpose is not to hold this land. Our main purpose is to replace the jobs that went when the Navy closed. So I make the motion to introduce the ordinance with the additions as outlined by the Mayor. Speaker 8: And I would like to hasten to second the Vice Mayor's motion and just listening to the presentation at Mr. Schneider's Schneider's presentation and also getting a little sneak preview in the economic development video that we saw. First, I mean, we as Alameda INS are so fortunate that, again, another pioneer pioneering firm was willing to take a chance on what has to be the wild, wild west out here and say, no, this is this is cool, it's edgy. We can work with this. And by the way, I think the mayor and I both attended the East Bay Economic Development Awards ceremonies last year, 2014, and Natal Energy was one of the finalists. And this is competing with cities all around the very innovative Bay Area. So I think that this is the kind of business and we've already seen it happening at Alameda Point that will attract other similar businesses. You network, you have your suppliers, you talked to your colleagues in related fields and you know, bring those smart, innovative folks to Alameda Point because we want to be that sort as the vice mayor said that sort of a job center. And I know Ms.. Ott, you know, talks about waking up in the middle of the night. I'm sure that a number of things, you know, losing control, property owners could sell property. But stop and think about it, everybody. We're talking about a company that's willing to sink millions of dollars into this property that wants to that has started here, is growing here, is bringing us jobs. Let's not do anything to drive them out. We pay a lot of lip service up here on the dais about being a business friendly community and wanting to attract economic development. Now is the time to put our money where our mouth is and really show that we have what it takes to support these kinds of green, clean, innovative businesses that are. Not only are we lucky to have them here, they're doing good work that's going to make an impact for our world. So I'm proud to have you here in Alameda and I look forward to welcome you. And I'd love to come out for a tour. I'll be in touch. Thank you. Speaker 3: I'm sorry. Speaker 7: Oh, well, thank you very much. Just I think the most important thing is, you know, as council members, we're making a business decision on behalf of the residents in looking at the project before us, I believe on all scores that this is a business decision that the residents should be proud of. Let me just go over some of the things Mhsaa, for example, had referenced, the fact that when you look at the when you take a look at the $3 million that are being the sales price of $4.9 million over 55,000 square feet, that results in a per square foot sales value of 90, $90, $0.51. And the comparables that that Mozart and her team came up with, she demonstrated that some typical things are somewhere around 50 to $60 ourselves. So so, you know, when you look at those those that information that was put together, you can say, certainly we're doing right by the residents. But one of the things I also did was, you know, I want to do my own due diligence, so to speak. And I took a look at how anyone can do this. Just go on the Internet, go on to something called Loop Netcom. And I just wanted to look at what our industrial prices going for. These aren't necessarily comparables. I'm not doing, you know, the level of detail that, say, our our partner, Cushman Wakefield does. But even then, you know, when I take a look at the $4.9 million, but but I add the $10 million because while that $10 million doesn't come to us, that is nonetheless an economic incentive. I mean, economic expenditure that that occurs because of the $4.9 million. And when I add the $10 million on top of the $4.9 million, you know, you get around $272 per square foot of what I will call economic value. So when I compare that to your $72 of economic value against, you know, what I'm seeing from LoopNet, I think we're we're in the ballpark. So this is a deal that that people can be proud of. Now, I think it's important to say $10 million to reference that part because like I said in the other item, if we were out at Harbor Bay, I'll if if Alameda point was like Harbor Bay Isle or if it was like Bishop Ranch, instead of Mattel investing that $10 million into the project in addition to then paying us $4 million instead of natal investing that $10 million, they would pay that to us because it would because it would be a plan. So that's that's why I take a look at that and include that as part of why I call it the economic value. And from that vantage point, when I look at how we're comparing against places in Emeryville or place or what's on in parts of Oakland, I think we're on track here. So in terms of the business deal, because I think that's really important in in these kind of transactions that we're doing, I think this is a deal that the residents can be proud of in terms of just, you know, the overall goal of where we're going. I mean, Natal is a definite fit in terms of the industry cluster that we're trying to grow there, along with Makani, along with I mean, I will argue that right speed is also part of the industry cluster in the sense that they are alternative power, but for specific uses, you know, large trucks and something called sail drone . So it's good to see kind of this cluster not only occur, you know, existing in Alameda Point, but making incredible substantial investments that says that we're here to stay in the fact that Natal, as you know, delivered services to outstanding corporations like Apple, I think demonstrates that we're getting very good companies. So you combined the energy cluster that we're growing out there, alternative energy cluster that we're going out there along with the food and beverage cluster. The alley. Spirit's alley. You know, you look at kind of a good combination mix of uses. So this is something I think to be I'm excited about and I can't wait for groundbreaking. On a final note, in terms of containers and whatever issues I have about them. As many you probably recall. My issues were focused solely on the enterprise district. We are far outside of the Enterprise District. Speaker 5: And Brody, thank you. Speaker 6: But I'm just real brief because I think my three colleagues have kind of captured most of my thoughts, but not to put too fine a point on it. This year we've. Well, if we approve this one, it'll be four leases with options to purchase and write speed. $4 million in investment in in the buildings building nine. Correct. I was incorrect at first. 29 million built in 91 9 million. And this 110 million. So $52 million in infrastructure improvements out at the base for these four buildings. And our community has decided, rightly so, that we want this to be adaptive reuse. We want to keep these historic buildings and and reuse them and regenerate jobs. And I'm just you know, I I'm going to every time we do this, I'm going to keep giving that number. So right now, it's 52 million. I hope we continue to grow that number and I'm prepared to support this. Speaker 5: Okay. Well, I. Oh. Speaker 8: You could be 30, 30. Speaker 3: And I'd like, just speak in regards to I also want to commend you for your presentation. I think that that is very helpful, the type of upgrade your pictures. Now that's full disclosure to our community. But but you're putting into it what it's going to look like. And in regards to the containers and I. Now remember exactly what word to use this on in regards to maintaining or the esthetics. Obviously, we don't we really I don't think we really want to see containers out there. If they can be painted in a manner that has them blend into the background, that confident, that would be appreciated. And hopefully that's what you meant by that. And and given the addition. Additional information by staff and yourself. I do plan to support it. And the changes of the ordinance. Yeah. So that being said, all those in favor. Speaker 5: I. Speaker 3: Motion carries unanimously. Thank you very much. Speaker 1: Madam Chair, this is coming back. Yes. Yes. And if if we could make sure, because the previous building, 1991, also had the same same criteria that we measured it against. And it was also mentioned in the first reading of both of those ordinances that they met an X. And this one exceeds the impact fee that was put into place by the previous council, which is the public's insurance policy, that the value the true value of those of those properties is translated into the infrastructure we need. And that I think that has to be repeated because it. You know, it was one of the things that was highlighted here is what is the rationale? And I don't believe in comparables down I-80 because anybody who knows about commercial property in Alameda, it look at Marina Village Business Park. It's fine, it's wonderful, it's safe, it's clean, it's empty and it's empty because people had lots of reasons for not coming to Alameda and a closed Navy base. If we go back and I think Councilmember Desai probably knows this, our real comparables are Hunters Point in Mare Island. And when I saw that video and see the highlights and these as Councilmember Odie pointed out, the the for leases with option to buy. Finally after 17 years I think we're going to exceed what Hunter's Point and Mare Island are doing because we've, unlike this regular commercial tilt up, we have someone who's the business who's buying, and I think we've got them. And we need to keep. Speaker 3: You know, we've already had a motion and but. Speaker 1: I just want for the second hearing to capture that information so that we don't have anybody coming up at the second time and wondering what we did the first time. Speaker 3: So when it comes back, then I'm thinking we will have more information provided. Speaker 8: And then I just want to be. Speaker 1: Able to ensure it. Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah. Speaker 8: And it's on the record now and I just wanted to say that I certainly appreciate that the mayor is entitled to her opinion, the comments about painting the containers to blend into the background, that wasn't part of the motion. I don't think we have to be ashamed that we're this is. Speaker 5: You know. Speaker 8: Adaptive reuse. They're going to be pushed back to the back of the property. Speaker 1: That can be. Speaker 3: Right. Speaker 8: But I hear what the motion did and didn't. Speaker 3: But normally, once we have a vote on an item, we move on to the next item. So I'm going to call go go to six G at this point and we're like 660. Speaker 5: Yeah, yeah. Speaker 1: Because week one. Speaker 3: All right. So now that's right. So we'll go to 60 and if the council has any other comments on that, they can share them with staff before it comes back to us. That'd be greatly appreciated.

Regular Agenda Item

Introduction of Ordinance Approving a Lease and an Option to Purchase and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a 10-Year Lease and Option to Purchase with Natel Energy, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, for Building 23 located at 2401 Monarch Street at Alameda Point. (Base Reuse 819099)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_11032015_2015-2180

Speaker 6: in nearby cities and also keeping in consideration the balance between. The Budget and the affordability to families. I also want to point out that we do all that. I also examined all the other programs within Alameda as well so that we can say comparable and affordable and make sure that we're all filling the niches that we need to fill. So some of the challenges that we face in this upcoming year are in January 1st, 2016, the California state minimum wage will increase from $9 to $10. That is going to be a big challenge, obviously, for staff. It's a welcome challenge. Obviously, we want to pay our staff accordingly. In fact, I'd pay them a lot more if I could, but the it'll be great to have that increase for staff. Also, some of the other challenges we have are field maintenance with the ongoing rising cost of water and and the drought condition for the last four years, costs for field maintenance has gone up and will continue to rise. And unfortunately, we'll have to make considerations for that. We've as you seen in the reports, we did a re fee comparison with San Leandro, Pleasanton in Union City and San Ramon. And as always, we like I mentioned earlier, we maintain a balance between demand and cost recovery. As you see on the chart. To summarize it, the youth program fees are being asked to be increased between three and 5%, and that's directly to reflect the offset of the minimum wage increase was going in effect. We have asked for increases in the last two years, but I just want to point out that for year, for the four years prior to that, there were no increases. So we anticipated these increase coming and we waited as long as we could. And so now we're trying to catch up to it. Also, I want to point out the athletic field use fee went up from $3 to $5 for nonresident. That will help offset some of the field maintenance costs for maintenance. And I also want to point out within that that staff did recommend that the athletic field use for residents to be raised to from $2 to $4. But the recurrent Park Commission did not expect did not want that increase. And so we took their recommendation and we brought forward the $2, the current $2. So the resident rate will not change in this current fee structure. Lastly, the major increase is for the multi-use synthetic field or estuary park that's going to be going online and it'll be a brand new facility that will hopefully be ready to go in the fall of 20 at the end of 2016. And as typical, we have to put that in our fee structure. Synthetic turf fields generally cost more and are used more for game facilities and used more regularly than natural turf fields. They don't have the downtime as some natural turf fields. And one of the other things that we decided or the thing is that I want to point out that the Challenger field, which is also going to be part of the estuary park, will not be affected by the the turf field. The multi-purpose field they will be considered under are nonprofit user fee fees. Also, they will remain at the $2 rate as well. So I just wanted to point that out that we're we're looking forward to having the Challenger field out there. So we want to encourage that as much as possible. Speaker 3: And can you go into a little bit of detail about the significance of the Challenger field for people that don't know? Speaker 5: Sure. Speaker 6: The Challenger field is going to be a field that is a multipurpose field, synthetic turf, that will be designed strictly for people with handicaps and will be able to play sports, whether that's soccer or baseball, on a field that is very applicable for their use. We have a challenger league in Alameda already. That's through the Army Little League, and they are really looking forward to the new field. I know they play games currently in Alameda, but they also go to games elsewhere and it'd be nice to have a premier field that's dedicated. And Alameda can be one of the few that has a dedicated field in the in the region. So I think it'll be also a draw for all the other Challenger leagues in around Alameda or around the region. Let's see. I think that one. I also wanted to point out on the athletic field use that currently it costs about this is not including staff time about $110,000 annually to cover the fields. In Alameda, we currently have 18 baseball and softball fields and 20 multi-use fields with currently the user. That we have collected throughout the years, about 40,000 of that 110. So. And the general fund basically absorbs the remaining 70,000 in staff. And then that's not including staff time, which is about 97,000 a year in staff time. So therefore, field maintenance costs are relatively are over $200,000 a year. And again, it's something that we are constantly looking at and trying to help benefit all the citizens of Alameda. Lastly, I just want to talk a little bit about the process behind setting fees. I know no one really wants to see fees increase, but there is a process behind this firm from an LAPD philosophy. You know, the bottom line is that the programs that benefit one group or individuals have to pay more of a premium price for the opportunity to participate in recreation programs. That can be for private lessons, facility rentals, picnic rentals, adult softball teams. They are paying much more of a premium rate than what we charge other programs. The second layer, the second tier is designed for larger groups or multiple groups that have to pay the opportunity to pay. Participant But to cover some of the costs. Again, that's our day camp programs, our afterschool programs. There's obviously costs involved in all of those. And we want to make sure that we cover at least a good percentage of those cost. And then we have what we all hold near and dear is those high community benefit programs that are free and low cost programs. And I know in the past the council has been very supportive. I want to point out the Parks and Playgrounds program that is continually going on. And I think it's one of the most unique things about our that we continue to support free recreation, that we have parks and playgrounds, programs that are supported by the general fund and the council that anyone can participate in. And so that is just a great benefit for Alameda. I also want to point out that the the free T-shirt summer recreational baseball program that we offer, as well as part of the Parks and Playgrounds program, which we have over, you know, 250 to 300 kids every year that play basically for free and get the benefit of recreation in Alameda for free. So we do try to balance all of those things out when we come and ask for the user fees each year. But I just want you to know that the that's the mindset behind the philosophy, behind what we're coming out. We're not just coming up with numbers. I want to thank the city council and the and the importance it places on recreation and parks in Alameda. Because I know you guys are all very supportive of it. And if you have any questions, I'm your dad. Speaker 5: Uh. Speaker 3: So I want to commend you for your presentation. And I also want to take note that you're wearing a green shirt to support our parts of war. It's always good to see you, Amir Ashraf. Speaker 8: I just wanted to also thank you, Mr. City, for that nice presentation. And I was just saying to Ms. Wooldridge that it kind of takes my breath away when I see what it cost to maintain our parks. And she whispered back. And that's not even staff time. So it's true. But we you know, it's something that we're very fortunate to be able to offer in Alameda is we have great park facilities, we're adding more. And this is one of the draws that bring people to our city, that we're family friendly, where we've got lots of great recreational opportunities that serve our population from the youngest to the oldest and everything in between. And so, as you said, while we never like to see fees go up, we have to be realistic about wanting to keep our facilities in good condition. And I appreciate the comparison studies you did with comparably sized cities in the in the East Bay around as well and I guess a little bit through that tunnel. But anyway, I'm I'm prepared to support this. I can't wait until we see our newest parks come online and keep up the good work. Thanks. And with that, I would move. Approval of the resolution amending the master fee resolution 1 to 1 and one to add and revise recreation and park fees. Speaker 1: Of our second. Speaker 3: I'm. All those in favor. Speaker 6: I thank you. Speaker 3: That motion passed unanimously. Thank you very much.

Regular Agenda Item

Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of Resolution Amending Master Fee Resolution 12191 to Add and Revise Recreation and Park Fees. (Recreation 5191)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_11032015_2015-2111

Speaker 0: Introduction Ordinance Amending the Aluminum Municipal Code by adding subsections F through J to Section 13 Dash 2.2 regarding construction of whether exposed building elements extending beyond experience walls, exterior walls and balcony landings next year. Speaker 1: Good evening. We had a mayor council. My name is Greg McFadden of the building official following this summer's tragic balcony collapse in Berkeley. It was determined that the cause of the collapse was dry rot due to inadequate weather protection and ventilation. In response to those findings, Stapp proposes adopting a local code amendments to require increased ventilation of enclosed deck and balcony assemblies and to require that they be constructed using dry rot resistant materials. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Speaker 3: Can you clarify those people that have that currently? How would this come up? Sorry. You currently have a balcony or deck? Speaker 1: This does. This only affects new construction. Speaker 5: Thank you. Speaker 3: Any other questions? Speaker 5: So no rush, Kraft. Speaker 8: Thank you. Madam Mayor, I have an iPad that's not cooperating, but I can see my book, my bookmark. Thank you, Mr. McFadden. This was a good report. And yes, I think everybody in the Bay Area is probably aware of the tragedy that happened in Berkeley and the deaths of the Irish students who are here. And so in the end, the code section 13, dash 2.2 F, there is a reference to an access panel of sufficient size, I think on the underside of the whatever the appurtenances, the balcony or the landing or the stair to allow periodic inspection. So my question was, will there be periodic inspection of these spaces? How does that work? Speaker 1: The intent is for the property owner to be able to look inside. Speaker 5: Okay. Speaker 1: Not for the. Speaker 5: City. All right. All right. Speaker 8: Thank you. Well, and with that, I think this is a very important amendment to our municipal code. And I would move approval of the introduction of this ordinance, amending the Alameda Municipal Code by adding subsections F through J to Section 13 Dash 2.2 regarding the construction of whether exposed building elements extending beyond exterior walls such as balconies , landings, decks and stairs. Speaker 1: Okay. Oh. Speaker 5: There you go. Speaker 3: Good luck on that one. All those in favor of motion passed unanimously. Thank you very much. Okay. The report. And did he manage your communications?

Regular Agenda Item

Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding Subsections (f) through (j) to Section 13-2.2 Regarding the Construction of Weather-Exposed Building Elements Extending Beyond Exterior Walls, such as Balconies, Landings, Decks and Stairs. (Community Development 481001)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_10202015_2015-2149

Speaker 1: All right. Speaker 0: Three C presentation by the United States Green Building Council to the city of Alameda for the Alameda Main Library Project. Pretty cool. Speaker 4: Evening. Speaker 0: Mayor Spencer and members of the City Council. I'm George Saki, library director for the Alameda Free Library. Excuse me. I'm very pleased to be here tonight to have my project team. Speaker 4: With me as the city receives our. Speaker 0: Lead gold for. Speaker 5: Existing. Speaker 0: Building. I want to really thank my project team. Building Wise was our consulting firm. Barry Giles is the founder and CEO. Speaker 4: And he is here with us this evening. Levi Jimenez was our senior project manager. Speaker 1: He couldn't make it tonight. Speaker 0: Yvette Becerra is also a project manager with Building Wise. Speaker 1: Westlands from. Speaker 4: Stop Waste. Dawg really pushed us through this project and was a huge, huge help. Speaker 0: Maria de Meglio, I think, was the heart and soul from Public Works. Speaker 5: She's a. Speaker 0: Project specialist. Speaker 8: And really. Speaker 0: Kept our project moving and attended to all the details that didn't fall through the cracks. Britney and Kerri from AC. I helped Maria a lot. Speaker 5: Digging through our garbage. Speaker 0: Thankless job, but we really do thank them. And tonight, we're honored to have Kevin Hydes, who's a member of the Northern. Speaker 8: California chapter of the USGBC. To actually do the presentation. Speaker 0: So I don't want to spend too much time at the podium. I'd like to bring Barry up here to say a few words about our project. Speaker 1: Thank you. Speaker 5: Madam Mayor, Vice mayor and members of the council, thank you so much indeed for the opportunity to be here this evening. I'm Barry Giles. I'm the CEO of Building Wise, and we are the consulting company that worked with your team to get them through the process, to get them to the end and get this great plaque put on the building event. And I and I'm sure she would say as well, it's we've been in this business for some years. We are a very experienced consulting company. But one of the main things we know is that we cannot complete these buildings without the help of people in there. And Jane and Maria, without fail, have been pushing and arguing and helping and asking all the difficult questions of the members of the team and to get us through to this program. So now you are in a moment going to be presented with this plaque and the building will be called, we believe, the first library in the nation to get a version for all of this LEED existing building program. What are you going to do next? Because the one of the big things about lead and the lead program, especially the lead ebb program, which I was very fortunate enough to write back in year 2002, is that we wanted people to continue to work on the building. And one of the ways to do that is to ask you, it's not mandatory. Can we come back in five years and do it all again? Because what is important is the data that comes back from that. How are you maintaining the building over the over the next few years? How are you improving it? No, we don't want you spending millions of dollars on the building. We want you to work with the team that you have and Wes Sullins and stop waste and everybody else who was part of this to maintain the building so that we can keep it going. The other big advantage of doing this building is that we generated a lot of new programs. We had policies. We have programs that went through the council, went through a lot of the public works. They can be replicated very, very easily in other buildings that you have. I assure you, plagiarism is alive and well with the USGBC. We'd love the opportunity to do it again. Now, without further ado, I introduced introduce Mr. Kevin Hydes, who's here representing the U.S. Green Building Council. Yeah. There's two of us with an accent. I'm Kevin, and then I'm mayor and council members. Don't say I don't need to say much after Barry. But I will say that the thing about certification, which I think is so important, it's actually something very tangible. And your public of obviously elected the members here to represent their values and vision and deliver on this this lifestyle that you referred to earlier. I love those words. I love this notion from the earlier awards as well that, you know, you're actually acknowledging and rewarding your own people that go the extra mile. You know, I think you should acknowledge and reward yourself for going the extra mile, you know, as leaders in your own community. And as Barry mentioned, these these certificates are really important certifications. It is the first in the country for a library with version four. You should be very proud of that. But as Bob knows, it's a journey. It's a journey. And this is this is you know, we celebrate today and then we move, move on. I'll remind everybody that two months from now in Paris, you know, the countries of the world, the major, our own governor and major and mayors from cities around the world are going to arrive in Paris to talk about climate change and what actions are they going to take to help the planet at large. And I think what, Alan, the city of Alameda is doing here in its own facilities, with its own leadership, is actually completely in alignment with those conversations that are going on at the global level. So congratulations to everybody and thank you for your leadership. Speaker 1: Thank you. Speaker 2: Mayor Spencer. Speaker 0: You can come. Yeah. Speaker 1: Inspector picture. Speaker 2: This rebel, right. Speaker 0: Oh. But know. Speaker 2: Oh. Actually. Madam Mayor. And a mayor when you. Speaker 9: Thank you. I just want to recognize two of my colleagues, because none of this certification at the library would have been possible without the two co-chairs of the library who stood up on the dais today. And that's our vice mayor and council member Ashcraft. Thank you. Speaker 6: And thank you. And I it is a thrill for me every day to see our beautiful library. And we knew we wanted to do more. Back when we were on the library building team. But we had the restrictions of a budget to work with. But, you know, we did things like make sure that the roof was engineered so that we could put solar panels there at some point if and when the funds became available and they did. But it was always a very inspired project that started right from the beginning with huge community support, and it continues to this day, as Mr. Fakih can attest to. So thank you for taking us the extra mile. Speaker 1: But I swear. Speaker 3: And I do want to acknowledge the people of alameda because without their vote in measure ro to fund this. Speaker 6: 78.8%. Speaker 3: To match of the state of California from the State Library Board, which brought our tax dollars back to Alameda, none of this would have been possible. So the people of Alameda saw the need and spoke with their their wallets. Thank you. Speaker 1: Any other comments? Thank you very much. Number item for oral communications. Speaker 0: We do have a speaker under oral communication.

Proclamation/Special Order

Presentation by the United States Green Building Council (USGBC) to the City of Alameda for the Alameda Main Library.

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_10202015_2015-2128

Speaker 0: Write recommendation to amend the General Fund and other city funds for the fiscal year 20 1516 budget by allocating 14.5 million in excess of the 20% reserve requirement for from the general fund reserves. Speaker 1: Before you continue, did either of you want to go first and express your concerns or how did you want to proceed? Speaker 9: Yeah, I don't think I need to hear of the presentation I just had, you know, one. One item to point out. Speaker 1: All right. Speaker 9: Thank you for being patient on this. I kind of recall when we had the discussion on the 6 million, we were going to talk about purse smoothing and OPEB funding. And one of the options may have been, you know, 2 million for existing retirees, 2 million for per smoothing and 2 million for current employees. I know you're going to come back with, you know, a more media analysis on what to do with that 6 million. But I just wanted to make sure the record was clear that that was one of the things that I suggested during that discussion. Speaker 1: Any other comments? Member de Saag. Speaker 7: Thank you. You know, I just wanted to make two points. One was I did have a deep and abiding concerns about the money set aside for the emergency water supply and study. I have no doubt that it's needed, but in my mind I just felt like the substantive analysis was never there. At least, you know, I couldn't recall and I still can't recall it being there. So I really had wonders about $800,000 being devoted out of the 14.5. So it's a continuing concern. The second point I want to raise is. And before I raise a second point, let me just make sure to preface my remarks by saying I support my vote that I voted before and I will continue to do so. And as I think it would be bad faith not to do so. But I think it's worth. Expressing. Some. Hesitancy about, you know, the vote that we're going to be taking. And I think it's worth expressing that hesitancy or reluctance because, you know, for example, we mentioned measure O, you know, for Measure O for the library, that was a $10.6 million bond, $9.6 million that we had to take the people to to confirm and ratify. And tonight, you know, we're making a vote of basically 13 to $14 million. I recognize that, you know, as one of five council members, you know, that is that's one of the authorities that we have. And we make that work in conjunction with the with the city manager and executive staff. So it's not done in a vacuum. But I think, you know, when you put it in the context of how much we had to go out for a vote for something like Majuro at $10 million. And now we're making a vote on 13 to $14 million. I mean, that's. It gives me pause. But I'm going to remain consistent with how I voted previously. So, no, but I think it's important to note that as as I had voted previously, I would prefer to continue to not vote for emergency water supplies. So if it's okay, I'd like to move adoption of everything but emergency water supply. I didn't vote for it last time. Speaker 1: All right. So there were some we got in response to member de SACS comment. There are multiple items here that were not unanimous. However, they're presented as one item for us to approve. Speaker 0: Except of the majority. Speaker 1: So there was a majority on each of the items. However, there are multiple items that were not unanimous, but they are being presented as a package here. So if council wants to. Approve it as is so we can see how we have emotions and whatnot and see what you want to do with that. Speaker 3: Vice Mayor I would like I understand the comments and I would like to make a motion to, to, of vote for this measure that. Allocates these funds. And I think the different distinction between measure row and this is measurable. We're asking the people to indebt the city to the tune of $10 million. This is money that's already been collected. And this is this is our fiduciary responsibility to manage the budget. And the budget includes this. But these funds that that are in our hands, it's not like we're going out and asking for the city to indebt us for $10 million. So that's the distinction I drew and I, I move that we approve five d as recommended by the staff report. Speaker 1: Sarah Second Circuit Member Ashcroft I can do. Speaker 6: The comment just to the vice mayor. I mean, what we did with Metro, the 10%, $6 million bond is the voters property owners are voting to tax themselves. But the city was certainly paying the debt service on that money. And for every dollar that comedians put in, we got to back. But nonetheless, as is often the case in a council vote, we don't have unanimity, but of course we vote by a majority rule. So I'm perfectly comfortable seconding this motion. Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you, Mayor Brody. Speaker 9: Thank you, Madam Mayor. It sounds like the sense of the council that we go ahead and vote for this as a package. I would kind of. I originally voted for the the water supply. But, you know, you look at the number 800,000 and you look at the other items that are comparable. You know, Alameda point buildings that was in the news. We had a couple of meetings on that estuary park and we've had a number of meetings on estuary park, the Tidal Canal. We've had a number of closed session and open session meetings on that. The EOC also the same thing. And, you know, I think in you know, in hindsight, it would have been nice if we had a little bit more public discussion on that in the 5 minutes we had on it during this budget meeting late at night. But unless there's know a sense that more than two of us want to revisit that, you know, I'm prepared to support this. Speaker 1: And I'll add member Ashcroft. Speaker 6: Well, no, go ahead. I didn't want to cut you off the sentence. Speaker 1: I was going to add that in regards to the emergency water supply, it's 800 of the 875,070 5000 will be coming back. And we'll have a more comprehensive presentation at that time, is my recollection of what we agreed to at that back on. And this came just before September 15th, and I plan to support this. There were items within this list that I voted against. However, this we operate by majority. We are giving direction to staff. And I think that person I would have liked to have seen the September 15th vote included in the presentation or if that can be somehow linked so that it's easy to see that break out. I think that would be helpful. And I think that this includes many items that benefit the public, that the public will see a noticeable change and improvement in our community. So I think I appreciate council support to vote on this on these items. And I would say the first one that member I believe already referenced, Alan, made a point buildings 575,000. I think that that is critical that we move forward on that. We do have valued members of our community that live near that area. And I think it is imperative that we do our utmost. And I think that's what the community will see to support all members of our community. So I think that this list and that's just one of the items, I think there are multiple items here that it's very important that we move forward for the benefit of our community at large. Member J So did you want. Speaker 7: Mad at me? I just want to make two points. The first point is that, you know, I will support the motion. I don't think, you know, making this grant a grandstanding vote of voting no, it doesn't serve anyone any good because there are some things without a doubt that the public benefits by. No one disagrees with that. There are no doubt that we've had a series of meetings for a number of items. No, no, no one disagrees with that. But I think it's safe to say that any time you're dealing with magnitude of dollars, that we're talking about $14 million. You know, I think a special consideration is certainly triggered at that amount. For the same reason that, you know, when we are going after $10 million for our measure out support measure, only asking the voters for that, you know that the level of consideration was given. But, you know, let's move forward. I agree. I have my reluctance about the emergency water supply. But, you know, I've made my point and. Speaker 9: You can be convinced. Speaker 1: One member already. Did you want to comment? Speaker 9: I just. You convinced me. Another person. Speaker 6: Never. Ashcroft. And just to wrap up, I think Mayor Spencer, it was almost like we were reading from the same notes, because I would have said just what you said. And I think you look at these expenditures and bear in mind, we know this is one time many and we are these are one time expenditures, but they're also things that had been on our list. You know, they're not all sexy, but we are going to do some needed clean up and, you know, abandoned vessels. And as far as the emergency water supply, I think this is what the mayor was also saying. Sure. I'd like a more robust discussion of what that looks like and what all the different ways we can approach that are. But having come off of and I'm not even sure we're done with the fire season in this state and just seeing the horrendous impacts in counties not that far from ours, I think emergency water supply is something that this island community that's, you know, prone to earthquakes does need to look into. So, yes, I want to I want a fuller and more robust discussion, but that can still come even after this vote. Thank you. Speaker 1: All right. That being said, I'm going to call the question all those in favor. I motion passes unanimously. Thank you, counsel. Our next item. A six day.

Consent Calendar Item

Recommendation to Amend the General Fund and Other City Funds for the Fiscal Year 2015-16 Budget by Allocating the $14,500,500 in Excess of 20% Reserve Requirement from the General Fund Reserve. (Finance 2410)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_10202015_2015-2158

Speaker 1: All right. That being said, I'm going to call the question all those in favor. I motion passes unanimously. Thank you, counsel. Our next item. A six day. Speaker 0: Adoption of resolution, appointing Kenji Yuki as a member of the Housing Authority Board of Commissioners. Speaker 3: I'll move approval. Speaker 9: Second. Speaker 1: All of those in favor of motion passes unanimously. Speaker 0: I'm not sure I can choose. Oh, yes, he is back. Speaker 1: Then come on up and. Speaker 0: Only sort of the concept of the. You. Speaker 6: And you have to turn around so your son can take your picture to. Speaker 0: Work. Speaker 5: With him there. Speaker 6: Yeah, he's. I'm assuming you're then he should come up to and get in the picture. Speaker 0: Yeah, yeah. It's very. Speaker 6: Scary. Take a picture of your father. Speaker 5: Sign this. Speaker 2: Great. Speaker 1: Project. Speaker 0: Six B Adoption of resolutions appointing Jerome Harrison, Karen Lucas, three Nguyen and David Perry as members of the Rent Review Advisory Committee. Speakers on the site.

Regular Agenda Item

Adoption of Resolution Appointing Kenji Tamaoki as a Member of the Housing Authority Board of Commissioners.

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_10202015_2015-2164

Speaker 0: Six B Adoption of resolutions appointing Jerome Harrison, Karen Lucas, three Nguyen and David Perry as members of the Rent Review Advisory Committee. Speakers on the site. Speaker 1: Do we have any presentation on this or the work? I'll go ahead and. Speaker 0: I can make a brief, brief comment if you want me to have you. Basically, the city council enacted an ordinance which put the rent review advisory committee into the municipal code and the existing four members are being recommended to continue serving tonight. So that's before you just due to the new ordinance being enacted. Speaker 1: All right, then. We have three speakers Katherine Paul, Katherine Pauling, John Kline, and then Jason Buckley. And you may all just come up and. Speaker 0: All right. So I'm Katherine Pauling of the Alameda Runner's Coalition. And we took part many of us took part in the stakeholder meetings between landlords and tenants last winter. And while we did agree on sort of bringing the rec into the city with the hope that it really would become the basis of a meaningful rent board, we adamantly, adamantly opposed at every turn the 10% increases. And it was the one area that was never on the table as agreement. And yet the members that are being reappointed after many years service on the rack consistently, consistently voted 10% as an acceptable mediated settlement. Now, any renter facing double digit, 20, 30, 50% is told 10%, of course. What is the option? They may accept it, but in no way is 10% acceptable. With apartments at 2000 and above, that's 200 a year and only two years. It's 400 a month increase. Someone in a modest studio, 150 a year, 165 the second year, that's 315 increase and just over 13 months, 10% is not reasonable. And the current board, the members that you're reappointing after many years on the rack, have in fact supported that. And my fear is that although they may be very well intentioned, they're looking for some settlement the landlords will buy. But consistently the landlords have wanted 10% increases and they're getting it. Bringing the rack into the city was not to have you also agree that 10% is acceptable and appointing people that are going to continue that process , it's unconscionable. The neighboring cities that have any kind of protection for renters are in the one, two and maybe two and a half percent per year area. And this is basically approving five times that number. I cannot tell you, although actually we have been trying to tell you now for a year how hard it is on everyone in the community. And with over half the island renters, you have a responsibility to to protect and represent us, too. That's your job. So putting the same people into place, they're all professionals. I'm sure they all come with the best of intentions, but they don't understand. They don't understand how vulnerable our population is, how much we have already endured over the last two years, and what is coming ahead? How many of us are being displaced? We have provided you with maps that it isn't just low and very low income that are in danger, but moderate. Thank you. Speaker 1: Thank you. John Klein. Speaker 5: Hi. My name's John Kline, and I'm with the Alameda Renters Coalition. And I agree 100% with what Kathryn just said. I sent you a letter today that gives a detailed month by month report on rack votes for 10%. So, everyone, your point. The three members that are currently currently there, Mr. Harrison, Nguyen and Perry have again consistently voted for 10% increases. And with Mr. Lucas, we see no reason why she's going to be any different. And so to add to that, the point the point another point is these votes are unanimous at the rack. 5040. There's no liberal line. They're slugging it out for the little guy. There's nobody there saying, hey, wait a, you know, push him back consistently. What do you mean? Why do you need 10%? You can make a profit on 3%. There's nobody there doing that. The other mention I made in my in my letter to you is that the composition of the RAC is not sufficiently diverse. It does not reflect the economic, political, social and racial diversity of Alameda. Rack membership is drawn solely from the professional class whose economic and political interests often completely adverse to poor and working class. Alameda. And by that I mean you. This year you had 3 to 2 resignation resignations. Prior to those resignations, you had three attorneys and two real estate professionals. One of those attorneys was a real estate attorney. So you're filling two one of the two vacancies tonight with an attorney. And the other applications for the vacant position are two of the three were for an attorney then using one of those. The everyday person should not have to come in and deal with a bank of attorneys and real estate professionals whose interests truly are adverse to them as working class, lower class and poor. Why don't you have any activists on the rack? Why don't you have a single mother on the rack? You had a chair a couple of years ago who advocated openly that the rack, the purpose of the rack was to stop rent control. If I were if I were, you know, that I want rent control. If I applied for the rack, you'd say, you can't be on the rack. You want rent control, but you had a chair on the rack advocating against it. What's the difference? Diversity. You have no diversity. It's a singular view. And. That's just not a best practice by any stretch of the imagination. The other thing is that you're missing a city attorney there. It's full of attorneys, but you have no city attorney. There should be a city attorney there to make sure that the process is fair. So in my letter, we said that the RAC should be disbanded immediately. It's not doing at all what it should be doing. We should have an elected rec and you should also implement a moratorium on rents and rent increases and no fault evictions. And thank you very much. Speaker 1: Thank you. And think. Speaker 2: Hi, folks. I'm exhausted. Speaker 5: It's been a long day. This is the last place I want to be right now. Speaker 2: I'm here because I'm frustrated. Speaker 5: I'm frustrated that the city is losing its soul. And we've got this rack, this toothless body that basically is rent control for the landlords. It's setting 10% de facto. Okay. Yeah, 10% sure. No problem. Nobody's getting a 10% raise yet, you know, no problem raising the rents 10% every frickin year. So, yeah, I'm a little angry and the guys have been dragging your. Speaker 2: Feet offering bad proposals. Well, the one proposal I've seen is kind of insulting. Speaker 5: We got to do something. We got to do something. Now, this Iraq is not cutting it. We need a moratorium. We need a rent control. Speaker 2: We have to do something. Speaker 5: I just heard about another complex that just is given 60 day notices to all the. Speaker 2: Seniors on Section eight. They're planning on evicting everyone else in 60 days or by November. Has a moratorium tonight. Speaker 5: And stop it. Thank you. Speaker 1: Thank you. Speaker 2: Jason. Speaker 1: All right. There are no other public comments on this item. Speaker 9: Member OTI Thank you, Madam Mayor. First of all, I think we have a meeting set for November 4th to discuss all of these issues and different possible ways we could solve the crisis of affordable housing here in Alameda. So I realize that it's not today, but, you know, it's sooner than December when when it was originally planned. And I wonder what the harm might be given that there have been some suggestions both tonight and in previous meetings that we consider a elected rent board. We may not we may we may do that. We may not. It could be that we give it expanded powers. We may or we may not. And I think that, you know, these positions deserve a lot more scrutiny from the council. And I don't always agree with the mayor's appointments, but what I do respect about the way she makes them is she does a tremendous amount of due diligence and interviewing and checking with them. And my understanding is that that was not done or these reappointment is usually they come before the council and the mayor makes her suggestions from a list. And, you know, we move forward in the following meeting and then the mayor appointees are approved and we haven't had that opportunity with these appointees. And I'm not being critical of their work. It may be that we decide, you know, these are perfectly fine individuals, but I think given the gravity of the rack and the gravity of what decisions we may or may not take on November 4th, it might make sense to just put off this re reappointment at least till after November 4th, when maybe we can consider, you know, this when we when we talk about other rent issues. Speaker 1: Remember De. Speaker 7: Well, thank you. I think the recommendation by Council Member Oti speaks to at least the in one respect, the magnitude of the housing situation that we're in. So at least by temporarily putting this off. We can certainly send a message that, you know, we need a Iraq that understands the needs of the of the rental community here in Alameda. I appreciate the data that was provided by Mr. Kline. And. I think, though, the responsibility lies not with Iraq, though the responsibility really lies with the city council. So it's the Iraq and the city council that have to come together because, you know, the buck ultimately stops with us, not just on November, but on any day of the year. So I think in that regard, I see temporarily putting off on the the appointments. I see. At a minimum, no harm in that whatsoever. And I see a lot of benefit out of that. So I would certainly entertain if if Council Member OTI suggested that we put off the selection of the nominees tonight Speaker 1: . So I'd like. Speaker 6: To see me run away. Speaker 0: So go ahead. I can wait until you're done. Speaker 1: Well, we have BRAC meetings continuing, so these members would continue to serve as my understanding until we decide. So these members could continue to serve under the current BRAC. I think this was a response to the prior agenda item that we approved, that staff was going to just have it seamless, seamlessly continue in that respect. Did you want to respond? To clarify? So. And so I would like to respond in regards to the the this item actually has staff recommending that I nominate the existing four members. It's a five member board. We did have a resignation recently from from the committee and that someone had moved outside of the area. So this is for four of the five members. There was a comment that suggests that stated that someone that was just appointed recently would very well vote as those before. And I would submit that. This is a new person. And with all due respect to how this person would vote, I think that it would be appropriate to see how this person votes. This person actually is someone that has served our community in many different capacities over the years. Ms.. Lucas. The other three members that I was being recommended that I reappoint have served. So whether or not they would continue, I think that there is that that council does create the policy and that we can give input. And in fact, in regards to that, I have attended, I believe, every meeting since I've been mayor. And with all due respect to the members that have been serving, they. I think that they try really hard to serve and meet the needs of our community. And whether or not that's actually working, which is I think is why the council has actually made changes to Iraq. And we have there was a long a lengthy process and recently it came to council and we all weighed in on that. But I am interested in hearing so and so in regards to the due diligence of my accepting staff's recommendation. I do think in regards to at least the person I just appointed in 2015, I would hope that that person would be allowed to continue. We just appointed her. She has no prior record on this and I would like to give her the benefit of the doubt in regards to her service, in regards to the other ones. I have seen them interact with the community members. So I'm comfortable reappointing them. However, I'm also interested in hearing other council members comments. Speaker 6: Member Ashcroft Thank you, Mayor Spencer. I am inclined to agree with my two colleagues, Councilmember Odie and Desiree. I think we are finding ourselves in some new, uncharted territory. And because we have this special meeting that is coming up on November 4th, and I know staff is going to a lot of time and effort compiling the data that we asked for. We are all looking at how other cities are tackling this. It's a very much a regional problem, but cities are coming up with their ways of addressing it. And I think we can do some of those things in Alameda when it's brought to a full discussion. I, I do understand that until we finalize these appointees, the current slate would stay in place. And I, I would like the opportunity. I think that we may decide to give the RAC a little different function after we meet on the fourth. And I would like to have the opportunity to ask questions of our newest appointee. Ms.. Lucas I, I actually put in a phone call to her today and perhaps she's out of town, but you know that I wanted to ask her about some statements she'd made back when she was on the city council, but I don't think it's fair to bring that up unless she's here to to respond that. But I do have some questions I'd like to ask and probably, you know, in light of what the some of the folks have raised, we you know, we probably should take a little closer look now. I will say I like the idea of diversity, economic, ethnic, geographic. What have you. It could be decided. I'm not sure how having an elected body accomplishes that, because it all depends on who runs and who wins, but whether those would be criteria. And of course, and I know we've got an application out now, right, because I saw a copy of the for the winners slot. Speaker 1: At CNN. Speaker 0: And. Speaker 1: It sort of. Speaker 6: Saved the rest of that. Yeah. Yeah. So all of you tenants out there, you know, I hope you've picked up an application. If not, is it online? Yes. Yeah. So we can get it. Speaker 0: From. Speaker 6: Oak or from the clerk's office. You can get one anywhere. I would entertain the idea of putting this decision off until after. Mr. Deaver, you say until after sometime after the November 4th special meeting. Speaker 9: I think we could reconsider this. And November 4th, when we talk about all of the the rent issues and know if we're going to come up with a. Direction to staff and come up with an ordinance or not. You know, I think it would behoove us to talk to all four of the members of the RAC and make sure that. Given that's our authority to to to confirm then to see if if they're in line with with our direction. Speaker 1: And I would also encourage if that's the direction of counsel, I would encourage counsel to attend the meetings where you can see see them in action. And in regards to comments that we could select council members based upon being a single parent or economic diversity of Kansas City attorney. Would you like to weigh in on that? I think we may be entered in regards to our ability to ask some of those questions. Speaker 6: You know, I mean, maybe we don't ask, but someone tells us. Speaker 0: Well, I think what the mayor is referring to is just issues of privacy. And so there are certain questions you can't ask people when you're looking for them to be hired for a job, those kinds of things. So that, I think, is what the mayor's concern is. And that's why the current ordinance, frankly, is drafted such that it talks about being a tenant or a property owner and being a resident of the city of Alameda. Speaker 9: And there's you know, if you just hypothetically, if we decide we're going to do an elected rent board, we could say there's two tenant positions or there's two landlord positions or there's one at large or, you know, there's there's ways we could do this. But, you know, I'd like to defer this until that discussion and, you know, not commit to, you know, to people with four year terms and two people with two year terms when we're grappling with how to solve this crisis right now. Speaker 1: And my understanding is that was part of that part of what we've voted on before. Speaker 0: The makeup of the commission was included in the ordinance. Speaker 1: So that was part of the ordinance that we approved September 15th, I believe. Speaker 0: If I may just clarify why staff brought this forward as we didn't want to not allow the REC to continue operating. When we are hearing from the community that there are so many issues and because we adopted you just adopted these two new ordinances, one that that constituted the rack and one that talked about the duties of the rack. And they both went into effect October one. We wanted to try to give the rack as much authority and have it properly appointed and all of that as quickly as we can. But I think what you're saying, I'm hearing you and I understand what you're saying, and I think that it's certainly true that we could allow the three members who are still on the rack to continue until their successors or. Speaker 1: More members together. Therefore, we have one to be appointed, but we have four. Speaker 0: She's not on. Speaker 9: Then. I thought she was appointed before. Speaker 1: She was already of. Okay, my mistake. Speaker 0: So you do. Speaker 6: Have a second? Speaker 0: Mm hmm. So they were. Speaker 1: Seated. Speaker 9: At the time. That was the mayor's appointment. Speaker 1: But we have four currently serving on rack and but it would be coming up next this. On the appointment to fill the fifth seat. Member. Speaker 2: Ashcroft did it. Speaker 6: So quickly and the vice mayor. I I'm glad to hear that we've got the meetings coming up again, because I did do my own little survey and a lot of the meetings had been canceled this year. So, I mean, I do want to see people avail themselves of the park, something perhaps we can discuss at the meeting on November the fourth. I'm just thinking about the composition of the rack. This is the Rental Rate Advisory Committee and only a rental review review review advisory committee, but only two of the five members. So a minority are actually renters. And I wonder if that's something the Council might like to. On the fourth. Speaker 9: One right now, because there's a vacancy. Speaker 6: Well, but I'm saying the slots are four to. Speaker 1: So so the composition, which I believe was part of the ordinance we just firmed, is to renters, to landlords and one person that owns a home in the community. Speaker 6: Exactly. And I do understand that. And I'm just saying, sometimes thinking evolves and my thinking is evolving here. And it's something I don't want to go into this because it's not agenda. It's but I'm just saying, when it comes up on this, the fourth, maybe we should stop and think, I know it's in the ordinance, but maybe it's worth a discussion. Speaker 1: Vice Mayor. Speaker 3: Okay. And I think that point of of. Looking at the composition is is an interesting point. I think the point about whether it's an elected body or an appointed body. This body has to function. And even if we decided that it was going to be elected body, it's going to be a while before that election can happen . And this body has to be able to function. And if the body can function now. Without interruption. I see no problem with waiting until after the end of the fourth. If there's a problem if there's if there's some some disadvantage that we get from not making these affirmations tonight with the authority that we've given the rack and in the audience change, then I'm inclined to vote for it tonight so that we don't lose any advantage that we have. But I I'd like to hear that. Speaker 0: So the ordinance was actually silent about how this transition period would happen. But because all of our other boards and commissions, pursuant to charter and municipal code, the people who are in the seats remain there until their successors are appointed. I think it's it I think legally we can allow that to happen here. It is silent in the ordinance we wanted out of an abundance of caution, to have the council make the actual appointments pursuant to the new ordinance, which is why we are here tonight. But because of the hesitation I'm hearing. Speaker 1: For good reason. I think we. Speaker 0: Can continue on with the four members. Speaker 1: Who are on the board. So I'd like to speak to that. The fifth member that is. I would like to be able to appoint. Is a renter. That is the position. Correct. Correct. Correct. So that is the position. So I believe that we should continue through the process with the appointment. And if at some point counsel wants to reconsider this, that I would hope that we would do that. Then I would I. From the comments I heard this evening, I don't believe the suggestion from the speakers is to have only one renter as opposed to two. Mayor Spencer, that would be a concern, yes. Speaker 0: Maybe just so that the council gets a better understanding and Mayor Spencer could be making her nomination at the November 3rd meeting. But, Mayor, since I think it would be okay because you would make your nomination and then that would come back for the council on November 17th, which would be after the fourth. Speaker 1: Right. But so we're all aware that I would like to proceed with the applications coming in from the possible renters who would like to be on this seat and not all. So so I would appreciate your support with that. So we can continue the process, make the nomination, and then depending upon what happens and try to try to at least get one more renter on the committee. Speaker 3: That Mayor, I think it's I think it's imperative that you that we have that fifth seeded. Speaker 2: Thank you. Speaker 3: Because there is going to be a time with this as it's the ordinance sits right now. This body has to meet. It cannot not meet and has to have a full complement. But I definitely think that has to happen. Speaker 1: Thank you. And in regards to member Ashcroft's comments that meetings have been canceled. It's my understanding that meetings are canceled when a tenant decides not to go forward at that time, usually because negotiations have are being made and in cases are being resolved. But the tenant is the person that files and requests that it be. Proceed, proceed. And then it is the tenant that then withdraws or requests a postponement. And it's my understanding that's why the meetings are canceled. That's not arbitrary. And I'm sorry. So. Speaker 6: And I would just add this and I have asked staff to please capture that data of what happens when someone has filed the application and withdraws it. I want to know all the particulars because, again, we're just we're trying to be as data driven as possible so that we can fashion the necessary remedies when we meet on the fourth. Speaker 1: So we already had public comment. Did you want to add something quickly. Speaker 0: Or. Speaker 1: No? All right. Thank you. Do you want to add something quickly? I would entertain that. And I appreciate your patience. And sometimes when that. Speaker 5: Happens, what you're talking about, the cancelations because negotiations are occurring is an issue that we've talked about. We think the RAC should retain jurisdiction, even though they've said they've reached an agreement, they should come in and tell what that agreement is. So the same way that a landlord must appear, the tenant must appear also. Speaker 1: Thank you very much. Appreciate that. All right. Any. Yes. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 9: I'd like to move to table this item until November 4th. Speaker 5: Okay. Speaker 1: But the I just want to clarify that I will continue the process that receipt the tenant. Speaker 9: Correct because the that's not in this at all. Speaker 1: And I appreciate that. All right. All of us in favor of. Speaker 2: A. Speaker 1: Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. All right.

Regular Agenda Item

Adoption of Resolutions Appointing Jerome Harrison and Karin Lucas, as Members of the Rent Review Advisory Committee (RRAC), to Four Year Terms Beginning October 20, 2015, and Appointing Thuy Nguyen and David Perry, as Members of the RRAC, to Two Year Terms Beginning October 20, 2015. (RRAC)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_10202015_2015-2169

Speaker 1: Okay. Next item. And now 60. Speaker 0: Recommendations three Yes. Recommendation to proceed with the new development strategy for the Enterprise District, formerly site B at Alameda Point. Speaker 8: Good evening, Mayor. Councilmembers My name is Jennifer Short, Chief Operating Officer for Alameda Point. I'm here to talk about jobs and how we attract them to alameda point. We know this came up a lot as part of our discussion of the city project. A mixed use project was how do we balance the housing units at Alameda Point being built with jobs and really developing starting to develop a strategy for attracting those jobs? That's what this presentation is about. And we believe this is just this is honestly just one way that we're doing that. And I'll talk a little bit at the end of this presentation about other ideas and thoughts we have about attracting jobs. So the first thing I think before we go into too much detail about what we're proposing in from a strategic standpoint, I think we had some comments and questions that I think we're really good to kind of take a step back and really frame what is the policy framework for for why we're doing this and and what we're going to be trying to attract. And although I'm focusing on the 2014 zoning amendment, the reality is when this the reuse plan was approved in 1996, the focus was on attracting jobs because we lost 18,000 jobs on the base closed. That was what was the focus of the reuse plan. I'm five and half million square feet of commercial that is ultimately got approved as part of the recent project. And then the 2014 zoning amendment was very strategic about creating a vision for attracting jobs. And I mean, first and foremost, we zoned a lot of land for industrial uses that prohibited residential use, which is obviously the first way to to, you know, to to try to put yourself in the best position for attracting jobs. And then the second is we kind of created two areas. And so tonight we're really talking about the area here. There's the enterprise zone, which is the zoning. And that really focuses on new development of commercial jobs or, you know, new construction of commercial development that will attract jobs. The other area, which we're obviously we're talking about tonight and is the adaptive reuse area and creating jobs in some of our existing buildings, there are very few existing buildings we just talked about one which is really right here in that enterprise, the maritime area. But mostly the buildings here are not usable or not necessarily long term buildings. So the idea here really has been to focus on trying to attract new development, new construction to the enterprise zone. So what the zoning does and there was a lot of discussion and I think it's important to understand that this wasn't we just didn't say slap a zoning and say, oh, you just have commercial development in enterprise zone. There was a lot of discussion with the planning board, the city council, the community about this area and creating even subdistricts within the enterprise zone to address some key issues. But I can tell you overall, the uses here focus on catalytic commercial uses with spinoff potential, really focusing office R&D, light industrial uses with that create jobs, really de-emphasizing storage uses, things like that. But also this working waterfront, which we're not going to get into, we just talked about, but that really creating this district for here intended to be a working waterfront area because it is tidelands, it's actually highly restricted, as we already mentioned. So we started to break this area up into different areas where you've got these four districts, the really the district one being that primary area of being able to attract a larger major campus user, possibly for a light industrial office R&D campus. Then you've got this second district, which is still that type of use, but kind of recognizing that, hey, you're next to this town center area where you might have some residential, you might have some mixed use. You need to kind of tone down maybe some of these other industrial uses a little bit, be a little more sensitive to this transition with the town center, the district three, which is really the buffer area between what's going on in the enterprise district, in the residential area, really a recognition that we need to really kind of limit the kinds of uses have to be much less intense uses next to the residential area and then the District four, which is the focus on the working waterfront. So there was a lot of thought and this will frame essentially our approach to the next step in terms of trying to market the enterprise area to attract jobs , is using this policy framework that was approved in 2014 that builds off the reuse plan from 1996. That said, I do want to say that that zoning is really your regulatory hat, that the city council, the planning board where in terms of regulating uses. But I will say that we're you know, as we've talked about before, we said it is a unique situation where you also in this particular case where the property owner had. So even though these are kind of the policy framework that gives some flexibility as to types of uses you can attract here, ultimately the city council can be as particular as it wants about the type of use. And I will tell you, you know, my direction to Cushman Wakefield is that we are for especially the first deal, the first transaction. We want to be a catalytic use that attracts jobs. It brings a big name that does something to really start to put this area on a map that we think is going to have that potential to either attract a lot of jobs, great business to business sales tax, or to really start to create momentum for something more so that we can really capture the other jobs that we want. So I just want to mention that that you kind of this is the regulatory framework, but the property owner that you also get to be a little more picky and particular about what you want. And we will keep that in mind as we move forward with our effort here. Speaker 1: Do you have any speakers on the side of the speakers? Right. Council members. Speaker 8: Okay. So the recommended approach, I'm going to give you a quick summary on this. We can come back to this slide, but just want to summarize it first. You can be thinking about it as I go through a little bit more of why we're recommending this. But the idea is to essentially use an existing contract with Cushman Wakefield. They have an existing listing agreement which includes that the sale of land, which is what this would be in. So just to and I want to and I should have done this a little earlier, I want to kind of emphasize this is different. What when you're trying to attract a commercial user, they're going to be looking for improved land. And what the difference between kind of undeveloped land versus improve lamb is really infrastructure for a user to come in and be able to develop their campus. They are typically out in the market looking for a land that's improved so that they don't have to put infrastructure in, but they can come in, build their vertical improvements, create their buildings, and then operate their business. And that timeline is much more predictable when you are have undeveloped land, which is essentially what we have here because of infrastructure, that's a lot less certain. You have this idea how you are going to fund infrastructure than the construction of infrastructure and then getting into the development of the vertical. And that is that is atypical in terms of users come in and they typically are when they're looking at land, they're looking at improve land. So I want to just have you understand this. You understand kind of where we are and we've kind of created our strategy around the idea of reducing that certainty related to the undeveloped land that's out there as part of this area B area. So the recommended approach is to use existing contract with Cushman Wakefield, have them essentially act as our listing agent, which we already have a contract for them to do to try to attract users primarily to Area B, which is what they do all over the Bay Area, all over the world. But to link the marketing phases to the site, a progress because we see it as so important to be able to create confidence around our ability to deliver improved land to a user is to show the progress was site because site is what ultimately brings in the trunk infrastructure that we can kind of tee off of and use to build the infrastructure for site B. So we really think we need to link our marketing phases and our approach to the site progress. And based on comments we received, we understand them in there. You know, we we think that this and we'll talk about why we chose this approach, but there probably is a need for us to come back every six months, staff comes back, evaluates the progress that's been made, or honestly, the progress that hasn't been made maybe, and make an assessment and come to you with our recommendation as to whether or not to continue this approach or do we need a pivot, we need to change, do something a little different based on the signals we're getting from the market or whatever it is. But to come back with a six month update to make sure that we still think that this is the right approach. So why are we recommending this? I think the it's a different approach. We went out with a request for qualifications from developers. At the same time, we did the site process. In the case of site B, we did not get we got much less response. And when we negotiated them, they were willing to commit to a lot less and not because there was anything wrong with these developers. They were just responding to the fact there was a lot of uncertainty about the commercial market not wanting to commit to build infrastructure, pay for land when they didn't know what types of users were going to ultimately be there. And we decided to put that on hold until we got further along with site A, that's why we're here today. Back to you with that same strategy. So we did evaluate or that with a different, you know, with an approach and we did look at whether or not we should RFQ again from developers, what we're actually recommending today is not to do that. We think that going out again with an RFQ from developers is not the right approach. We think we think there would be kind of perceived in the market as, oh, you didn't get anything before, now you're out again, and that there might be a stigma associated with a second attempt at doing it with that same approach, which doesn't mean we can't do that later. We just think right now let's try a different approach. We actually think we should focus on end users instead of developers developer. We think with using a leasing agent and broker like Cushman Wakefield, we can focus more on end users, which doesn't mean we're going to ignore developers of a great developer comes in with a concept and they've got an idea and they're willing to commit to some things. We're absolute going to consider those proposals as well. But to focus less on just developers, we want to cast a wider net. Second, we think by using this approach it's more cost efficient. We're using a commission structure, which essentially means that until the city council votes and approves this transaction, Cushman Wakefield does not get paid. So they only get paid if they deliver a transaction of this city council approves. So there's a push for essentially a performance based structure that's built into this. There's no upfront cost to the city we may elect to enhance some of the marketing materials with our own dollars to do, but we're not committing to that and it's not required as part of this. So we think that this is cost efficient. And then lastly, we think it's flexible and that. You know, you're not running in. You're not if you did an RFQ and worked to directly the developer, you're most likely going to be looking at an exclusive negotiation agreement that's looking at a developed disposition or development agreement where you're committing to a single developer. And we think this approach creates more flexibility upfront, which doesn't mean if you find the perfect developer or the perfect user that you can't enter into those agreements. But it doesn't put us on that path immediately and potentially prematurely. So the proposed development strategy, as I said, is really linking. We're created three different phases which really tie to the site infrastructure and have assigned a, you know, started to put a schedule together based on the performance milestones in the site, a disposition development agreement. But the idea is the awareness phase. We honestly believe over the next 9 to 14 months, while the developer site developers closing on the property, getting all of their final design review and other improvement plans and other entitlements in place before they actually close on their Phase one property. We don't think that we're going to get a big transaction. It doesn't mean if there one comes our way, we're not going to take advantage. But we think of this more as an awareness phase where it's really going to be focused more on broker to broker. We're going to be do it kind of create an identity, stop calling it site B, which doesn't mean anything to anyone except for here in Alameda. Start branding and create an identity around an enterprise district. Start creating marketing materials, new collateral. Getting the word out and really starting to kind of create an awareness and a buzz within the community, but not overly. I mean, we will take advantage, but we don't think that it's realistic that we're going to get any big users at this during this period. The next phase is really tied to phase one infrastructure commencing using that groundbreaking as an opportunity to get the press out to Alameda, start to create additional buzz and excitement in the community about ground, actually be, you know, having some of these starting to get built and using that again to kind of expand, not just talking to brokers, but starting to really talk to end users, talking to larger developers, expanding, creating a newsletter, starting to do more marketing collateral. And then ultimately once you have at least a major phase of the phase one infrastructure for site A completed which you're looking at 18 to 48 months, then that's when you would really start to expect there. We'd be able to give a major user a lot of certainty about delivering land to them, and then they can start planning their vertical, the building of the buildings and their timeline, and we'd be able to provide them with much more certainty around those timelines. A lot of and we have our Cushman Wakefield folks here that can talk to you about this. But when we've had conversations, I have sat in on conversations with potential users out here that have asked us to look at land. And I've sat in on those conversations. And when you start telling them, Well, we've got to wait for the site infrastructure, which we think is going to be around this time frame, and then that will be this many months. And, you know, but it hasn't happened yet. I mean, you can see, you know, even when we're trying to kind of sell it, that they're from their standpoint, they're having to build a campus, possibly foreclose a lease or their leases up somewhere else and then promise to their operations folks, they're going have a place for those folks to land and commit to that and have an operate, you know, a building that's allowing them to move people in and operate their business seamlessly. And when you start talking to them about some of the uncertainty on these timelines and not being able to guarantee or to kind of really put us in a position to provide that certainty to them or more certainty they just weren't interested. You know what we're interested in? We're look we'll look at your buildings. But right now we're monitoring the land. And until we know that there's a there's more of a timeline on that. And I've seen that happen in a couple of situations. It doesn't mean we're not going to stop trying. I mean, we are going to continue to try it with that. But we think that we're going to have to be patient. We're going to have to be able to provide them with more certainty to really be able to attract a catalytic user out here. Lastly, I just wanted to kind of make sure that you, the council and the community understands the city of Alameda staff. We are not going anywhere. We're going to stay involved in all of this. We, Cushman Wakefield are taking direction from us. We'll be providing, as it says here, ongoing oversight of the effort will be participating in these key user and developer meetings, will be leading the transactional negotiations and then evaluating. I think very importantly, the progress. Is it working? Is it not working? Do we think we should change based on the market indications that we're getting and then coming to you and recommending any changes to that approach? Cushman Wakefield on their hand will be executing the marketing, the outreach strategy. They'll be the front line point of contact filtering, folks talking to people on the front lines, participating in the transactional negotiations, and then prior any input and recommendations to us. But ultimately we'll be the ones making those decisions and coming to you with our recommendation. Lastly, I just wanted to say that this is just one jobs. You know, this is to try to look at attracting job, new development and jobs in the new development area. We are not going to stop leasing and you'll hear if we get to it, the leasing update from that point. But we are we are going to continue to be leasing our buildings. And I think ultimately we'll be looking at some of our buildings that have been vacant for a long time. We've kind of exhausted a lot of the low hanging fruit, to be honest, in terms of those buildings are going to have to really start to be creative about trying to attract jobs. I was recently at a conference in San Francisco and got some we all kind of talked and got some ideas about how we might be able to looking at bachelor and listed quarters for jobs, some of those other buildings thinking about, you know, maybe bringing an architect in to look at the BQ to kind of could it be adapted for a tech user? Could there be some ideas that come out of that? So. Works we think we need. We can't just be doing this. We also have to be looking at some of those big vacant buildings in the adaptive reuse area and thinking about how we might change them and alter them to attract jobs. You've got Spirit's Alley there. You've got the existing ferry terminals. We think there's potential in both places, and we're going to do both at the same time. But we think it's important to move this along and start to implement a marketing strategy in this enterprise district area. So that's that's it. And I'm happy to answer any questions. Speaker 1: Or remember Daisuke. Speaker 7: Thank you. First off, let me make sure to say is that, you know, we appreciate all the work that you have done. It's important to say that because the last agenda item was a tough agenda item, but we nonetheless appreciate all the work that you Mesma Cano, the executive staff have done over the years. So let's make sure to. Speaker 8: These are tough issues. Speaker 2: Yes, these are tough issues. Speaker 7: So the question that I have, I have two sets of questions. First of all, it has to do making sure that. People who we go through the quote unquote, end user strategy, pay their fair share of infrastructure related costs as well as and I think it's part of it. Their fair share of the sports complex and ferry terminal and I think this is important to raise, especially in light of the commitments that that we are looking at with regard to infrastructure and and sports complex, the commitments that site is making because the overall infrastructure cost for elevated point is $566 million or phase one, which included at the time site A and site B for phase one, the infrastructure cost was $183 million. So those infrastructure costs are predicated on some kind of land use and intensity of uses. So as we go forward with this kind of the virtual going forward with a developer was that they were committing to a land use and an intensity of land use. Now, we're not too sure. We're looking for people and they're going to kind of come on a haphazard basis and hopefully we get the best. So the question is, in this context, how are we going to make sure that whatever land use end user that we obtain is going to pay their fair share of infrastructure costs that are program for site B? Mm hmm. Speaker 8: Great. Now, that's that's good as a question that's near and dear to my heart and one that I've had with staff. I mean, it's absolutely I think what we are, you know, and I'll tell you a different thing. There's our policy approach, which is what we're we'll plan on. Tell telling anyone who comes in is that there is a essentially kind of a flaw, and that is the the infrastructure burden. So it's about $1,000,000 an acre of land. And we expect to you know, I think I'm not going to say never because you never know if there's some amazing proposal. But I can't imagine I'm coming to you and recommending that you move forward with a project that's less than that unless we have a way of paying for the difference, you know, that we're clear on how that's going to get made up. But our intent is that that is essentially the burden that any develop, any development occurs in this enterprise district would have to pay. Now, that said, and just to make sure this isn't just me, you know, making sure this gets done, we've actually codified that in our ordinances and our development impact fee ordinance, which requires any development out here to pay a development impact fee that's essentially equivalent to that $1 million an acre. So if you know I'm not around and, you know, whatever this is happening, I mean, there's there is a kind of a failsafe kind of trigger that's in our code to ensure that that occurs . Now, I will say, and I don't want to put this I don't think too many people are listening and in terms of our negotiation. But what you know, our hope is that we would get land value in addition to that. But if there's a user, we don't think the market or the financial, you know, it doesn't look like there is value beyond that $1 million for infrastructure. The benefit of being a public owner is that you can write down essentially the value of the land to the value of the infrastructure. Mm hmm. I'm not suggesting that that's where we would start from a negotiating position, but you have that flexibility in the event that a really great user that we think is awesome, that can pay $1,000,000 an acre for land, but maybe not $1,000,000 an acre for land and $1,000,000 an acre for infrastructure. There's that flexibility and there are some policy considerations that the council could make. But those we would you know, we'd have to look on that at a case by case basis. Speaker 7: And let me make sure to underscore why I think the question of making sure that people pay their fair share of infrastructure costs is important because one of the end of the day selling features of the whole program that we started in the past two years for Alameda point the end of the. End of the road benefit was that there will be a sports complex and that there will be a regional water ferry that we were going to, you know, make some sacrifices with a site, a developer and even city developer. But the sacrifices that we made on the land sale, you know, decisions that we come up with, we're going to be worth it because at the end of the day, we will have these these amenities. So that's why it's important that as we change our approach to site, be away from that developer driven thing it with which , you know, all our expectations were kind of, you know, calculated with regard to at least site B's pro rata share of the regional complex and water as we change our approach to site B that we not lose and mind that that that that the big benefit that we are all looking for. Okay. The second question, so I appreciate the fact that you said it's codified. That was a keyword. Yep. Second question is site B is a pretty large area. So we are there ways that we can guard against cherry picking? That is, people want to develop the site that's close to the water. But I mean, or is it just, you know, when we cast our net through the the this process that we're talking about? Well, that's just the nature of the beast. Speaker 8: Yeah. No, I think it's a really good. And so I want to talk a second about cherry picking. And so I do there's a couple of thoughts I want to talk about with regard to cherry picking. Here's the site B or the enterprise area that we're calling. We intentionally, as you can see, we left off the land here. I mean, this you know, arguably, this is waterfront land we could have thrown into the enterprise district. And it doesn't mean that if some great user came along and the council made a discretion, they couldn't include it. But I will tell you, from a marketing standpoint, we are not marketing this land in part for the very reason that you're saying, which is we don't want someone to come in, especially earlier on when we're creating catalist and cherry pick our waterfront land. We would like to benefit from the value that this development which you know, when it gets started, we hope soon that we then benefit from this and deci and then try to really capture value and infrastructure dollars through the sale of this land at a future point once you've gotten things developed here. So I think that's an important point, is that we could have thrown the entire enterprise district in there, but we were selective about that for the very reason to kind of protect against the cherry picking some of that waterfront land. That said, we did include some because we think that is one of the attractions of the site is to try to be near the water, near the ferry. So to have that as an option also is to create, you know, have some land that's in the waterfront area. We did want to include some of that. So I wanted you to kind of think about I do also think that the logical place is when we sit down with the civil engineers and and with Cushman Wakefield is to actually start from an arc closer to Main Street, because that's where the existing infrastructure is. And you're going to be able to facilitate development upfront a little more efficiently by starting there and moving over. And the development requirements in the town center plan are a little more intense because of the type of environment we want to create near the ferry terminal things. So I think you're actually going to see and I mean, you can't predict. I mean, someone could come in, but I think we're we're anticipating we're actually going to start closer to Main Street and then move over because of the infrastructure. And then I'm looking at my notes here and out of my phone. I had some notes on that, I promise. And then I think the last thing is, is that ultimately the council decides. I mean, the ultimate you know, the city council decides whether or not this is a good deal or not. And we're and we're not going to you know, we're not going to create a development that essentially renders another part of a block unusable. I mean, we're going to have our engineers and our planners ever look at it and say, you know, this is a usable area, that that leaves the remainder that we can still use. We're not going to start to strand pieces inside that we can't then use. So we'll be very careful about that. And ultimately, the city council is the final arbiter as to whether or not we did a good job doing that. Speaker 7: Thank you. Speaker 1: But we're going to go around the and vice mayor. Speaker 2: And. Speaker 3: I find the slides actually quite succinct in describing what the approach is going to be. And I think that's really important to make sure that. We have a document and I, I would like to adopt this approach, but I'd like to have a term just like we have a develop a terminal development agreement. I'd like to have it have formalized description of what the responsibilities are of of our city department as well as our contractor, Cushman Wakefield. I'd like it to have the goals stated even though their stated elsewhere. I think you mentioned jobs. You mentioned the preference for a catalyst occupant and the end user occupant and that everybody who buys into this area is going to pay their fair share of infrastructure burden. That that's our goal out of here. And you mentioned the six months of reporting. I'd like that to be memorialized in a in in in this in this plan that you've just described. And we can go back and measure progress against those goals. We can also see that if we need to make an adjustment. And where that adjustment might be, especially if we're taking it to the site. And I, I think we should also tie it to the wider. A project because that's really going to be the first one out the gate and they're going to provide infrastructure that runs right across site B, they're going to open the ground up to put a water main and. I'd like to see a little more meat on how these efforts, whether they're short term leases or whether there's other action that occurs in this zone on taking advantage of the ground being open and that engineering being done to put that water main in that could raise the value of this land. I'd like to see what kind of latitude we have and in our lease revenues to do that as part of this the strategy and. Finally, I think it helps when we have things codified or otherwise described in zoning that we still mention in this plan and point to those documents. Because sometimes it's difficult if you don't have the institutional knowledge to remember, yes, it was part of this ordinance or yes, it was part of this decision on zoning. So I'd like to have those pretty much, which is spelled out in here, formalized in our own development agreement, because the city is going to be acting as the developer. Mm hmm. And on this, if I if I understand. Speaker 8: It, always a little nervous about calling us a developer, but. Speaker 5: Not. Speaker 3: Intentionally. Functionally, that's what's. Speaker 8: Creating a document. And I think. Speaker 3: I think that's really important for the public to have. It's really important for us to have something other than a PowerPoint slides is as well-organized as it was. It doesn't carry the same weight to me is a milestone document. Speaker 8: Right. I think that would I think if this is what you're asking, I think taking the essentially the concepts that are in the PowerPoint that you just mentioned and putting it in a written document official, I mean, it may only be, you know, 3 to 5 pages or something, but that kind of walks through these points and codifies, you know, puts them in a plan that we can upload to the website that people can see. This is our approach, this is what we're doing. And this is I think that we can absolutely do that. Speaker 3: And I'd like it to be approved by the council so that future councils can measure and adjust. And also it's a conscious decision to do to adjust. To terminate or to expand. Speaker 1: Is that the end of your column? Speaker 3: Oh, that's. Yes, that's. Speaker 7: It. All right. Speaker 1: I remember. Speaker 9: I don't have too much more to add that my colleagues haven't already stated. You know, the concern about the share of fair share of the infrastructure costs. I have that, too. You know, you look at it and if we if we went with one of our finalist from last time or we went out to do an RFP again, you know, then they would effectively take the land, land, make it themselves. And, you know, it could be eight or ten years and they get it for the price it is now. And now if we do it ourselves and we landbank it, you know, that we can take advantage of, you know, as the value goes up , when site air goes in and the we determine what goes in and some of that infrastructure is put in. And, you know, I think that's a smart move for us to be the land bank or as opposed to, you know, somebody else. So, you know, I'm prepared to support it and echo the comments that have already been said. Speaker 1: Member Ashcroft. Speaker 6: Here. I met Councilmember Desai. I spoke again. Those are. Speaker 2: My questions. Speaker 6: Right from the beginning. So I want to thank Mr. because this was actually on the agenda last time, and I sent her a long email before that meeting with lots of questions. And you did a masterful job, as always, of incorporating the answers. So I don't have to ask them. And I would just say that, yes, you convinced me that this is the approach because, you know, I had some some questions and I great presentation. I think the vice mayor makes a good suggestion that if you could turn it all into a document, that the council could say, you know , yes, we approve of this. And then it, as was also noted, it has the advantage of being that roadmap for the future. So we can because, you know, we're doing that now. We're referencing back to plans that were made. And it will it will help whoever is out there in the future doing this. So and good good work. Staff, all of you who worked on this. Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Speaker 1: All right, so my questions go to Cushman Wakefield. Speaker 0: Mm hmm. Speaker 1: This there's a conclusion that this is cost efficient, but I didn't see the numbers of how much Cushman Wakefield has been paid on any project or overall or anything about the contract we have with them that's not attached here. And I think that that's critical information if they're going to be a key part of the strategy. I think that we should actually put it out and see if my understanding well, before I go there, in your paragraph, you have said that they were involved in the VF outdoor campus. I thought Joe Ernst was part of that. Speaker 8: Mm hmm. So they, in that particular case, before they were working for us, had we're working worked for Joe as their broker and helping Joe attract the outdoor so they have clients all over. And then we did an RFP, we did a request for proposals for leasing agents and property managers two years ago. Mm hmm. And that and we, the city council at that time selected Cushman Wakefield and PPM Realty to be our exclusive essentially broker at Alameda Point, which includes. So that is a contract that we have executed with the city already. That includes land sales at 5% commission. Speaker 1: Okay. So I think a report like this needs to include how much money? Cushman And like what the contract, first of all, what projects they've been involved in and how much they've been paid. Because I don't think the statement can be made that it's cost efficient without numbers. I don't know how much the city is paying Cushman Wakefield or what they've paid for two years. Do you know how much the city has paid Cushman Wakefield The last two years? Speaker 8: We can ask them to provide that, but the next report actually does document all the leases that they have been involved in since they came on and since that RFP. Speaker 1: And the costs that they've been paid. Speaker 8: So you can. Speaker 1: As that. Speaker 8: In may be able to estimate. John McManus of Cushman Wakefield. Speaker 5: And first, this is John McManus with Cushman Wakefield. First, can I correct just one comment? We represented B.F. Outdoor on a contract. We did not have the listing on the land that at the time Lehman Brothers and Mr. Ernst controlled through a partnership. We we represented B after that transaction. Just for clarity, I know that's important to make clear to everyone. We have a contract that was negotiated with the city attorney's office after we were engaged by the council. It goes back almost two years ago now. I believe it runs through 2018. I can't tell you what month of 2018, but it runs out. The city does have some provisions if they're not happy with our performance, to come back to us and we can look at those. But it calls for there's a lease schedule that is 5% of the value of the lease for years, 1 to 5 and two and a half percent of years, 6 to 10 tonight. Mattson, for example, was represented by Sorry It's Getting Late by Transwestern group based in Walnut Creek. And so half of those fees would be paid to them and half would be paid to Cushman Wakefield. So what we would need to do is take your totals and then break out what we've paid to other firms. That will be the case in virtually every transaction we do. There's going to be an outside broker. There's not an outside broker. Those fees are reduced per contract with the city. On sales, the number is 5% of the value of the transaction. Again, those numbers, those those fees are split if it's an option to purchase. And let's say that the the the commission on the sale is $10 and you've paid us $6, then we would only be able to charge you the $4 remaining, the net amount that was left and all that spelled out in the contract. And certainly it's in the files. Speaker 1: And so so I appreciate that it doesn't really so so what I'm looking for, I think the contract needed to be included I think the dollars so for and I appreciate you just brought up Mattson because I didn't know that you were getting paid for mats and mats and has been an existing customer here. So you didn't. Go find them. They re actually, I think staff help move them. And yet Cushman Wakefield is getting paid. Do they get paid the same amount, the same percentage, whether or not they find the tenant? Speaker 8: Yes, they do. Speaker 1: So. Speaker 2: The. Speaker 5: The schedule that I quoted to you, is it 50% if it's a renewal? So if it's a tenant that stays in the same building, then the fee is half of what it would be if the tenant comes in and relocates or comes. Speaker 8: Back as a new. Speaker 5: Lease. But Madson has a new lease. Speaker 8: So they will be they'll be getting their full commission. They'll share it with the other broker. And that's the standard industrial industry practice for for this type of thing. And so there was a lot of time that they spend actually touring mats and working with mats and they actually assist in the lease negotiations. They actually do quite a bit of work with the tenants. We don't do that work. They do all the frontline work in terms of touring them, talking to them, looking at the buildings, going through the numbers, making making recommendations to staff about, you know, the term and whether or not they think the amount of investment is consistent with the term. All of those things they look at. Speaker 1: Okay. So what incentive do they have to find us new tenants? Because when I look at the stuff that comes to us, it's an existing or it's Joe Ernst bringing companies to us. And I think we need. I think we need. So can you tell me what tenants Cushman Wakefield has brought us separate from George and separate from existing tenants? Speaker 5: Right. Speed would be an example. I don't know what I can say about things that are in process that aren't on the agenda. Speaker 1: Probably nothing in the last two years, right? Speaker 5: Speed in the last two years. Right, speed, help me out here. Speaker 2: Building 40. Speaker 5: Yeah, yeah. Winery 43. Fred Grandy. Now, Brooks was was PM before we got here. You're right. Universal Studios. Restoration Hardware. Speaker 1: Can you tell me about Universal Studios? What is that? Speaker 5: That was the Steve Jobs movie that got filmed out in Building 530. Speaker 1: Okay. So that's of. Speaker 5: That was I guess we can say it now. It's released. When they were in there, we were. Speaker 6: Actually in our next item on the agenda, the staff report list that. Yeah. Speaker 1: But it doesn't specify which ones they bring and which ones are just leases. And that's so in regards to that, working with Cushman Wakefield, I think their needs for me, I would like to have seen more information and I am not comfortable agreeing to continue using them because I think we do need to be attracting. I love that Joe Ernst seems to be a lead developer for our community right now. However, I think it'd be nice to reach beyond him and I would like us to. I'd either like more information in regards to this, or I would actually think that I'm comfortable proceeding thinking this is a big project. It's a lot of money that goes to this company and we need to make sure we're being broadcast and advertise wider than existing customers. And Joe and George and I appreciate that there's apparently maybe three or four in the last two years that are from outside. Speaker 8: Right. And I guess just to say, I mean, we did we agreed with you that when we were trying to decide what to do with the base, there was a decision to kind of we were working with PPM Realty to open it up, take a look. We didn't do that. We'd cast a wide net. We had some finalists. Ultimately we decide and the council decided that Cushman Wakefield in their expertize and I'd be happy to have Jon talk to you a little bit about some of the other deals and things that they've done in the Bay Area. But when we evaluated them at that time, we felt like they were highly qualified. You know, Jon, it's not just about attracting tenants, but it's about working with them, getting the leases done, you know, selling, you know, when you're trying to work through some of these deal issues and trying to help them understand the issues that I'm going to point presents, I will tell you that, you know, all the people I work with, John McMann, is one of the people who is raising issues that we've we've now sorted out so that we can market the land and understand the complexities out there, very smart and intelligent and comes, you know, rolls up their sleeves and problem solvers. And honestly and I'll make the point that, you know, that goes a long way in having someone do that. But I'm happy to maybe he could talk a little bit about what other deals and things he's done in the Bay Area. Speaker 1: So let me was there an RFP? Yeah. Choosing them back then, two years ago. Okay. So then I was not part of the council. I appreciate that. Some of you were. I was not. And I would appreciate having the background information of how they were selected and and ideal and also what tenants they have brought. Because I really do think we need to be casting a wider net than what's happening right now and and how much money they're being paid. Speaker 8: And I think it's a fair comment that I kind of made some assumptions about the relationship we have with Cushman Wakefield, that people kind of understood that. And I could've done a better job at explaining the background on why we why we've been using them for, you know, and the back story on that. Speaker 1: So, so my concern with this plan is that I don't feel like this from my position that there's been sufficient due diligence in committing to using Cushman Wakefield for this big part of site B. Speaker 6: So given that it's going on midnight and we still have one more agenda item I hope we'll get to, I am prepared to make a motion to proceed with the new development strategy for the Enterprise District, formerly known as Site B at Alameda Point, and following the the specifications that were set forth by the vice mayor, because I think he articulated them very well. Speaker 2: Oh. Speaker 9: You can go. Speaker 7: I'll second that with a comment. You know, I appreciate the, you know, bringing rights for Alameda as a home run. I mean, it's nice to hear about, you know, Steve Jobs and all that kind of stuff. I mean, whatever. But that's a home run. And, you know, that's a company that's going to be a leading edge company that hopefully will grow. And it's along that alley where Joe Ernst is doing so. So I'm confident tonight for the same reason I was confident two years ago. You know, when you know, when I heard about the things that you had done at Alameda Point and for Alameda. So I'm comfortable with moving forward. Speaker 1: Oh, Vice Mayor. Speaker 3: And I think one of the things that I alluded to was a measurement measurement of progress toward the goals. And I think that's where some of the questions that the mayor asks can be answered. And if we start with the responsibilities with the staff and with Cushman Wakefield and then the measurements, what are the key metrics that go with those responsibilities versus the goals? Whether it's the a number of of new ten new inquiries that are brought in, the number of new commitments, whatever those might be, those can be measured and reported. And I think. When you what I'd like to see in this plan that's it's formalized and we get another shot at some of those details that allow us to basically judge performance of ourselves and judge performance of our contractor. Speaker 1: All right. Speaker 6: And you seconded, right? Okay. Speaker 1: And without more information from about Cushman Wakefield, I can't support moving forward with them at this time. All those in favor. I am opposed for the reasons stated. Thank you. So. Four in favor, one opposed. And six h. Speaker 0: Report on leasing an Alameda point. Oops. Speaker 9: One again. Speaker 4: Yes. Hello again. Speaker 6: To. Speaker 4: That. Good evening, mayor and city council members. I'm Annette McCollum. This leasing report actually the that the impetus for it was just to kind of do a check in with you guys about where we've been, where we how where we've been and where we are now.

Regular Agenda Item

Recommendation to Proceed with a New Development Strategy for the Enterprise District (Formerly Site B) at Alameda Point. (Base Reuse 819099)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_10062015_2015-2070

Speaker 1: Proclamation recognizing public power week October 4th through 10th, a weeklong celebration of Alameda Municipal Power's year round service to the city of Alameda. Speaker 0: Mary Sutter will be accepting this from our. Public Utility Board. She's our president. You can come up to the podium and I will be reading this. Whereas we, the residents of the City of Alameda place a high value on local control of community services and therefore have chosen to operate a community owned, locally controlled, not for profit electric utility. And as consumers and owners of the electric utility have a direct say in utility operations and policies. And. WHEREAS, Alameda Municipal Power provides homes, businesses and local government agencies with very reliable, efficient, cost effective and green electricity and its local operation and workforce continue to make our community a better place in which to live and work. And. WHEREAS, Alameda Municipal Power is a valuable community asset that contributes substantially to the well-being of residents through energy efficiency, customer service, environmental protection, economic development, and safety awareness. And. Whereas, Alameda Municipal Power is a dependable and trustworthy institution whose lower rates translate into an annual savings of nearly $10 million each year for Alameda and while directly contributing to the city of Alameda, its economic well-being and quality of life with annual transfers of over $4 million. Now, therefore, be it resolved that Alameda Municipal Power will continue to work to bring lower cost, safe, reliable electricity to our communities, homes and businesses as it has since 1887, the year when the utility was created to serve Alameda and yet further resolved that our community joins hands with more than 2000 other public power systems in the United States in celebration of public power and recognition that Alameda Municipal Power is good for consumers, business, the community and our nation. Be it further resolved that I Treasurer Spencer, Mayor of the City of Alameda, do hereby proclaim the week of October 4th through the 10th as Public Power Week 2015 in order to honor Alameda Alameda Municipal Power for its contributions to the community and to make its customers, owners, policymakers, and employees more aware of its contributions to their well-being and how it makes their lives more powerful. Speaker 3: Think I do want to say I am very. Speaker 0: Pleased to be. Speaker 3: Able to accept this on behalf of Almeida Municipal Power. I feel like it's a it's a fabulous organization and a very strong component of the city. Thank you very much. Speaker 0: Thank you. All right, our next proclamation, see?

Proclamation/Special Order

Proclamation Recognizing Public Power Week, October 4 through 10, 2015: A Week-Long Celebration of Alameda Municipal Power’s Year-Round Service to the City of Alameda. (Alameda Municipal Power)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_10062015_2015-2032

Speaker 1: Proclamation declaring October 7th as walk and roll to school day. Speaker 0: And the recipients of this are Dr. Clam. Nina Clam. Speaker 2: Okay. Speaker 1: On behalf of Otis, I want to thank you, Madam Mayor, and members of City Council. Yes, I'm Dr. Clem, principal of Otis Elementary School. And I brought with me a student who's an avid biker. She loves her bike as well as my walk and roll to school day volunteer coordinator Erin Crites Shirey. So we are very excited that tomorrow is Walk In, Roll International, Walk and Roll Day. And in Alameda we'll have 14 elementary and middle schools participating in this very exciting activity and events. I'm going to let Aaron describe to you what our day is going to be like. Speaker 3: When we start. Speaker 0: School. Thank you. Speaker 3: Hello. So Otis has got a very, very. Speaker 0: Active and vibrant walk in school walk enrolled in school, a program of which. Speaker 1: Mayor Spencer has been a participant. Speaker 0: Of. Tomorrow morning it starts out, everyone comes to school, they walk, they roll, they ride their bikes. You hop, skip, jump any which way to get to school and are high fived and given a big sticker upon getting to school. Speaker 1: And then there's a dance party. Speaker 0: The dance party has everybody dancing on is having a dance off. Dr. Clem and I are known for doing Running Man dance offs and it gets everyone rallied and celebrating. Fitness is fun. Then from. Speaker 3: There, we come on over. Speaker 0: With all of the grades in their class colors, this rainbow of colors of kids. And we are going to be doing an entire school with. Speaker 1: A name, a dance. Speaker 0: Celebration tomorrow, where the entire school is practicing the whip. And the focus of walking to school is to celebrate just the physical activity, active commuting, the community itself, the camaraderie among among the celebration of healthy fitness fun and Otis is program has been so much joy to enrich throughout the last few. Speaker 4: Years of. Speaker 1: Taking it. Speaker 0: On. So is there anything else I need to add? You think. Speaker 1: All week long and use. Speaker 4: The microphone. So everybody. Sorry. Speaker 1: All week long we have been celebrating healthy habits because walk and roll teaches our kids not only to be healthy and fit, but also to keep our environment healthy. And so we started out on Monday with assemblies from safe routes to school, about with rock study, juggling, about reducing, reusing, recycling and being and walking and rolling to school. And then actually on Friday we even have a BMX freestyle bike assembly on our yard to teach kids about how much fun it is to bike. So lots of activities all week long. Speaker 0: Now I'll read the proclamation. Whereas the city of Alameda joins with the Alameda Unified School District, Alameda County Safe Routes to Schools Program and Bike Walk ALAMEDA In Promoting Wednesday, October 7th, 2015 as walking World School Day. Whereas Walk and Roll to School Day is celebrated as the day to encourage students to walk, bicycle, skate or scooter to school. And. Whereas, this day is an opportunity to promote physical activity, educate students about traffic safety, help parents, grandparents, friends and neighbors to spend more time with children, reduce automobile use and traffic hazards, and create a safer, healthier and more environmentally sustainable community. And. Whereas, Walking World to School Day gives everyone the chance to take an active part in an international event and walk with children from around the world. And. Whereas, by using the school maps and traffic safety tips provided by the Public Works Department, students will become smarter and healthier. Non-Motorized Travelers. Now, therefore, be it resolved that I, Treasurer Spencer, Mayor of the City of Alameda, do hereby proclaim Wednesday, October 7th as walk and roll to School Day 2015 and invite all Alameda residents, businesses, civic groups and other organizations to participate. Speaker 5: Thank you. Thank you. Speaker 0: Can. I wanted to add I want to emphasize the part about it being an international day. We do join communities around the world in celebrating this day. Thank you, member. Speaker 6: Thank you, Madam Chair. I was invited to participate in Bay Farm Elementary or Bay Farm School's Walk and Roll Day tomorrow, so I'll be there. My kids have long gone from Bay Farm School, but it's an honor to participate in that and I hope my colleagues will participate in it as well. It's going to be an exciting day. Speaker 0: As far as standing for pretty much all our and other leaders throughout the community. Member Echo. Speaker 4: So I just want to say thank you all for being here. And it's a special treat to see Aaron Shirey because once upon a time she used to babysit for my twins there, too. They're 24 years old now, Erin, and now she's 23 little girls of her own. Now, you stayed young, but I just came back. Actually, a number of us in the council attended the League of California Cities annual conference in San Jose last week. And on Friday I attended a session on cities, building community, healthy communities all over the state. And I want to know that what you're doing is practically award winning and it's hopefully replicated all over the city. And and I would love to see it not just be a day. And I know I mean, if you've seen Erin, even when she was pushing a baby stroller, she was jogging behind it. I never did that. But but we really we will be a healthier community, will have less traffic impact if we could get more parents to let their kids walk role and ride to school. And yes, I will be out starting at lamb and then I'm racing across the yard to Wood Middle School after that. So I've got a24. But thank you so much for coming in presenting tonight. Speaker 1: Thank you. Actually want to thank everybody because I know many of you are participating. There are a lot of VIPs coming to all of our schools. It is truly a community wide effort. And I just want to assure you, it's a yearlong effort all the time at our schools to keep keep healthy habits alive. Speaker 0: Okay. Just a moment, please. Remember Daisy. Speaker 7: Yes. Thank you very much for coming out tonight and passing along the word about tomorrow's important event. I take special pleasure all the time in taking part in the Payton schools walk and roll data school, the elementary school that I went to many years ago. And it's great to see so many kids taking that day to walk and ride their bikes. Speaker 3: Thank you. Speaker 0: I'll be at Mylan this year, so. Good luck with your dancing. Speaker 1: Make sure you all wear your tennis shoes. Speaker 3: Yes. We'll get. Speaker 1: You going. Thank you. Thank you. Speaker 0: Very much. Oh, wait. Speaker 1: Oh, yeah. Should I come back on this project? Oh, yeah. Speaker 3: Yeah. Hmm. Speaker 7: A. Speaker 0: All right, next presentation.

Proclamation/Special Order

Proclamation Declaring October 7, 2015 as Walk and Roll to School Day. (Public Works 310)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_10062015_2015-2117

Speaker 0: All of them favor I. Motion carries unanimously 5. Speaker 1: Minutes of the special regular city council meetings held on September 1st, 2015, and before the Council tonight. I have emailed all of you and we have expanded one of the motions from the September 1st meeting to get a little more of the detail. Speaker 3: So that is before you incorporate. Speaker 0: So do we have a motion? Speaker 6: I'll move approval of item five as corrected. Speaker 0: Second. Speaker 4: So just a question. Okay. Okay. So the and so this is expanded language. So we just have a little more to go on. So just doing a little wordsmithing in the second line, which is the interim city manager stated that the it should probably be plural tasks should be included. Thank you. Right. Because we gave him more than one task. Speaker 3: Okay. Speaker 4: That was all for me. Speaker 0: With that correction. Others in favor. I motion passes unanimously. Thank you. I see. Speaker 1: Recommendation to a word contract. Oh, that's my recommendation. To reject all bids and authorize a call for bid for the demolition and cleanup of vacant apartment buildings located at Orion Street, West Tower Avenue and Stardust Place at Alameda Point member Ashcraft.

Consent Calendar Item

Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings Held on September 1, 2015. (City Clerk)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_10062015_2015-2029

Speaker 1: Recommends you to accept the $2.2 million grant from these Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response Program to amend the Fire Grants Fund. But Budget for Fiscal Year 20 1516. Speaker 2: Good evening, Madame Mayor. Council members. City staff. The Gong Fire Chief. Speaker 0: Come with me, Chief. Speaker 2: Good evening. I come with good news for you tonight. The fire department has once again applied for and been awarded a staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response Grant, also known as the SAFER Grant. This current one is for $2.2 million. The Safer grant is administered and implemented by the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The grants provide financial assistance to fire departments to help hire additional frontline firefighters or replace laid off firefighters or replace firefighters who have been lost through attrition. The fire department applied for safer grants in 2009 and 2011 and were granted those awards also both for $1.76 million. The grant will allow the fire department to hire six additional firefighters for two years. It covers all associated costs for salaries and benefits, including workers comp ers and OPEB costs. The only cost that it doesn't cover is unscheduled overtime uniforms and ambulance differentials. Fire Department's current authorized number of firefighters is 92. So our internal staffing analysis, we've concluded that we need 98 personnel to provide the service that we currently provide to the city. Adding these six additional firefighters will get us to that number of 98 that we need to do respond adequately in the city. On an annual basis using the C4 grant to hire these six additional firefighters. It'll save us approximately $500,000 annually in overtime cost. I recommend the Council accept this current save for grant. And amend the Fire Grants Fund budget for fiscal year 1516. The grant has no match required. It's a really good one. I completes my report. I'm open for questions. Speaker 0: You. I swear. Speaker 2: I think this is always good to get a grant. I'd like to have us approve the acceptance of this grant, but I also like us to prepare for when we don't receive it. I think we're getting used to. A level of service that has been provided by this grant. And I think we need to prepare ourselves at some point, not either receiving the full amount or six. Or any amount because there may be communities more needy than in this community. And I don't want to have that day come on us and be unprepared. Speaker 0: Remember Ashcroft. Speaker 4: Thank you, Chief. You mentioned the dollar cost and overtime savings, but what was it again? Speaker 2: $500,000 annually. Once, once the firefighters are trained and online. Speaker 4: Right. Because they have to go through academy in there. That's correct. To bring them up to speed. I. I don't disagree with what the vice mayor said, and I but I also agree that this is a great opportunity to get this grant. We just heard an exciting presentation about the library and the vice mayor, and I know that it was a state grant that got us the the money. And in that case, we needed to come up with a local match, but we had that, too. So it's always great when you can leverage, in this case, federal dollars for our needs. And and I do know that we've had a lot of firefighters recently working a lot of overtime hours. And not only does this cost the city money in overtime costs, but there's a human cost, too. Because when you think of the hard, physical labor of fighting fires, it adds to all kinds of injuries. You have people out on medical disability and leave. They're away from the department. There's recovery time. So I think this is something that's important. And also, I think some of the community is aware that we actually had an engine company, one of our engine companies, doing a mutual aid assignment in helping fight the lake fires. Speaker 2: Valley Fire Valley. Speaker 4: For Guy Fires. And they were gone for. Speaker 2: Just under 14 days. Speaker 4: Yeah. So almost two weeks. And so, I mean, and that's the sort of thing that was one company that stayed there and they would get their 24 hours off from time to time, but it was pretty intense. So anyway, I like I read through this in the grant agreement and I'm prepared to support it. Thank you. Speaker 2: Thank you. Speaker 0: Any other comments or questions? Have a question. First of all, congratulations on this. And I'm wondering, back in 2011, was that for two years also or when did that one expire? Speaker 2: They are. They're all for two years. What we've found is we've been able to extend them by a few months each time, because what they're figured out on is is. At full cost of a firefighter or academy. During the five months that they're in the academy, they're only paid 40% of the normal cost of a firefighter. So at the end of the two years, we still have funds that we can apply and request to move forward. Speaker 0: Okay. So did you apply in 2013 or 14 or can you not. Speaker 2: Those those positions were filled then. So nine got us through a couple of years, then we got to 11. The problem with counting on the safer ground as councilmember matter, he pointed out, is that they expire. And then we're in a period where we're short people and we're waiting to see if we're going to get a grant or not. And then by that time, once we've found out whether we're getting it or not, we have that time where we still have to recruit and hire and train people. So we end up with these large gaps where we're backfilling with overtime and our overtime costs go very high. Speaker 0: But it looks like the 2011 would have expired in 2013. Then you probably applied in 14, I'm not sure. Speaker 3: Yeah. And were. Speaker 0: You denied at. Speaker 2: All? No, we've been waiting to hear. This one took us longer to hear. Speaker 0: Okay. Okay. Well, thank you for clarifying that. Okay. So then Brody. Speaker 6: Thinks about America to move recommendation or move the staff recommendation to accept 2,205,300 grant from for the staffing for adequate fire and Emergency Response SAFER program and to amend the Fire Grants Fund budget for fiscal year 20 1516. Speaker 4: A second. Speaker 0: Those. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm really sorry. Speaker 7: Well, thank you. Thank you, Chief. Long for this report. You know, we're as you well know, you know, we're a city of 75,000 and growing slowly. And what that implies is that on the cost side and we always have a demand for services, whether as we had heard earlier, whether it's demand for services for library or as important demand for services for a fire. And those services, demand for services continue because the population is here. Unfortunately, on the revenue side of things, things aren't always readily available. And so, as you well know, and as our executive staff all knows and councils and past councils know, you know, we're always scrambling. So this is part of that scramble. And fortunately, we were you were able to secure another level of funding. And for that, I think you should definitely be thanked and this should be definitely supported. So I look forward to doing that. Speaker 2: Thank you. Speaker 0: Vice Mayor. Speaker 2: I'd like to consider in the motion. Direction or some sort of return back to us to have the the present the plan of what we're going to do if we either cannot apply or do not receive a grant at the end of this grant. So that we avoid a situation where we don't know if something's going to be renewed. That's one scenario or that we don't get the grant renewed because again, I'd like to be prepared now. Rather than wait till that time is on us and have to scramble and maybe make a decision in haste. Speaker 0: Do you want to modify the motion or do you want to bifurcate that issue and have a second motion on that? Speaker 4: Could I just ask for some input from staff about how you might anticipate moving forward with the Vice Mayor's request? Speaker 3: I think what we would do is I would ask Chief Long to take a look at their staffing. And you know what? What does it look like without those six bodies? What does that look like? What is the service level look like without those six bodies? I mean, I think that's what the vice mayor is asking for. Speaker 2: And counter-balance asked. Speaker 3: Right. And maybe if it's not six, maybe it's three or something like that. Speaker 4: So my only concern is just reading through and maybe this isn't a problem, but reading through the attachment for the safer ward, I believe you have to show that you have approval of your of your city council. And I'm just wondering whether we wanted to do a cleaner motion and direction to staff. Speaker 0: So my preference would be to separate the two issues. Okay. And go forward with your motion member already. Speaker 6: Yeah. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I mean, I think we just did the budget that goes out to 17. These these grants expire in 18. So it seems to me maybe the more proper time to have this discussion is when we do the budget for 17, 18 and 18, 19. Speaker 2: We're continually analyzing our numbers to to see, you know, where we are with this, what it would look like when we're at this 92 level. We've trying to maintain the level of service that we currently have. We are starting to incur a huge amount of overtime, specifically mandatory overtime, and our injuries are starting to increase. So yes, we'll come up with a staffing plan of what it looks like. Speaker 0: So at this point, I'd like to proceed with a member of this motion and circle back. Speaker 3: I just I'll make. Speaker 7: One quick comment. And then when it comes to a sudden shortfall of funding, the fire department has made a really tough decision. I remember recently, I think you had to let go a certain number of people who were part of this program because the funding had ended. And I think there was a good number of people who, you know, they were here temporarily part time. I think it's like some kind of ambulance type of program. Speaker 2: The bill assembly. Yeah. Speaker 7: And, you know, that's under that that was under your purview. And so unfortunate. You know, it's unfortunate. But when you have to make those kind of hard decisions. You know, you pull the trigger. But by the same token, we will always need some level of staffing to to accommodate a city of 75,000 people. Whether that staffing is made up by actual new bodies or whether it's made up by the same people but working longer hours. You know, that's that's the situation we're in. On the revenue side, that's why we need to go after these kind of things. Speaker 0: So we have emotion, memory. Can you repeat your emotion? Okay. Just to accept the recommendation I read. Speaker 6: Right. Speaker 0: Okay. So we have motion to accept the recommendation or recommendation to accept the grant and we have a second. So all those in favor. I. I so that part passed unanimously. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Now, did you want to make a motion. Speaker 4: Or is it just direction to staff? Speaker 6: This isn't even an agenda item. So I'm concerned about having this discussion at this point without, you know, notifying the community that we're going to be discussing staffing levels. Speaker 4: Where we can direct staff to look into the the topic, can't we, and come back at another time? Speaker 0: Actually, I don't think we're discussing staffing levels. Well, why don't you say what you think your discussion was? Speaker 2: I think it's pretty simple. I don't want to wait until the we're in the midst of a budget and trying to slice and dice everything. I'd like to have us be prepared before that happens. This is two years we're talking about, and I'd like to know in advance what our strategies point. And if we get an extension, that's fine. But if not, I want to avoid some of the problems that resulted in some tough decisions. Part of them being tough decisions was they were made under that pressure. I'd like to have that. That analyzed. Absent the pressure. Speaker 0: Amber Ashcroft. Speaker 4: I don't disagree with any of that, but I would prefer to have it come back rather than make a motion now and vote on it. Something that we haven't had any report on. I'd love to hear a further discussion. And, you know, give staff and the fire chief and fire department an opportunity to assemble that information, come back to us with a report. But I am not prepared to vote on a motion, but I certainly would support direction to staff to that. Speaker 0: And I think that's what I'm asking for. Speaker 2: I'm not asking. Speaker 0: For them to come. Speaker 4: So we don't need a motion, is what you're saying just direction? Speaker 0: Well, that's what I want to clarify. I definitely. Speaker 3: Need consensus, but I need you to say yes or three of you to say no. Speaker 7: Madam Mayor, if I. If I from my vantage point. If staff, whether the executive level staff or the department has staff are going to do. Are contemplating doing anything different. Then they would when it comes to losing funding. And then, you know, take the time to let us know. But if it's if your approach is basically, you know, you know, the situation that we we deal with. You know, we go through the budget process and and we allocate a certain amount of dollars for for our personnel. And if you have to meet those, if you can meet those personnel with new people, if you can get the existing people to work a lot more hours. Not the best of situations, but. Then I. I'm not quite sure why we have to have a discussion that is altogether some kind of new approach. And that what I would suggest is that. The vice mayor if he has specific. Ideas on how to deal with a staffing shortage that he worked with, with our executive level staff and then come back to us. Speaker 0: So I would like to. If I swear. Speaker 2: And I can't, I'm not the expert and we hire experts to do that. I just want to be prepared. And that's the direction I'm looking for, is instead of waiting until budget time and when other distractions are there, instead of waiting when the grant is either not receive and we have a gap that's it's that's why that's all I'm looking for is that we give direction. They have to come back to us. Speaker 7: So I guess what I'm saying, though, is that if the direction is okay, let's say two weeks from now, the direction is in the event we lose staff, we lose. We don't get the safer grant renewed in two years. The direction is the people who were hired by the state for Grant. Unfortunately, are no longer hired. Well I suspect that would have been the approach anyways by staff. So I'm at wit's end to understand why we have to go through this special discussion on how to deal with this uncertainty when we kind of have a protocol in place on how to deal with, I don't know, maybe, maybe. Speaker 0: I would agree. I would agree with member Ody and member de SOG that we do have a process and this grant is through the end of the it's through February 20th, 2018. So I would expect come maybe 2017 or something like that, that we would hear from staff and yourself if there's a change. But I don't I think it's premature at this point to prioritize that when we have especially. So I think it's we're it's too early and we have many other issues that need to be addressed sooner. Speaker 4: Member Thank you. So I don't remember anyone saying prioritize and I certainly didn't mean to imply that it's it is something we are going to do though, a goal setting workshop at some point. But no, I just meant that it's something that staff can look into because I think we're verging on having a discussion of a non agenda item right now anyway. But I wasn't saying it needs to be a priority and come back. We've, we've got the grant. We should celebrate that this is good. It's and we know it's in place so it's not imminent. Before I get to the vice mayor's point, it's always good not to get complacent, but we've got time. And you certainly could put this down lower on your ever growing list of things to do. So I'm one for gathering more information rather than less, but at this. Speaker 0: Point, I don't think there's a consensus to do that. So we can proceed to the next item. Thank you. Six. Thank you very much, Chief. Speaker 6: Thank you, Chief. Speaker 0: And congratulations. Six C. Speaker 1: Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by amending various sections of articles eight Sunshine Ordinance and Chapter two administrations and adding new sections 20 dash 90 .3.4 and 20 Dash 91.18 concerning local standards to ensure public access to public meetings and public. Speaker 3: Works. Speaker 8: Good evening, Madam Mayor. Members of the Council, Michael Roush, appearing on behalf of the City Attorney's Office for the City of Alameda. And before you tonight are a number of proposed revisions to the city of alameda sunshine ordinance.

Regular Agenda Item

Recommendation to Accept $2,205,300 Grant from the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) Program and to Amend the Fire Grants Fund Budget for Fiscal Year 2015-16. (Fire 3210)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_10062015_2015-2034

Speaker 8: Good evening, Madam Mayor. Members of the Council, Michael Roush, appearing on behalf of the City Attorney's Office for the City of Alameda. And before you tonight are a number of proposed revisions to the city of alameda sunshine ordinance. Speaker 2: Sir. Oh. Speaker 8: Just by way of background, the this sunshine ordinance was first adopted by the City Council in 2012. It occurred after a year study and the involvement of numerous citizens and reticent residents throughout Alameda. It is codified in chapters 2.91 and 2.92 of the Alameda Municipal Code. As set forth in the ordinance. The the ordinance has a number of purposes. Generally it its intent is to demonstrate the City Council's commitment to an open, transparent and democratic city government. And also it ensures that residents have the time to access public information and opportunities to address both the elected and appointed officials. As part of the Sunshine Ordinance, there is an Open Government Commission which meets periodically. It was established by the ordinance to oversee and enforce the Sunshine Ordinance. And with respect to these particular amendments, the Commission reviewed these changes over a course of several different meetings, and we had lengthy discussions about the wisdom and the wording of the ordinances and the amendments. And those are before you this evening. Although there are a number of amendments to the ordinance, many of them are housekeeping rearranging where different sections of the ordinance now will be placed. But there are five major proposed revisions. Those having to do with the use of electronic communication devices at meetings. Whether or not policy body members should be able to present comments at meetings when those members are not present at the meeting. Well, another ordinance or another amendment dealing with public comments by members of policy bodies. Also concerning whether or what restrictions should be on opinions of public concerned expressed by public officials or public employees, and then also certain training requirements that the ordinance currently provides. The first item concerns the use of electronic communication devices at meetings. As currently proposed, the use of electronic communication devices such as iPads, cell phones, etc. would not be able to be used at any meeting for the purpose for any purpose other than accessing materials at a member's iPad or laptop. The idea being that there would be a concern on the part of the public that policy bodies are receiving or transmitting information that is not available either to the public or to other members of the policy body in question. And therefore, a a somewhat we would call a bright line rule saying that those the use of electronic communication devices, except for the limited purposes indicated is prohibited. Speaker 0: Can you clarify what you mean by agenda materials there? Speaker 8: Agenda materials would be those materials which would be contained on the member's iPad. So for example, you know, because we have issued iPads to the various policy body members, when you go there, you can get you you can look at the agenda materials in the backup information. And that would be the purpose for which you could use the your iPad access that information and that information only. The commission felt that that that was somewhat too limited and indicated that it felt that it would be appropriate to allow the use of electronic communication devices to access information on the Internet. Broader than just what would be on your iPad with respect to agenda materials staff as recommended. However, that it be more limited for the reason that I just mentioned, because of the concern that there might be the perception, if not the reality, that information would be transmitted to and from the policy body by persons who are not present, or that information would not be shared by the other members of the of the members a body. Another item has to do with whether or not a policy body member should be able to make comments at a meeting at which the the member is or not present. The concern has to do with the fact that those decisions that policy body members make, whether it's city council, a planning board or other such bodies, that those decisions should be made after hearing all the public information, all the public testimony and all the evidence. And if that policy member is not able to hear that information, then the question is, should written comments that the member provides ahead of time be submitted and be considered by the remainder of the of the Commission or the member of the policy body and the staff recommended? And the commission, the Open Government Commission agreed that that that should be prohibited, that those kind of comments should not be submitted if the member is not present at the meeting. Speaker 0: Okay. Can you clarify if those comments are providing information as opposed to an opinion and a conclusion? Speaker 8: I think the idea is a very fine distinction to try to make between information versus opinion or or a conclusion. I think the idea is that that the information, no matter no matter how it's characterized, it can be seen as perhaps being persuasive or more persuasive than other information. And that member would not have had the benefit of either hearing what the other members had to say about the item or what members of the public had to say about it. And therefore, it's premature to venture, whether it be an opinion or information without having the benefit of being present and being able to digest and respond to that information. Speaker 6: Member Thank you. I guess my question is how would that be any different than any other member of the public? I mean, I can understand you may be influencing, but they're not there. They're not voting. I mean, that's the most influence that they could that's the highest level influence they could have is voting and standing next to their colleagues. But, you know, we're kind of saying just because you're on an A board and maybe you can't make the meeting, then you're not allowed to send in your opinion and you know, have something noted in the record. I mean. It seems a little restrictive to me, you know? I mean, how would that how is that different in your mind? Speaker 8: It's clearly more restrictive. They currently exist. Again, the the concern that that had been expressed to to our office from different different departments and what the Open Government Commission considered was the fact that in order for in order for the that it seemed in not improper but it may seem not appropriate for a board member who did not have the benefit of hearing all the information to provide information to that particular body ahead of time. When that information or additional information may have come to light, that may change that person's opinion. And while it is true that the other commission members or the other policy body members may be able to say, well, that person may have changed his or her mind. If he or she would have heard all that. The concern would be that the opinion or the information expressed by that body member may get more weight than a member of the public would. Again, these are these are all policy decisions that are being set forth here in front of the council. And it's obviously up to you all to decide which of any of these amendments you feel would be appropriate to include. Speaker 0: All right. So let me ask you. If a board member or policy or a member of this committee does have some information and will not be able to attend the meeting, and I'm going to say separate from an opinion, but just knows of something, for instance, a fact. Who do they share it with or nobody? Speaker 8: Under under their proposal, they would not be able to share that with anyone. I mean, they could strike that. They could certainly share it with someone other than sharing it with the the body who is considering the matter. Certainly, they can have a conversation with, you know, a neighbor. Speaker 0: And it would. Speaker 8: But it would not be it would not become part of the public record upon which the decision would be presumably made. Speaker 0: If I might add, I think what could happen, though, if there's a fact that's out there, that person could. Speaker 3: Clearly call the staff member who is serving. Speaker 0: The body. Speaker 3: And allow let them know about a factual situation that might then that. Speaker 0: Staff member could provide to the entire. Speaker 3: Body. Okay. Speaker 0: So I appreciate that member already. Speaker 6: Thanks. But I. You know, again, how is that any different from that person giving a letter to Mr. Forman and saying, Mr. Forman, go to the planning board and read this on my behalf? I mean, I think it's kind of or submitted. Speaker 0: Let me just add one thing there, and I'm sorry Mr. Ash was involved. Speaker 3: In all of this. But number. Speaker 0: One, you don't have proxies. Speaker 3: So all of you who are. Speaker 0: Sitting here on the dais do not have the ability to appoint a proxy to sit in. Speaker 3: For you or to provide any information or whatever. It's very important that it be the individual people who are appointed. Speaker 0: Who are the people who listen, debate and vote on whatever it is that. Speaker 3: Comes before them. Speaker 0: And you don't go from the dais to the. Speaker 3: Podium and address the body. So you are I. Speaker 0: Think the problem becomes and it is a policy decision, but the problem becomes you are really opening. Speaker 3: The door for there being. Speaker 0: Confusion about what your. Speaker 3: Role is. And there is additional weight that's. Speaker 0: Given to a member of the body. Speaker 3: Who would be addressing their fellow their fellow members than just a member of the public. And so your obligation is really to be serving, as you all do, and you sit here and you listen and you debate. Speaker 0: It's not like phoning it in, if you will. So I don't believe that was really the question. Thank you. Member de SOG. Speaker 7: And my question. To me, this is an important question. So this. Cheat right here. Yes. Is specific you. Meeting. Right. Way in which information is or is not transmitted. Transmitted in meetings, which has a definition somewhere. But we'll all agree that. Speaker 8: I agree with. Speaker 7: That. Right. Thank you. That's all I needed to know. Speaker 3: Thank you. Speaker 8: And in response to Councilmember Otis question, I mean, I suppose theoretically a member who is not going to be present could give his or her comments to a third party. And without indicating where the source of that information came from, that person could come to the podium and and read that information and and the rest of the can of the body would not know where it came from. So it could be transmitted that way. So, yes, I mean, that that certainly could happen. The the concept here is that. The information would not be specifically from the absent. Member of the board or commission or the council, and therefore it wouldn't carry quite the same. Input or wait. Speaker 0: Member. Odie, I'm. Speaker 6: Sorry. One more have we had? Is this a problem that we have? Or is this? Speaker 0: I'm aware. Speaker 3: That we had one such issue at. Speaker 0: The planning. Speaker 3: Board and the planning board member was told. Speaker 0: They could not just submit. Speaker 3: Comments and not show up. That's the only one I'm aware of. I'm not sure if there are any others that have come to light. Speaker 6: Okay. Speaker 8: Thank you. Yeah, it wasn't. And and we were asked about whether or not that was prohibited. And we had to advise the department at the time that no, there was no express prohibition. And from a policy standpoint, whether it was good or bad policy. So we approached it with the Open Government Commission, and the commission felt that it was better to exclude it. That's before you all tonight. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 2: Oh, no, I'm trying to make the presentation. Speaker 6: In the next slide. Speaker 8: The next item has to do with public comments made by policy body members and the Sunshine Ordinance. Recognize, and I think we all agree that every member of a policy body retains his or her full constitutional rights to comment on governmental action. What this what this substantive change is, is that if the city council itself has taken a formal action, has adopted a policy or a position that is of some is of some substance, this recommendation is that an advisory body as a whole would be prohibited from taking formal action. That would contradict that. This the staff's feeling was that if the council has adopted a policy or has taken a position, that it is not appropriate for a an advisory body to take an action as a whole. That would contradict that. The commission, the Open Government Commission did not agree with that. So that's sort of an issue that's up in the air. Again, staff recommendation is that this body, the council, established that policy and that it it, you know, the wagons should be pulled in the same direction. And to have advisory bodies going a different direction doesn't show the kind of unity that we feel. The City Council would expect its advisory bodies to have. Speaker 0: Member de SACS. Speaker 7: So similar question as before. So this slide again is in the context of a public meeting. Speaker 8: That correct? That is correct. That in other words, this this would prohibit X, Y, Z advisory body from taking it and adopting a resolution, adopting a motion or whatever that would be in contravention to a policy or a position that the City Council had adopted. Speaker 7: Okay. Thank you. Speaker 0: Member Authority. Speaker 6: Thank you. I guess another question is staff is again. Has this happened? Have we had instances where, you know, we have a planning board running amok or. Speaker 4: Depends on if. Speaker 8: There was. Speaker 6: I mean, after. Speaker 8: There was some context to this. And my recollection is it had to do with it involved, if I'm recalling correctly, the Park District property where the council had had taken you know, had taken the position in terms of what the disposition of that would be. And one of the advisory bodies felt that there may have been some other course of action that may be more appropriate and took action to write a letter, etc.. That was, if not directly in contravention to what the council had done, that Lee certainly raised the issue that they were in disagreement with it. And I think the thought was, at least on a staff level, that that was not something that should be done. Speaker 6: That was before a decision was made. Speaker 8: No. Well, it was it was after the council had taken action with respect to its position or policy, with respect to that matter. Speaker 0: Vice Mayor. Speaker 2: Is. I'm. The question I would have then is how can an advisory body do its work and advise the council if it's expected never to contradict foreign policy? Speaker 8: I think there's a difference between the advisory body taking action to make recommendations to the city council saying we don't think this policy is good because and making those kinds of recommendations to the council as opposed to saying, we don't think this is a good policy and we're going to write a formal letter to, you know, whatever other agency might be out there saying that we don't agree with the city council. I think that's the difference that I'm that we're trying to draw here. It doesn't mean that they can't disagree with you. It's simply a matter of how that is communicated and to whom it is communicated. Speaker 0: And if I can jump in here really quick, again, it's I'm I'm. Speaker 3: Getting my recollection on this particular issue. Speaker 0: And my. Speaker 3: Recollection is that it was the. Speaker 0: Park and Rec Board. Speaker 8: I think I believe that's correct. Speaker 3: And the city was in in litigation with the East Bay Regional Park District over Neptune Point. So any issues related to whatever was going to happen with Neptune Point that would have worked its way in the authority given to the Park and Rec Department. Speaker 0: Had. Speaker 3: Already been done, had come to the council, the council had made a decision. We were in litigation. Speaker 0: And then the Park and Rec Board decided. Speaker 3: To opine as to what the council should do differently. Speaker 2: And I ask the question because the scenario that you described is the statement that's in the ordinance, and we can I'd like to discuss that during discussion, after hearing public comment, the statement that's in the ordinance. Prohibits any action. Speaker 0: One seems broader than the other. Think it's what is. Speaker 2: Including giving advice. Speaker 8: And and perhaps that that language should be tailored. So it's more specific because the intent was not to curtail the ability of advisory committees to. Speaker 2: I'm just making a comment. We'll discuss that one. Speaker 8: Fair enough. Speaker 6: One more question on that. Speaker 0: I'm sorry. And we're already. Speaker 6: So that that outside communication, was that or was that to the council or was that to some third party. Speaker 3: Or. No, it was to the council. They wrote a letter to the council. Speaker 8: Another area, again, gets gets into areas that certainly there are, you know, areas of of disagreement about things of this nature. The general principle, of course, is that public employees cannot be disciplined for expressing personal opinions about matters of public concern. And the ordinance recognizes that. The ordinance also recognizes that advisory board members should not be discouraged from expressing personal opinions about matters of public concern. What we have tried to do is to tighten up the the ordinance here to make it more clear that if a public employee or an advisory body member renders an opinion, that it reflects that it is the person's personal opinion and does not represent that of the city or the employees department or the members board. And because the ordinance I think is currently drafted, that was a little bit it wasn't written as clearly as it could have been. And so we have tried to tighten that language up with respect to those matters. Speaker 0: Can you clarify, is this in the personnel handbook? I would think that it would be appropriate to be the personnel handbook somehow communicated to employees there. Is it there? Speaker 8: I do not believe that it is expressed strongly in any kind of personnel handbook, etc.. There may be some general language in the city's personnel rules, or perhaps in an MRU, but I'm not aware that it is in any personnel handbook per se. Speaker 0: Okay. In which case you're expecting personnel to read the Sunshine Ordinance to find out what they're allowed to do and that alone. Speaker 1: I can chime in there. They are required to read it annually. Anybody that's in the city's conflict of interest code is. Speaker 3: Required to read it annually, though. Speaker 1: And as you do, and all the board and commission members do. Speaker 3: So. Speaker 8: Not every I mean, just by way of clarification, not every employee is required to read the Sunshine Ordinance, just those who filed the Form 700. They are certainly encouraged to read the Sunshine Ordinance. And again, these, as you know, as as attorneys well know the whole issue about what a public employee can be disciplined for with respect to making comments about public matters is a very, very gray issue. It's gone up and down to the Supreme Court many times. And, you know, what we have tried to do here is distill as best we can what the current state of the law is, recognizing that there are incredible nuances in terms of what an employee, a public employee at least, can and cannot be disciplined for. We've just tried to lay out in general terms what those parameters are. Speaker 0: Member. Speaker 6: Thank you. Another clarifying question. Thank you for your indulgence. So were public employees, advisory board members. These are different. Speaker 8: Correct. Speaker 6: So who would be an advisory board member? Speaker 8: Any of them? Any of the the board members to which you appoint planning board members, civil service board, park and Recreation Transportation Committee, any of those. Any of those persons would be considered advisory boards. Speaker 6: I mean, maybe this is rhetorical, but isn't the point of being on an advisory board to express your personal opinion on matters of personal public concern? Speaker 8: Yes and no. And there isn't any difficulty with that. The the difficulty arises where the statements or the statements might be made and made in context, where it gets construed that that person is representing the city's position or the advisory board members position rather than the person or persons personal opinion. And again, it's it's a it's a fine line. And and and the line's not always bright. But what we have tried to do here is to make the line a little brighter so that advisory board members know what their rules and regulations are, recognizing that, you know, the council, certainly under the charter reserves the right to remove a an advisory board member or, you know, any any cause other than, you know, an unlawful cause. Speaker 0: Member, De Saag. Speaker 6: Thank you. Speaker 7: So when a person is part. Of an advisory board and comes to city council to talk on a subject that might be substantively different from the advisory board on which she or he serves. Is is that person still have to make some kind of declaration that this is my own personal opinion and not reflective of the advisory board that I am a part. Speaker 8: That would be the ideal situation so that if a an advisory board member appears before you to express his or her opinion about a matter about which you are deliberating, that that person would identify doesn't necessarily have to identify him or herself as a member of the board. But if he or she does that, we would hope that that he or she would also say that I'm doing this as an individual, recognizing that, you know, you know, who's on the board. I mean, it's it's sort of a, you know, it's sort of a facade in that way. Speaker 7: L All up question Some advisory boards are advisory to city council but are not necessarily made up of persons who were appointed by council. Is that does this slide cover that person as well? Speaker 8: Yes, because a sunshine ordinance defines. Those. It uses a term policy board member rather than advisory board, but essentially it's broad enough that it would cover those situations where persons are appointed or serve on boards or committees that aren't necessarily appointed by the full council, but might be, for example, appointed by the mayor. Speaker 7: Thank you. Speaker 8: And continuing with the the angels dancing on the heads of parents. This is this is a this is sort of a a take off or a akin to what we have just been discussing. And again, this was another section of the ordinance which in many ways duplicated this, the ordinance section that we just talked about. And again, the commission recommended that this section be deleted from the ordinance because it felt it was a somewhat duplicative. And B, that the employee, you know, to the extent that you want to provide rules about what employees should and should not do, it ought to appear elsewhere rather than the Sunshine Ordinance. That's certainly a valid recommendation. We were the snap was reluctant just to take it out of the ordinance. And so we put it into a section that is in a better place, as it were, within the was within the Sunshine Ordinance. But it is very much akin to what we've just discussed. And the last big ticket item here are the training requirements. As as the city clerk has indicated, the ordinance requires persons who file form 700 to declare under penalty of perjury annually that they have read the ordinance, and that those persons must also attend annual training on the ordinance. Because there typically are relatively few changes to the ordinance. In fact, these are the first ones that have been made and in three years now we are suggesting that the training occur every three years rather than annually. Persons would still be required to declare under penalty of perjury that they have read or reread the ordinance. We would have the we have a training video that we have on file and persons who are elected or who are appointed and are required to have this training would then be required to view that video in order to meet the requirement. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 8: And with that, that finishes my presentation. Our recommendation, of course, is that the the council introduce the ordinance with the staff to recommend the changes. And I'll be glad to answer any other questions that the Council may have. Speaker 0: We do have two speakers. So if you have a clarifying question that matters. Speaker 4: I do. Thank you, Mr. Roush, for the presentation. So I think I just have one question from the staff report and that's on page three where this is having to do with the use of electronic communication devices other than for the purpose of members accessing agenda materials, etc.. And my question is, how would a provision regarding the expanded use of electronic devices or maybe narrowed use of electronic devices be monitored and enforced? Speaker 8: It's basically an honor system. You know, I don't think that this counsel has any interest in having a electronic communication device. Police, police the activity. I think the idea is if the council establishes that as its policy, it's going to be presumed that that this council and all of the other policy bodies will honor that. If, you know, if someone doesn't, I suppose then someone felt that there was a problem. They would file a complaint with the Open Government Commission and it would be investigated. But I think as a you know, as a matter of course, it's an honor policy that that but I think the the public and the staff would expect that the the policy and body would would follow. Speaker 4: Thank you. Speaker 0: And can you clarify in regard to that same topic? But we could or could not access. Would we be able to use a calculator? Speaker 8: I would say the answer is no, because, again, a a calculator is an electronic communication device. And if I if reading the words, literally, the answer would be no. Speaker 0: All right. And what about Google Maps? Would we be able to draw look up a map of the site that we're looking at? That's not an agenda item. Speaker 8: If it were not included within your agenda materials, the answer would be no. Speaker 0: All right. I appreciate that. And I'm going to call some speakers now, John Klein and then Paul Foreman. Thank you. Speaker 2: Hi. My name's John Klein. First of all, I want to say I'm a consumer of public records and that your city clerk does a fantastic job of delivering them way ahead of time. It's sort of like I sent in a request to go have a cup of coffee and sit down. There it is. I mean, it's not quite that fast, but pretty close sometimes. But the city clerk's office is doing a great job. I wanted to address specifically. This is not within the items that you're thinking about. Speaker 8: Tonight. Speaker 2: But it's section 2.9, 3.2. It's the timeline for filing a complaint. The complaint must be filed. If you think there's been a violation of the Sunshine Ordinance, a claim that must be filed within 15 days. I'm not sure what the purpose of that is. And my question would be, if you filed a complaint within 20 days, do you reject it? And then what is the what is the recourse that the got the complaint and has is the recourse to the Brown Act. And then they must go to Superior Court to enforce a violation simply because it's run under your own rules. And that might suggest that your rules are infamous, impermissibly too restrictive. But a larger issue is I'm a fairly new in Alameda but I know of this that you have several sort of like what I call quirky little timelines. For instance, at the Rack, you must if you have a complaint on rent increase, it must be seven days. Well, again, what happens at the 10th day? Are you just out of luck? That doesn't seem quite right. Then you have seven days to appeal a rack recommendation. Okay. That could be a little longer. But the flip side to you can appeal it to the have city council, review it within seven days. That could be a little longer. The flip side of that, the council has no there is no timeline for the council to issue its ruling on whatever that appeal is. And so that's. That's a hole that needs to be in in that particular aspect. But I think that's it. So as far as I don't understand the need for the 15 day limit. Perhaps I'm sitting at home looking at a council meeting from a few months ago and I see something, you know, I see a Brown Act violation. It's it's too late. And that doesn't seem right. Doesn't seem that. But it seems to me that the only recourse at that point is to the Brown Act and to Superior Court. And that doesn't seem correct. Thank you very much. Speaker 0: Thank you. Paul Foreman. Speaker 2: Madam Mayor. Members of Council. The first part of my talk. Presentation is not going to be public comment. It's going to be representing the position of the Commission. I hope it will be treated in that manner, although I don't intend to to speak long. The second part will be my personal opinion, and I will let you know when I've crossed the Rubicon there or whatever. I think counsel has described the situation well. There are two points of disagreement between the commission and the staff. I hold up the quotation marks because one thing that I wonder is who is staff? I don't know who I'm arguing with. But the two items are the one involving the use of communication devices, which I'm going to speak to. And the other one involves the the a advisory board being able to take a position contrary to council in a public way, which I'm not going to speak to. Irene Deeter was to speak to that when we were dealing with it last month. But she can't be here today. But I think she has communicated her thoughts to some, if not all of you. Now, the Commission certainly agreed unanimously, I would say, with staff's provision to move this section from findings to its to a substantive art. And we also agreed that things like emails, texts, instant messaging during a meeting should not be allowed because it's a public meeting and all public comments should be available to the public. However, the Commission felt that the subsection in the findings and even the new subsection as drafted is too narrow and does not reflect today's technical technological reality that elected and appointed officials should be able to use their personal smartphones or iPads or laptops, assuming and they seek to access information relevant to the subject matter that under discussion, for example, an official may want to access electronically a portion of the city's municipal code or other data on a city website that is not on the agenda. You may want to view a Google Map satellite view of an area of the city that is proposed for development, even though such portion is such a portion is is not part of the agenda materials. He may want to review historical information relevant to the issue. You've been talking about some historical information here. So for that reason, we have drafted language that the use of electronic communication devices other than for purposes of a member's accessing agenda, materials that are on a members iPad or a laptop computer or accessing information available on the Internet shall be prohibited during meetings. So we are allowing you to access the Internet for informational purposes. Now, staff continues, as you know, to recommend their language, saying that if we our language is used, there will no longer be a bright line. And our position is the commission language is just as bright as that of the staff clearly stating what is or is not prohibited insofar as monitoring is concerned. There's lots of possible violations of the Sunshine Law, which are not very monitored for. I don't know what Councilman De Saag is looking at now. But that's just an example. I'm not trying to play it because you happen to have a laptop out there. But, you know. But there may be a discovery request. Speaker 7: I'm looking at this unsigned ordinance. Speaker 3: All right. Speaker 2: But the point is that there might be a request for emails. There have been discovery requests made for emails. And we may discover in that that an email was sent during a meeting. And then that's how it would be, you know, reveal. So we would like you to consider the commission unanimous decision. Now, my personal view and how you can time me has changed since voting. Since voting for the broader language, allowing agenda and internet viewing. I would prefer the members use of their devices be allowed for any purpose other than sending and receiving communications. I think you should be able to use it for note taking drafting their statement of rationale for a vote, etc.. Also, I would redraft this section to remove any reference from devices to devices at all. The issue is not the devices but one of having private communications with others concerning city business during a public meeting. In this day and age, the use of a computer type device during a meeting does not create the impression that one has been using it for some nefarious purpose. I'm sure it never crossed anybody's mind that Tony is now communicating with Roland Colin during a meeting. I just. Speaker 7: Don't. Which I'm not. Let's be clear about that. Okay. Speaker 2: I keep picking on him, but that's because we know how honest Tony is and we would never think that. And in this day and age, just because you look at your iPhone, it's not assumed you're doing something nefarious. My own personal view is I would change Section eight to make it much shorter and much simpler. And it would say this, you know, here I should have given you this just because my. My language would be. In order to ensure that all communications to members presented in a public meeting are shared with the public. Members are prohibited from sending or receiving emails, text, instant messages during the meeting that pertain to the business thereof. Anything else you can do? Including emailing your wife that you're going to be late tonight. And that's my view of it. These are wonderful devices. If they're used correctly, they're going to help you in your decision making. And I don't want to limit that. One last thing. That is, we never we got these responses from staff, but they never discussed them with us. If Council sees fit and you want to send us back to the drawing board, only this time ask for a working session between the commission and whatever members of staff are involved in this and try to work out new language for you. I think that would be a good idea. So anyway, I think I can speak for the commission in saying we're perfectly willing to do that if you'd like us to. Thank you. Any questions? I'd be glad to answer. Speaker 0: A memory. Speaker 6: I tell a point of information management is your watch. How's your. What is your suggestion on how we go through these? I mean, one at a time or. Speaker 0: I just want to clarify. So. Mr. Foreman is on the commission, so. Speaker 6: I really understand. Speaker 0: All right. Speaker 6: And Irene. Speaker 0: Called me. I appreciate that. Speaker 6: I'm sorry. Okay. Just trying to move along. Speaker 0: So I would suggest that we actually go through each item separately, have that discussion, decide each item. But our what our decision is and then move on to the next one. Speaker 6: That's good. Speaker 0: So that we can discuss each item. Speaker 6: Thank you. Speaker 0: All right. So and can go through the presentation in regards to the issues that you wanna look at the ordinance itself. Speaker 6: I mean, I was suggesting calling the staff report. Speaker 0: All of the staff report. All right. So. First item on page six is use of electronic communication devices at meetings. That's what I believe is the first one on the list. Speaker 2: Not Mayor? Speaker 0: Yes, vice mayor. Speaker 2: I think that distillation that we just heard is at the root of the problem. If there's private discussions that are going on that the public doesn't have knowledge of. I think that should be called out as being prohibited. As far as receiving and looking, searching for other information. I'm torn a little bit on that because the public should see the information that's been discussed before the meeting. That's the purpose of the notification and we should be making. The determination is based on what has been presented publicly for discussion. But on the other hand, if if we need more information, there's something on Google Maps that should be there that should not be entered into the discussion unless the public gets a chance to look at it as well. So I think the. What we should at least we should clarify the the prohibition of the. Nonpublic communications which amount to discussion with with the body members. And I'm I'm fine with leaving. Limited to. Accessing what has been. Put out in the public as materials for that meeting. If we need more, we can ask for it and have that noticed. And sent out member Ashcroft. Speaker 0: And at this point, I'm just going to go around and then we can discuss after our positions. All right. Nebraska. Speaker 4: Yeah. So I. I'm not comfortable, what with the expansion that I've heard discussed of the use of electronic communication devices in meetings for much the same reasons that the vice mayor just articulated. The. The public is entitled to know what we base our deliberations in our decision making process on. And if there is, you know, in the course of preparing for meetings and we're reading material and we feel that there is there's more information that's needed, there's a way to let staff know that and and to get that introduced into the public record. But I. I would not support the expansion to be able to pull up from the Internet right there at the meeting with no advance information to the public. The kind of information that is suggested in this handout that Mr. Foreman just gave us, and I certainly appreciate all the time and thought. Speaker 3: That. Speaker 4: Went into the comments. I probably would have been even more comfortable if there was something that, you know, showed all the names of the commission as this having come from them. But. And in any event, I just. The Brown Act still governs what we do. And I can't square this particular amendment or revision with the Brown. Thank you. Speaker 0: And before calling them memory, it's my recollection that the commission did have a recommendation that was broader, that was brought, and that staff is contradicting at this point. In regards to your comment of having them approve that statement. And. You know what? Remember what their recommendation was? Does anyone? It wasn't here. Speaker 6: It's on. It's on the staff report. The the taped one, not the PowerPoint on page two, I believe. Speaker 0: What was it? Go ahead. Speaker 6: I guess I can read it. The commission never felt that this subsection as drafted was too narrow and did not reflect today's technological reality that elected and appointed officials should be able to use their personal smartphones or iPads during a meeting to access information relevant to the subject matter than under discussion, but should not be allowed to use such devices to send or receive information to or from inappropriate sources such as third parties. Rick. Yeah. Yeah. Speaker 0: So thank you. So that in my opinion, that was exactly what the Commission had said. Speaker 6: Member Audie. Thank you, Madam Chair, I. You know, I'm more inclined to support, you know, the commission's recommendation. And, you know, perhaps Mr. Foreman's suggestions have some merit, too. I mean, the way that the the the staff said it, we have to turn them off. So we can't turn them off and still access our agenda on our iPad at the same time. So there's a direct contradiction there. And I do remember it was Mr. Foreman who said it or someone else. But, you know, if you have a family member that's, you know, having a problem, I'm not going to turn up my phone and not know that somebody's having an emergency. I do think it's inappropriate for, you know, for example, me to text, you know, council member Ashcraft and say, you know, can you believe so-and-so said that, you know, we need to do whatever, whatever. You know, that's inappropriate. And, you know, the the fictitious that did not happen conversation that Mr. De Saag was in. Speaker 4: Unfortunately, we might want to put that. But that actually. Speaker 6: Said those type of things, I think, yeah, we shouldn't be doing that. But you know, if we're having a discussion on the investment strategy and investment policy and the staff report says the investment policy is on the city's website and we have to look it up on the website. We should be allowed to do that. I mean, if we hear something in public comment and maybe we say, well, that person's clearly wrong, you know, we should be able to go to the Internet and look it up. Or if someone says, you know what? I remember there was one instance a while back what proposition? We required us to do something. You know, and we should be able to look that up and, you know, provide that information or say, you know, wait a minute. You know, The Chronicle says. Speaker 2: Blah or. Speaker 6: You know, amend the minutes from a year ago because, you know, the clerk's not going to pull up minutes from a year ago. We can pull it up really fast on our on our our iPads. But that's not something that's in a packet. Speaker 2: I that's. Speaker 3: Why. Speaker 0: I heard him comment. Speaker 4: After. Speaker 6: I mean, so then I'm going to stop in the middle of before I'm trying to prepare my remarks and say, Laura, can you can you get these minutes from 2014? And when, you know, I could just look them up, get my point and, you know, write what I'm going to say. So, you know, I'm more inclined to lean towards what the commission recommended, but still with some restrictions that, you know, the five of us aren't allowed to text to each other or email to each other, or there may be an email that somebody wrote me that I want to refer to that, you know, maybe a public comment or triggered my memory and I forgot to write it down that I wanted to talk about it and I should be able to talk about it, you know, but I shouldn't be sending an email to Janet or the attorney or Ms.. Ott or anybody else, you know, during during the meeting, you know, that I totally get. But. You know, we should be allowed to research some information, whether it's Google Maps or the municipal code or whatever else, historical information, those type of things. Speaker 0: Amber Daisuke a. Speaker 7: Great. Thank you. I guess my biggest concern is the inability to use calculators because Excel spreadsheet is a calculator in effect. And to me, this is important. I mean, way back in 2003, when we were an incredibly important discussions about refinancing bonds for at the time the Alameda Power and Telecoms Telecommunication Project. You know, in looking at the data that was before me, I just ran some quick numbers on the amount of customers that that were expected. And if you believed what was in the packet, you would have had to have believed that we were going to suddenly get a 61% increase in in subscribers over a short period of time. And I had I think those were calculations I made on XL then at the meeting. And to me, it's like that was struck at the core of whether for that specific matter, that struck at the core of whether or not it was indeed feasible. And you could only do that with, you know, some kind of tool. You could have done it before the meeting, for sure. But I can't recall if the meeting if the numbers were presented at the meeting. So I don't know. I can't recall. But it it's really hard for me to you. I mean, this not being able to use certain electronic devices. I think that's really I think the public wants us to be the best council members as possible and they want us to be armed with whatever tools that are necessary to make the best decisions possible . And at the same time, there needs to be safeguards with regard to, you know, relaying information in ways that the public does not have access to. It's a fine balance, but at this point, I don't think that the balance has been struck yet. So. Speaker 0: So I would agree with member Ody and member de Saag, and I think that everyone expects us to be able to use a calculator. I think it's a very extreme position to recommend that we are not allowed to use calculators. I and and also I personally use the laptop and I don't require print hard copies of most things. And in order to come and all of us any research we do at home, any notes we take on a tablet or anything to suggest that we can only look at our notes if we put them on a hard copy, we can look at them if we take notes on an iPad. Or to me, that's completely contrary to a prior report we had in regards to being green. I think we do want to be green. I think we are encouraging the use of this iPad. In fact, if the city is not going to allow us to do anything but review that, I'm not sure it's worth the city's money to even give us these. I think that the city does loan these to us to be able to access calculators. The emails that we receive, we don't have I don't ask staff to print out every email that would be voluminous on some issues to access. And, you know, without repeating everything, we're sorry and they succeed. Personally, I, I do support the. The Commission's recommendation. Except actually, I think I agree with having the focus. I would rather have just focused on the issue of communication between members. Actually, communication during the meetings that I don't think they should be used for communication with anyone else during a meeting. Actually, not as anyone else I would. In regards to texting, if you receive a text from a family member or something like that, I don't have a problem with that and I know many of us are here to when I am or whatever. You may very well have a family member that you need to communicate with. And I don't think that by serving on the council or any of our boards, you should have to not not have access to a family member or whatnot. But I do think that and I think we all agree it's inappropriate for us to communicate with each other or someone else, you know, to receive information in regards to an issue. So with that being said. Should we frame a motion on this? Someone want to make a motion? I have a quiver. Speaker 4: So I heard a council member disagree. I thought you stated the issue very well. And I. I do think I agree with you. The public wants us to be well prepared and to use tools, but with some limitations. So I would be interested in hearing from you. I'm assuming if you threw that language out, you might have some ideas of some limitation language you might put in there. And by the way, I agree with the part. I was actually surprised about the calculator, the language I had. Speaker 7: I don't have specific language, but what I was impressed with the final paragraph in Mr.. Speaker 3: Form Foreman. Speaker 7: Foreman's letter, and I was impressed because to me it kind of, you know, it satisfies Occam's Razor. You know, the things that are the most parsimonious are probably the most or whatever are probably better. Speaker 0: And I retrieved the members are prohibited from sending or receiving emails, texts, instant messages, etc. during the meeting that pertain to the business thereof. Speaker 3: But I mean, yeah. Speaker 6: But yeah we're going to receive stuff from people. Yeah. Yeah. Shouldn't be sending. Speaker 0: Parts of consent. Speaker 4: Across the. Speaker 0: Ocean. Speaker 4: Well, but to the mayor's point, though, you probably want the because you you made the reference to text messages for emergency purposes. And I still would like, though, to hear of the the city attorney to weigh in on what about accessing information or Mr. Rausch accessing information that the public doesn't have access to that we might be basing our decisions on. Speaker 0: So, in fact, in regards to that, if we take notes at home and we bring them here in a hard copy, how does that differentiate from something that I'm retrieving on a computer as opposed to printing it out? Speaker 8: I think that if there is a consensus on on this council that this language needs to be looked at a little more thoroughly, clarified somewhat. My recommendation would be, rather than have you all try to wordsmith it tonight. That will be here once you all have made comments on it. Let us take it back to the Open Government Commission with those comments in mind and bring you back something that that may be a little more workable from your point of view. You know, we were you know, we were working off what the you know, what the prior council had adopted. Staff was a little concerned about going further than what that council had done. If this council is comfortable with expanding it and clarifying the language, let us work with the Open Government Commission to see if we can come up with some language more acceptable rather than, you know, rather than try and come up with the precise language tonight. If that's the council's desire. Speaker 0: So member body. Speaker 6: Thank you. I mean, I'm okay with that. I think the commission, according to the staff report, you know, they had ideas. So I mean, they should be able to go back and put their ideas into some type of language. And, you know, my suggestion would be to kind of incorporate what Mr. Foreman had to say. You know. Speaker 8: Certainly have heard some good suggestions tonight in terms of not making it quite so narrow and to allow the use of things like calculators, allowing family members, you know, to to communicate with you all. I think there's some some definite wordsmithing we can do that will accomplish what I'm hearing the council saying. But rather than spending time trying to do that tonight, let's work with the commission. Have you who've you've appointed to come back with that language and hopefully it would be your preference. Speaker 6: Thank you. But hopefully it's not like a laundry list of things that you know can be done and can't be done because, you know, then we're expanding our ordinance and, you know, general statement of policy concept. Speaker 8: We will keep it as succinct as possible. You know, not having, you know, A through Z. Yeah. Speaker 2: Vice mayor and having heard the discussion or the comments of my colleagues and. Again revisiting the wording that hits the prohibition of. Nonpublic discussions of agenda items I think is the core list in all the things that are permissible. But I'm hearing that that's not what we want. But I would like to have the commission consider. Some language, its guiding language, not prohibitive language around. The balance between what the public would see as the presentation. It starts the discussion. But accommodates the need to go back and look for something that may not be included in the packet, such as previous meeting minutes, expanded maps, etc.. So those are the two points that I came away with, hearing what my colleagues said. Speaker 0: Mine is actually much broader that we would be able to use them for anything we could do at home and just not have to print them out and then have access. I think that because again, people may feel comfortable printing stuff. The rest of us, I think, may not. But that that doesn't. Whether it's just on a computer or it's a hard copy, it's still the same. Speaker 2: But I'd still like to have that that clarification that is part of open government. Speaker 4: Right? Speaker 2: When we have an agenda item, here are the materials that start the discussion. And everybody, the public as well as us sees that they prepare their own notes. But something to express what you just said. But in the context of we're starting from a common place of information that's been gathered by our staff to discuss this item Speaker 0: . But I think that's what we. So I'm not sure what that is different from what currently happens. We receive an agenda that has documents. Is that not the starting point that you're referring to or are you referring to something else? Speaker 2: Well, I that's exactly what I'm talking about. Speaker 0: And that's what I think. Speaker 4: I think the vice mayor articulated it very well. And I would I. Speaker 0: Would I appreciate that. I was asking him to clarify. Speaker 2: That's what I. Speaker 0: Meant. I actually wasn't asking you. Thank you. Speaker 4: I wasn't waiting to be asked. Speaker 0: And I understand that. All right. Let's move on to the next item. Policy body members submitting written comments were not present at the meeting. We wanted to speak to this. Speaker 6: But we don't it. There's nothing on definition a meeting in policy body. Speaker 0: Well, this was. Speaker 6: I'm I'm not okay either. Speaker 8: So that item, I think, was just more for information purposes than anything else we're not recommending. And the commission did not recommend any changes there. We included that because the Commission had a somewhat lengthy discussion about it and staff wanted to make sure you were aware of that discussion. But there really aren't any substantive changes relative to that. Item number two. Speaker 6: Thank you. Speaker 0: Okay. So before we move on though, is everyone agree in agreement with leaving that as is and I'm okay. All right. Thank you. And public comments by policy body members. Is that another item or is that the same? Actually, every. On mine. Speaker 6: No, it's all right in that president meeting. Speaker 0: I recommend there should be no prohibition where a staff is recommending a prohibition would be prohibited. Okay. So this is where the commission disagreed with the staff. Though the commission recommended that there should be no prohibition and staff recommended that there should be. Speaker 3: Well. Speaker 7: Yes. My opinion on this is that I like staff's recommendation and I like staff's recommendation because it's similar to. When Council is going to be part of a meeting. But they're like, they might be in another state. They have to go through this whole process of agenda raising themselves, making making themselves readily available so that the public can kind of know where, how and where that person is and how that person is going to get involved. This basically says, well, you don't have to have that process. You know, you can just phone it in basically. And you know what? You have to show up. If you want to be part of the meeting, you have to show up. Speaker 0: I think that was the prior item. Yeah, that was. Okay. So know that this has to be reality and that was actually the one pertaining to whether or not you can send that take some formal action that contradicts counsel's adopted policy. Oh, so number three. Okay. Okay. Speaker 4: So Tony was a member Dave I was referring to. Oh, I'm. Speaker 7: On the staff report. Speaker 0: Okay. I for flirtation. Speaker 4: But you're in number three and I think we might have skated on to number four. So now I think. Speaker 0: I'm actually following the presentation. Speaker 7: Okay. Speaker 0: That's how. Speaker 4: We doing on. Speaker 0: The presentation. There is an item that's policy body. So that was the one pertaining to whether or not someone that's not present. Good comment. And I think we all agree that that's okay to leave that that if you don't attend, you don't comment or. Speaker 6: I'm a little concerned that people check their right to speak at the door when they become a member. Speaker 0: But and I actually would agree with you on that. I don't have a problem allowing them to. Speaker 6: You know, but the example in the staff report, you know, if you disqualify yourself because of financial conflict, well, you know, maybe you shouldn't be allowed to do that. So it's a little bit yeah, you know. Speaker 2: I mean, to me, I don't know that we have a problem and if someone is not going to be able to vote, wants to express an opinion. That a constitutional right. And I think the risk of having them carry a little more weight than a public person. It is is not very great compared to the lack of someone's ability to say something. Speaker 4: So clarify member. Speaker 0: Ashcroft. Yes. Speaker 4: So can one of the staff attorneys or the attorney remind us, is there a case law that that speaks to this? Speaker 8: There really is not. It simply was. It's a policy issue as to whether or not. Aye, aye, aye, aye. Policy board member who is not present should be allowed to provide information to that persons policy board if he or she is not present. Now the way it is written is sort of notwithstanding that if the item concerns a person's personal residence or the person's business. Much like the rules are with respect to conflicts of interest, that person would still have the right at that point to provide information to that person's policy board. So there is an exception. It's not a you never can do it. It's simply if if the item involves the property next door to me and I can't be there to the meeting, I would still be able to provide comments to the, you know, to my to my board. But the general rule is that if you're out of town or on vacation or whatever, then you would not be able to submit comments to your board. There's no I'm not aware of any case law that says anything. This is strictly, you know, does this council think that's a good idea or a bad idea? And that's where it is. Speaker 0: And would disagree. Speaker 7: So my take on this is that is just being practical, is that as Woody Allen says, you know, half the battle is showing up. So if you show up, then you not only get the right to vote, but you get the right to express your opinion. You mean it's not fair that if you don't show up and it's a controversial item and you don't happen to show up, but you get to insert your opinion for the public for the public record, you don't have to vote on it. Oh, you know what? I sent in my. To me, that's not fair to me is, you know, you're appointed or elected officials or commission and you show up and you vote and you make your opinions. Me if you're not there to get. Speaker 0: Any other comments. Speaker 6: So I'm sorry. Just yeah, I kind of would think that it would be the flip side that, you know, if somebody has a financial conflict, you know, I don't really want to hear their opinion because I think they're conflicted out from from sharing it with their colleagues on the board or the council. But, you know, otherwise. It's kind of a free speech issue. I don't I don't again, I don't think you check your your speech rights at the door by joining a board or commission. Speaker 0: Did you already speak on the item member Ashcroft? Speaker 4: No, I don't think I, I, I, I think part of the problem I may be having is that we're mixing a couple of concepts into one provision. So board member with a disqualifying financial conflict of interest. Shouldn't be allowed to. I mean, a conflict is a conflict. But under any circumstances. But then this and this other question of whether a member of a body is physically unable to attend. Should they be able to submit comments that they feel strongly about, presumably in writing, I guess. I don't see the harm in that, but I'm not sure why we're why those two belong together. Speaker 0: So. Speaker 6: That's the that was the staff recommendation. So that's why I was commenting on it. Speaker 0: So staff, I don't know if you want to respond to her comment, but I would agree that this member already and vice mayor I'd rather have it. I don't want to quash someone's First Amendment right to speak. Speaker 8: The wasn't trying to mix the metaphor. I was simply trying to indicate that. In the situation where a person had a conflict of interest that would otherwise caused a person lead the diet and leave the room. But if that person had a personal I mean, if the exception under the APC would allow the person to come down off the dais and address the commission. And I was analogizing that if that were the situation where the board member were not present. But was in the same situation as if the person could address that body. If that had been a conflict of interest, then it would be okay to submit the information because the person's personal interests would be involved as opposed to not being involved at all. So it was it was perhaps not the best analogy, but that was the best I can come up with to try to indicate where that exception would apply. Speaker 0: So if you want to work on that language and bring it back and I think separate the two comments so that if I for at least a majority of members, say that if assuming there's not a conflict of interest and the person just happens to not be able to attend the meeting, then they can in fact submit something their comments in writing to be considered. Speaker 6: It's written today. They'll write. Well. Speaker 8: Maybe I misunderstanding is. The that the language in there right now is simply create an exception as to when the person could. I think what we're looking for from the council is does the council feel that it is appropriate for a board member as a general principle to be able to submit comments, even if that board member can't attend? And if the answer is yes, then we can do away with this whole section. If the answer is no, then I think the language as proposed covers that. Speaker 0: So I don't think the language is where it has too many negatives. I would propose that it be rewritten so that it's it's actually more of the positive that a member of a policy body, as you want to say, who is unable to attend, may submit written comments regarding and unless they're disqualified as opposed to the no member. I think that's what you're saying is if you're a member of a party, you can present your comments if you're going to be absent unless you are disqualified for some reason. Speaker 4: Or are you asking whether the the ordinance needs to address it at all? Speaker 8: Well. Well, what what I was trying to say and perhaps I didn't say it as artfully as I could, is that the way it's drafted? Is the general rule, is a board member who is not present, can't submit any comments. The exception to that would be is if the item before that board pertains to that person's personal financial. Interest, then that person could submit comments. Now we could take that out and just say you can't submit comments and the story. Speaker 0: Or I think we're saying the opposite, that they can submit comments. Speaker 8: And then we then we can just delete this whole section and we don't need to rewrite it. If the if the. Speaker 0: Correct. All right. Speaker 4: Better still. Speaker 0: Okay. Is everyone good without them? All right. Very good. Okay. That's really clear. Speaker 8: Yeah, I just. I mean. Speaker 2: Yeah, that's. Speaker 8: If it's okay, it's okay to submit the comments. That means this section can go away. Speaker 0: Excellent. All right, moving on, then. Of course, the next. Okay. Next is the body. Public comment by members of the boss the body. So this, I think, was the letter that we were talking about earlier, that this is that paragraph, this provision. All right. So in regards to whether or not we think of public bodies should be able to weigh in on an issue. Anyone want to discuss that one? Madam Mayor? Yes, Vice Mayor. Speaker 2: Given that the Council can. Remove any member of a board and given that staff can. During the deliberations of the of the advisory body provide them with the information of what is city policy. I think given those two, I, I, I think that the recommendation of the Open Government commit commission should stand. I don't think there should be a prohibition. And that's kind of the American way. If there's egregious problems at the council level and it's I think it's the duty of. Boards commission citizens to speak up. And we have a history, a recent history, civil rights history is based on those changes that were based on people by changing the status quo. So I don't think we have anything that approaches that here. But I think to put that prohibition here maybe doesn't belong in an open government policy. It might work the opposite. Speaker 0: Remember Ashcroft? Speaker 4: And just to refresh my recollection of the the letter and I know I was on that council, but the letter that the Recreation Parks Commission wrote said just sent to city council members, was it published? Was it sent to another governmental entity like the Park District? But what happened? Speaker 3: Well, it was public. It was sent to the council. It was publicly available. And so the Park District would have received it. But I. Speaker 0: Frankly don't remember at this point in time. Speaker 3: Whether it was it was individually sent to the Park District as well, but they certainly would have had the ability to see it. And do you remember anything specific? It was not specifically sent to the Park District. It was was provided directly. Speaker 4: Okay. Well, I mean, in in that case, and I, I will hasten to say that I am really reluctant to craft a code section or a provision that focuses on one instance that we can all recall that clearly. I mean, there in the case of litigation, when we're in litigation. Press litigation is going to be in closed session. So I mean, a commission, I, we wouldn't want things to be done that would be undermining our position in litigation. At the same time, in a city of any size and, you know, we're pretty good mid-sized city, there are going to be a variety of differing opinions. And so then to the point the vice mayor made about the council always has the prerogative of removing a board of commission member. My only question would be, is there language somewhere that is clear enough about when you do cross that line and get into the territory where you might be removed? Because we certainly wouldn't want to impose something. As drastic as removing someone from a commission without their having notice of what could get them into hot water. Did you see. Speaker 2: Something? I don't. And I actually don't see why there should be a prohibition based on pretty much that same line as that. The situation that was described was a legitimate difference of opinion and a legitimate advice, in my opinion. And. I think this seems to be. And trying to squash that. Speaker 0: I'm concerned. Speaker 4: Mary Spencer, I'd love it if you would just let us to have a little bit of a discussion, a back and forth. I know you want to get to the people that we. Speaker 0: Have and members that haven't said and I. Speaker 4: Know and I and I think that they will do that. Speaker 0: Lined up your comments. Speaker 4: Absolutely so. So I'm vice mayor. See, I understand and I think I agree with you on that particular instance with the letter. Can you envision just in a broader sense, because if we're crafting a policy, it's going to apply to more than just one instance. Can you imagine an instance where we would even want to weigh in on this, or should this not even be a part of the mentioned ordinance? Speaker 2: I don't think it should be a part of the Sunshine Ordinance. I think it's part of the handbook for new commissioners and what their duties are, what their responsibilities are. It's like the council has and and take it out. Speaker 0: All right. I'm going to call on another member at this point. Speaker 4: But I do think there's value to discussing things. Speaker 6: Thank you, Madam Mayor. You know, I'm kind of. Seeing both both sides there. I think if a council sends a I mean, if a commission or board sends a letter to the council that says, we disagree with what you do, I don't think we should stop that. I mean, if they're sending a a letter to an outside organization that undermines, you know, our policy or undermines our, you know, position in litigation, you know, then I think that that's not appropriate. Do we think that we have that the remedy of removing them from that board or commission is sufficient? I mean, I guess that's something we'll have to decide, but. Yeah. That's kind of where I am on that because you know. How many staff shouldn't be advising? Bodies to send out, you know, say, for instance, that letter was sent to the Park District. You know, staff should stop that from happening. I mean, the council spoke, but, you know, someone disagreeing with us. And then, you know, I kind of wonder, you know, if we still have ultimate say over some of these these decisions that we make a policy and say the planning board decides to do something contrary to that policy . You know, we still have the ability to reverse what the planning board did. So. Yeah. Everyone should just be reasonable. You know, when they're on a commission, they kind of know what their role is in there, you know? But maybe. Maybe that's why we have a bunch of regulations. I don't know. Speaker 0: All right, member de Saag. Speaker 7: Well, I think there is a possibility for or this kind of language. There is a possibility of of members of advisory boards that report the council sending information that can be construed. For. That can be construed as a certain position of the city, which is not. And I think. We need to be able to have language that sets ground rules. Ground rules can be, you know. Such members have to be clear that whether this is a personal opinion or what is the received, what is the what is the official position of the city? Because I look at this as kind of a sequential issue. Members of policy committees, legislative bodies, advisory committees are there to vet a range of issues and then submit to city council their recommendations. That's the next process. And a city council then makes makes a decision. And when the decision is made. Then Figure two speaking, the ship is going to move in a certain direction. So we can't have that direction undermined by contributions, further contributions that suggest that. The City Council's position is otherwise. So there needs to be some kind of language that guards against that possibility. People can continue to express their their their views on whatever. They just need to be clear that as to what is their personal view and what is the city official position. And they need to be clear as to whether or not they are using, you know, city official letterhead or not. I mean, you know, actually, that was another example. I mean, I don't think it was that bad. I mean, but I do believe the planning board several months ago sent a letter to Caltrans, which I thought kind of odd, but I believe it went from the planning board and I thought it was odd, but, you know, it happened. But, you know, the the injury that it caused, I don't it was it wasn't big or it didn't matter. But but it did kind of raise my eyebrows like, hmm, that's interesting. Why is the planning board getting directly in touch with with Caltrans? I believe that that had happened several months ago. So. But I do think that I do see the reasoning for why this is in place. So. Speaker 4: May I just ask a question of Councilmember Desai? I just wanted to stay on what he talked about because the one thing and the vice mayor raised the specter of civil rights. Speaker 0: Please let me continue. Speaker 4: You know, I have right. I have a First Amendment right to. I just. Just let me finish this one side and you get the resolution for free. Speaker 3: Well. Speaker 0: If we hadn't have it. Speaker 6: And we let. Speaker 0: The mayor. So I think. Speaker 4: And then will you let me get back to addressing councilmember design, because I do have a question. Speaker 0: For each of us have a turn. Speaker 4: And that was a yes. Speaker 0: You would said, let's let each of us have a turn. Speaker 3: Okay. Speaker 4: Thank you. And I'll take mine after use. Speaker 0: All right. So in regards to my comments on this item, I would agree with the vice mayor. I have concerns about limiting the free I would say the free speech and also the ability to do their job. The another body. So if they determined to send a letter, then I think there are other ways to come back. If you think it's inappropriate that are that are a better way to address this than to limit their speech. And I and I do agree that in regards to. Oh, this country works. It makes sense. And I personally do want to hear from other advisory boards if they have an opinion that goes to a decision that was made by council. As time passes, that decision may be changed by input from a board that would then demonstrate that we should reconsider. And I think that's how that decision, how decisions get reviewed as as time passes. And I think that may have actually happened in regards to this incident as time passed. So. Now. Now we have. I think we ought to. Maybe three different opinions. I'm not sure. Brody, would you like to weigh in more? Speaker 4: Are you going to let me, though, address Tony? Council member Dysart, Mayor Spencer. I'm don't mind waiting till after Councilman Brody, but I'm hoping you're not trying to yell. I'm trying to. Speaker 0: See where we are as a council on this issue. Because he was not clear. Speaker 6: So when I heard what Councilmember De Sykes said, I think it was very convincing. So I'm kind of leaning more toward. Now that we don't want to restrict. Nobody from saying something inside but outside once the ship has sailed. You know, but. Someone wants to write a letter and say, you know, we disagree with you. You can't say you made a stupid decision. I think they should have the right to do that. Speaker 0: And in this situation, it's my understanding it was a letter to council. All right. So Member Ashcraft, thank you. Speaker 4: So actually. What when Councilmember Desai was speaking. One thing that occurs to me is that in general, I do believe you get in line behind what the city's official position is. I think in litigation it's especially sensitive. And in this case, even though the letter was written to the council, it sure did get out there in the public realm and in this day of Internet communications. Yes, sir. Opposing party. The Park District did get hold of it. So I'm. But then I would probably go on to ask. And what was the harm that befell the city as a result of that? Because the concern I also have and and I think the mayor was actually starting to say something about this, is that in the history of this country and in the history of civil rights, governments have made decisions that weren't always the correct decision. I'm not I'm not referring specifically to this park district one. But. But so how then do citizens have recourse in in actual real time? Because and in this case, by the way, it wasn't a matter of voicing an opinion as time passed after the fact. It was contemporaneous with the litigation going on. But I, I do think that there should be some. Speaker 3: I think. Speaker 4: Policy. Speaker 7: That I think all I'm saying the test by which for me, the test by which in in this context speech is good speech or or not encouraged speech is simply. A NYC board member who writes a expresses opinion to council or some other entity on a subject matter ought to be clear as to where the Council's position is, and to be clear as to if the person is expressing a personal opinion on on the subject at all. But but what if they use things like letterheads? That's that is an expression of the city council. And so it's I think I think there there is a fine line because I believe the planning board's letter was done in letterhead. So I think I'm not discouraging people from expressing their individual personal opinions. I think this whole thing of making this into some kind of, you know, like I'm Joseph Stalin, you know, I'm not here to quash individuals personal liberties. I'm just saying that in order for our government to act effectively, you know, once a policy is set, you know, we ought not to encourage things that could potentially cause harm to that policy and therefore create whatever safeguards we can. And again, striking a balance between, you know, free speech and and the need for in all effective policy implementation. Speaker 0: So this policy speaks to appointed policy bodies as opposed to individuals. Speaker 6: And that's the nexus that, you know. Speaker 7: We have a number for members. Speaker 4: Well, in in the case of the letter, it was written as the body. Speaker 3: Oh, well, in that case, then that's. Speaker 7: The in that case then if that's an expression of the body as a. Speaker 0: Whole. Right, that's the situation. Speaker 7: Well then that's different than that. That ought not to be encouraged, because then that really is countermanded. The City Council's position individuals can express their personal opinions separately. But once the once the city council has made a decision. And. That's what. Speaker 6: I think, unless they're complaining to the council. I mean, I think the body should be allowed to anyone should be able to complain to us and say we didn't like the. Speaker 0: Vice mayor. Speaker 2: And I think the problem that I have with outside communication, like a letter from a board to another agency that is contradictory to city policy that's been voted on by the council. If they're representative representing that as city position, then that that should be prohibited. But short of that. And that and that to me is is is where the action of of the council to address the the makeup of that body comes into effect. Speaker 7: I think the people. Speaker 2: If they're if there is criticism and a I think the instances of that are are are. To me that not they're they're not him. Frequent enough or. Or have occurred to the point where we need to put that in an ordinance. Speaker 0: By fair or I'm sorry, November day. Speaker 7: To me, I think the simple test is whether it's an individual or the policy body as a whole, whether they're expressing and whether what they are expressing is conveyed as official city policy. That's all. If to the extent that they refer that they are or are not reflecting city policy, to the extent that they're clear, that's good enough. Speaker 0: So as long as they state. Okay. So I appreciate that comment. So as long as they state what the city's policy is and what they're disagreeing with so that it's clear to the reader, like. Speaker 7: I don't want someone to write, send a letter to Caltrans to suddenly say, you know, we are not for sustainable communities. We don't want a policy body that writes that because we are for sustainable. Speaker 0: All right. So do we all agree with that? As long as they clarify what the city's position is and then what they're disagreeing with. Speaker 4: That's fine. So that's clear. Speaker 0: To the writer. Speaker 6: Still sending out contradictory. Speaker 4: I think. Speaker 6: Letters to. Speaker 4: This is this is one that's going to go back to the drafters. Yeah. Speaker 7: I guess. Speaker 4: Clarify for me. Speaker 6: Hypothetically, you know, we decide some transportation issue and the Transportation Commission writes to the act and said, you know, we disagree with what the council said. We think we should still do X, Y and Z, that that's not appropriate. You know. Speaker 2: And but. Speaker 7: That falls within what. Speaker 6: Yeah. But then them complaining to us and saying, you guys, I know I'm perfectly open to any criticism. I think we shouldn't stifle any criticism. But on letterhead like Councilmember de SAC said, you know that that's problematic. Speaker 0: Vice mayor. Speaker 2: Of. Speaker 0: All right. Speaker 4: So I think you. Speaker 0: Want to. Speaker 4: See. I am city manager. Wanted to. Speaker 3: You know, I'm shaking my head that I agree. I think the internal dialog is fine. I think that external dialog is definitely problematic. And I think you gave a very good example of particularly in some sort of funding scenarios that would be really problematic. Speaker 0: So then if it could come back to us for that clarification? I think so. Limited. But we're going to have to circle back and we can see then. But it would be that I'm understanding correctly that the letters that the policy body could send a letter to council with which the policy is that their concerns are with the policy as opposed to to a third party. If I can just add. Speaker 3: Something in clarification. So. Speaker 0: There's also an issue of what the authority of the advisory bodies. Speaker 3: Are. Speaker 0: And the advisory bodies are in the process. And I think Council Councilmember Desai talked about the sequential. Speaker 3: Nature of it. It is not. Speaker 0: Within the authority of advisory bodies. Speaker 3: To critique the final decisions of the City Council. Speaker 0: Which is the final policy. Speaker 3: Maker that they are. Speaker 0: Unless you ask them to. They are they are asked to get information. Speaker 3: Upfront. Speaker 0: And provide you with a recommendation which you then consider and you make a decision. Then it's not for the. Speaker 3: Those. Speaker 0: Those advisory bodies. They're not the policy bodies. You are the policy the advisory bodies to critique every decision. Speaker 3: That you've made and send you. Speaker 0: Publicly available. When they send you a letter to the. Speaker 3: Council, it is public. So regardless of what agency they send it to, it is public. Speaker 0: And so if you wanted to ask them to go back and take a look at it, as you've already done with the. Speaker 3: Open Government Commission here. Speaker 0: Tonight, go back and give us some more information and come back again. But then when you decide it's not for them to then re agendas it and say, well, we're not so sure that we thought they did it right. You've made the decision and if something else comes up, then they it works up. So it's an issue of what their authority. Speaker 3: Is as well. Speaker 0: And I. Speaker 3: Clearly seen you. Speaker 0: Struggling very mightily with not wanting to. Speaker 3: Squelch free speech. Speaker 0: And I think you're really onto it about the. Speaker 3: Distinction between. Speaker 0: Individuals and the body and what the body's. Speaker 3: Role authority is and how confusing and. Speaker 0: Undermining it can be if suddenly you've got every one of your advisory bodies. Speaker 3: Issuing opinions. Speaker 0: About. Speaker 3: If they think you did the right thing or not. Speaker 0: All right. So at this point, they have to come back with something based upon our comments. Thank you. And we're going to move on to the next. Is it opinions? Opinions of public concern. Is there an issue on that one? Speaker 6: Brown. Speaker 0: Okay. So the Commission recommended that that section be deleted in its entirety, but staff thinks that it should be included. If I can jump in. Speaker 3: Here, I think this one really is very. Speaker 0: Much tied in with what we've already. Speaker 3: Discussed. If council is agreeable. Speaker 0: And we can come back with language. Speaker 3: For both of these unless you have some additional. Speaker 4: Funds. So just one question member. ASHCROFT I'm struggling a bit with why. We would lump public employees and appointed officials in that I mean. Speaker 3: It. Speaker 4: In the same provision it just. Well. I understand we all are expected required to read and, you know, be conversant with the sunshine ordinance. But. Maybe it's not a big deal, but is it? I mean, separate paragraphs are they belong together? Speaker 8: Well, for whatever reason, this section, which is now suggested in to 91 dash to 91.18, was in the 292 section. And for whatever reason, it kind of merged both the public employees and the public officials together. And so what we tried to do was was separate the two. So there would be different standards applicable to public employees as a versus versus public officials. And the commission felt that we were we were probably didn't need either. And our suggestion was, well, if we're going to keep it in, let's at least put it into a section which made more sense. So that's. It is somewhat redundant to what we have up in the the previous section two 9117. It's simply that 17 doesn't direct doesn't address public employees. It addresses only members of the policy body. So that's why it might be if if the council feels it's important to have anything in this ordinance about what public employees ought to be able to do or not do, then we need this. If the council feels we don't really need to address what public employees can and cannot do, then we probably can get rid of this section because the public official portion of this has really been subsumed in the prior section. Is that, if that makes sense? Speaker 4: ASHCROFT Well, it just strikes me that a public employee would be possibly subject to discipline for doing something that they're not authorized to do. I'm just not sure. And I would hope and believe that that's addressed somewhere else in our. Speaker 8: Well, I mean, there's certainly case law that attempts to define, you know, where that rule or where that line is in terms of what a public employee can do and can't do. It's it's not a bright line. And it's you know, you go all the way Supreme Court to decide, you know, whether or not a particular action or statement that was made by a public employee can or cannot be disciplined. Difficult to try to distill that into three sentences to be put into a sunshine or so. Maybe the better course of action is, as the Commission recommended, and that is do away with the public employee section and handle that as disciplinary matters elsewhere. Speaker 4: I agree. I would. Speaker 0: I think we all agree with that. Thank you. Speaker 4: Dan. Thank you. Speaker 0: Hey. There any other? Speaker 6: Training. Speaker 0: Okay. I'm on section ten oh actually two Dash 92.2 responsibilities and stuff. The only comment I had was on here when a member of the public submits a request for information to any employee. Speaker 4: Could you tell us can were your. Speaker 0: Yes. Well on I think it's 2-92.2. Speaker 4: In the order in the ordinance. Speaker 0: Yes. What's coming up here next is the training. Speaker 4: Yeah, I didn't. I thought we were on the Stanford verdict to dash. Nine two, you say? Speaker 0: I think if this is asking us when we when there's a public information request is sent to any employee or elected official that the employee or elected official shall respond to said requests within three business days. I actually don't think that that's what we do. I think if an employee or an elected official receives a public information request, that we then send it to the attorney who handles it. So I don't think that this is accurate. I don't think we would want any of us or an employee to respond within three days. The the subsection D of 2-92.2 though I would like clarification or have that reviewed. Speaker 8: Yeah. I think I think the mayor makes a good point here that. When we looked at that subsection D of a 292. Speaker 4: It's 2.29, 2.3, 92.2. Speaker 8: The language that had been written had, you know, stated that any paid or elected agent of the city, which really made no sense at all. So we changed it around to any employee or elected official of the city. Then to have that person respond. But I think you're absolutely right that as a practical matter. You know, it usually is going to be responded by a city staff member, whether it's the city clerk or the city attorney's office. So I would suggest that that language be revised somewhat so that the response doesn't have to come from the elected official, but it would come from the city. A city staff member who's designated to respond to Public Records Act request. Speaker 0: Our responsibility is to forward it to. Speaker 4: The city attorney as well. Speaker 0: So if that could clarify that. Speaker 8: And we can we can we can revise that language to reflect the reality of the practice rather than this technical issue. Speaker 4: So sort of a clarification. Yes. Permit the elected official references in those two places in subsection D. Speaker 8: Right. We would we would take that out and put in there a more appropriate person to respond to Public Records Act requests within the three day period. Speaker 0: But I still think it could say that. But if an employee or an elected official receives the request, yes, we forward it to someone else. Because I do get requests. Sure. Yeah, I have received. Yeah. Speaker 8: Fair enough. It's the response, really, that is important. But the receipt. You get those all the time. Sure. Speaker 0: Very good. Can here. Mm hmm. Any other points that House members want to clean up at this point? Speaker 2: Vice Mayor Two more points, I think. I would ask that the Open Government Commission look at the timing that was brought up by one of the speakers as far as. Making sure that there's a reasonable amount of of days that are allowed. And then I was looking at some of the discussion at that commission meeting, and there were there is a requirement in to dash 93 six or a it's not on revision. It's it's in the actual the body of the bottom of the ordinance about an annual report. And the commission seemed to be kind of struggling about how to go, about gathering information to put into the report, what's their responsibility. And if they can come back to us with their thoughts being is that they are the the commission actually having to do the work and. What they might suggest to us that might look like, other than the very broad language that's in that reporting section right now, it almost implies like there's monitoring, constant monitoring of of violations. And it's not it's I think it's meant to be received violations. But I would like to have their thoughts on what that report mechanism might be. Speaker 0: Any other member comments on this item? Speaker 6: We decide what we're doing on the training. Speaker 4: Last. Speaker 0: Or is it the rate every 3 to 3 years? Does anyone disagree with that recommendation? Okay. I think we all agree, but that's all right. Yeah. Speaker 6: And a little uncomfortable changing, you know, deadlines at some point, you know, if you sit on your rights, you kind of lose them. So I mean, we have to have a cut off that. 15 days. I mean, if you can't look at 2 minutes and 15 days. I mean, you got to do it. Same thing with the rent ordinance. You can't wait two months to file your complaint. You know, if it's that urgent, you got to take care of it. If. In the last full of deadlines. And if they're not met, you lose those rights. And that I mean, unfortunately, we have to draw a bright line somewhere and we do so. Speaker 0: So in this document, is it the 15 days? Because I appreciate the comment from the speaker in regards to Iraq, but I think that that will be discussed, that you're discussing that policy. But the deadline that's in here is that the 15 days. Yeah. Did anyone want you want that expanded or. I'm sorry. Speaker 2: I think I'd like to get the commission's view on it. I think it's a little tight for something like this, that Iraq is completely different. As far as the the urgency is go. I think this takes a little more study. So I'd be willing to look at a longer period, not an open ended period, but something a little more generous than two weeks. Mm hmm. Speaker 0: All right, what about as a yes? Number 38? Speaker 6: I mean, the that's the the commission, you know, that's kind of their role is to look at the ordnance. I have no problem with them looking at it, but I'm not going to give direction that I want it to be. It changed. Speaker 0: Yeah. So I'm comfortable expanding that, giving them more, giving, you know, more time. Did you want to remember what they thought? Speaker 7: No. Just a general comment, if we're ready for that. Speaker 0: Well on this issue that the vice mayor did raise that number. Did you want to comment? Speaker 4: Oh, I'd like to hear what the commission thinks about time to come within. Because after all, they are an advisory body to us, so probably we should. Speaker 3: Try not to. Speaker 4: Overly micromanage them. Speaker 0: All right. So if that could be of no share with the advisory committee, then come back. That'd be great. Thank you. And now just general comments. Yeah, just general comments. Speaker 7: Real quickly. You know, in my opinion, the Sunshine Ordinance, which was brought up first, I believe by then council member Eileen Itam, really is a game changer in Alameda when it comes to public meetings. And, you know, people just don't realize that. It used to be that we would get our information packets on the Thursday before the Tuesday meeting with the Friday city hall being closed and the weekend being what it is. So you really were scrambling on Monday. And you can imagine that now, you know, all the information packets come out, what, 11 days or 12 days before giving public ample time and council members ample time and staff member ample time. I think from the big picture of things, I think we need to keep in mind that that it is a game changer in terms of improving public dialog and input. I think the matters that we're dealing with tonight, I think they're important. But I think, you know, we. Struggling, as probably does the community and our appointed commissions, to strike the balance between, you know, the practical realities of running government with decisions and policies and making sure to strike that balance with get it continuing to get on an ongoing basis public input. So I think with the Sunshine Ordinance, you do see something where we it manifests that that struggle that we're were engaging in in trying to strike that proper balance. But I think, you know, stepping away from the details of tonight, I think we need to remind ourselves that, at least in my opinion , this really is a game changer. And so it is worth going over the details that we have gone. Speaker 0: I mean, the general comments on that item. All right. So before 1030, we need to have a motion to consider remaining items. And at this point, we have 60 on the wetlands with one speaker six E site B strategies, six F lease with KCI mini storage and six G lease with power engineering. And my question to staff is going to be which of these items do we need to address tonight? Speaker 3: We absolutely need to do six F and six G. We would like to do six E and we could do 60 at the you know, we can move that one. Speaker 0: That's the only one we have a public speaker on is 60. And that speaker's been here since it's now 1030. And that is actually, I think, someone that we asked to come back before. Speaker 3: Well, it absolutely had to be heard. Speaker 0: Yes, I appreciate that. Speaker 2: You know, I wasn't going to to vote for this motion, but I want to talk about site B so I move that we continue after 1030. Speaker 0: Up, but it's actually in motion to consider the remaining. Speaker 2: That's right. Yes. Speaker 0: To address all the remaining. Speaker 2: I do it. But I'm going to do it. Speaker 0: All right. Do you have a second to address all the items? Speaker 3: Okay. Speaker 0: All those in favor. Speaker 3: I. Oppose? Speaker 0: No, no. So it needs four votes to pass. So if someone wants to make a motion with fewer items like get a pass. Speaker 2: If we can continue the meeting to cover the items that were expressed by the city managers having to do. Speaker 0: What must be done tonight, six F and six G. Speaker 3: That's correct. Speaker 6: So I can. Speaker 0: All those in favor. Speaker 3: I, i. Speaker 0: That motion passes. And I'm sorry, Mr. Bellinger. We will be doing wetlands in the future. Oh, that is musician. And now I'm going to take a break. We're going to take a recess. A short recess. Speaker 1: Right. Your vote on that last one. Speaker 0: Yeah. No, it was direction to staff to just come back with. Speaker 3: Are you talking with unanimous? Speaker 1: I want to know all. Speaker 0: Of us who we are. Speaker 1: Yes, I just was offering. Speaker 3: Your items and. Speaker 1: Thank you. Speaker 0: Okay. Yeah, it's okay. So recess. Speaker 4: So where are we really not hearing this? Oh. Speaker 3: You are actually. Speaker 8: Native. Speaker 4: Yeah. Speaker 3: Well. Speaker 4: It's f Angie. Speaker 1: Is. Speaker 0: F into. Speaker 2: Oh, she said she said E. Speaker 4: Yeah. We have different understandings here, folks. Speaker 2: You said E. Speaker 1: Yeah, I think I think G he's thinking about. Speaker 2: He said. He said the ones. Speaker 1: They were confused. Speaker 0: That was. Speaker 3: That was. Speaker 4: But you. But didn't you say you also would like me to be. Speaker 0: Very hard to be done. Speaker 3: F. Speaker 4: Right. Because it releases microphones like. Speaker 6: Well, if we get through F or 11, we could start. Speaker 4: If we get. Okay, if we get through. Speaker 0: Though we're on a recess, let's resume this conversation after. Speaker 4: Okay. Speaker 6: So let's let's. Speaker 3: Make it short. Speaker 7: Sorry. Jennifer Gray. Speaker 4: I don't think. Speaker 0: Now after the recess. And for those that are watching, it's 1037 on our clock here. We're going to start with 6f2. Speaker 1: Introduction of ordinance, approving a lease and authorizing the city manager to execute the documents necessary to implement the terms of a three year lease with CCI mini storage or building. 338 608 and 6883c collectively located at 50 and 51 Western Avenue at Alameda Point.

Regular Agenda Item

Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Various Sections of Article VIII (Sunshine Ordinance) in Chapter II (Administration) and Adding New Sections 2-90.3, 2-90.4 and 2-91.18 Concerning Local Standards to Ensure Public Access to Public Meetings and Public Records. (City Attorney 2310)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_10062015_2015-2067

Speaker 1: Six G Introduction of ordinance approving at least and authorizing the city manager to execute documents necessary to implement the terms of a ten year lease. Our engineering construction company for Building 166, located at 1501 Viking Street, Suite 200 point. Speaker 3: Power Engineering has been a tenant at Alameda Point since 2005. We think that this is they've been a very good steward of our property, a very good tenant. They provide great jobs, union jobs. They do super creative projects around the Bay Area, including the reconstruction of the pier where the Exploratorium is. They've been a great resource to the city, providing technical expertize and reviewing and doing peer reviews of different engineering studies gratis. And they've just been really a pleasure to work with and a great tenant. And so we hope that you would reconsider the renewal of this lease in memory. Speaker 4: Just a point of clarification, Miss Marcano. The only reason that they've been on a month to month lease since 2010 is, if you'll recall, that there was a time when we were entertaining the notion of, well, we were being considered by Lawrence Livermore Labs as an expansion area. And so that was a part of the area. But other than that, I mean, that's the only reason they're in month, month. And I would wholeheartedly support the introduction of this ordinance. And if I may, I'll move the approval at another. Speaker 0: You can make your motion and then you can ask this question. Speaker 3: Okay. Speaker 7: So the question that I have is, whatever we do with site B, this is within it, right? So that so that they would. So we have to work site B around. Speaker 3: I think the plan is that we would work around power engineering because they are such a great tenant, an asset to us. Initially we had talked about moving them to Building 167, which is in the Tidelands and the old Nelson Marine site. However, it just didn't pencil out for them to have to do all the upgrades in that building that they have already done in 166. So I think in concession for them upgrading Building 166, which you if you drive by, you'll see they completely repainted it. They've put new windows in that we would consider a carve out way. Speaker 7: Let me ask this question then. But because they are part of site B and this was probably going to be all part of the site B discussion because they're part of site B in site B has them associated infrastructure costs as well as associated costs for the ferry terminal and the sports complex. Is the lease include covering their share of the cost? Speaker 3: The lease would be subject to all of the fees that we are assessing to all of the end users out there. So the the CDF fee and eventually if we put an assessment district over the property, the tenant has to comply with them. Okay. Speaker 7: Thank you very much. Speaker 0: Any other questions or comments? Speaker 4: And I would just comment that I've been out to the building. It is a pretty amazing operation that's been out there and I don't think I specified, but I was moving that we approved the introduction of the ordinance approving lease and authorizing the city. Is that the right one? Yes. The city manager to execute documents necessary to implement the terms of a ten year lease with power engineering construction company for Building 166, located at 1501 Viking Street, Suite 200 in Alameda Point. Speaker 0: Vice Mayor seconded that. All right. Any other questions? Comments. All those in favor. I. Motion carries unanimously. Thank you. Thank you. As seven as City Manager Communications. Did you have anything else you want to add at this time? Speaker 3: No, not at this time. Speaker 6: Point of order. Met a mayor? Speaker 3: Yes. Speaker 6: Can we do six now that it's only 1040, or are we in that book after 1030? Speaker 0: And pursuant to the Sunshine Ordinance, my understanding we cannot add any more items. Speaker 6: It's introducing more items after 1030 or after. Speaker 3: You can't you aren't after what you voted on at 1030 was to take up any new items, new action. Speaker 0: Items after. Speaker 3: 1030. Okay, do that. And then at. Speaker 0: 11:00, you can vote to go. Speaker 3: Past 1120 minutes. Speaker 6: Thanks for clarifying. I think I ask that almost every time. Speaker 0: So we don't have any public speakers for non agenda. Council referrals. There aren't any. Ten Council Communications Member J soc.

Regular Agenda Item

Introduction of Ordinance Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a 10-Year Lease with Power Engineering Construction Company for Building 166 located at 1501 Viking Street, Suite 200 at Alameda Point. (Base Reuse 819099)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_10062015_2015-2094

Speaker 0: So moving on, then. Okay. Ten. A consideration. Speaker 1: Consideration of his nomination to the Commission on Disability Issues and Housing Authority Board of Commissioners. Speaker 0: And at this time, I'll be nominating for the Housing Authority Board of Commissioners, Kenji Tomah Oak. And that's the last item. I will now adjourn the city council meeting. Thank you. Oh, wait a minute. In. All right. Actually, before I adjourn, I wanted to remind everyone that tomorrow night we have a special meeting at 7 p.m. in regards to the general plan, and you can look that up. We'll be right back here. And we will be adjourning in the memory of Barbara Kerr from moment of silence, please. Thank you and good night.

Council Communication

Consideration of Mayor’s Nominations to the Commission on Disability Issues and Housing Authority Board of Commissioners.

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_09012015_2015-1963

Speaker 0: All right. Our second proclamation of the evening is for Relay for Life. Just Nelson is here to receive this. I guess I'll now read the proclamation. Whereas cancer is a group of diseases characterized by uncontrolled growth and spread of abnormal cells which, if not controlled, can result in premature death. And. Whereas, cancer is predicted to strike one out of every three American women and one out of every two American men. With an estimated 1.7 million new cancer cases diagnosed in 2015 and an estimated 590,000 cancer deaths in the United States. And. WHEREAS, The American Cancer Society is the nation's largest voluntary health organization and has funded research for cancer detection and treatment techniques, thereby dramatically increasing cancer survival rates and decreasing incidence of certain types of cancers. And. Whereas, the American Cancer Society is a recognized, nonprofit, community based coalition of local resident volunteers dedicated to eliminating cancer as a major health problem for the past 100 years. And. Whereas, Relay for Life financially benefits the American Cancer Society, research and patient support programs and educates local residents. And. Whereas, September 1st is the American Cancer Society Statewide Fundraising Initiative Paint California Purple Day, which invites local retailers to donate 10% of their proceeds that day. Or if that donation of $100 to the Alameda Relay for Life and rare September 1st is the first day of the 2016 Relay for Life fundraising season, with the Relay for Life in Alameda embarking on its 22nd annual fundraising event. And Borough's Relay for Life of Alameda is one of the oldest Bay Area American Cancer Society Relay for Life Events and has raised 1,558,000. Over the last two decades to help in the fight against cancer. And. Whereas, the American Cancer Society is Relay for Life in Alameda is a community event that provides an opportunity to network with businesses, associates, family and friends with the common goal of making a difference in the fight against cancer. Now, therefore, be it resolved that I, Treasurer Spencer, Mayor of the City of Alameda, do hereby proclaim September 1st, 2015, as Alameda Fightback Day in the City of Alameda to promote awareness of the fight against cancer and urge all residents to recognize and participate in Relay for Life of Alameda and to shop at local participating businesses. Thank you. Come on up. There's a few here I know that are very active in Relay for Life. Introduce yourselves and then share a few words. Speaker 3: And share a few words. Yes, I am Deanna Huey, and I think I know most of you. And. Speaker 2: Your words. Thank you for recognizing us. We know that cancer has affected everyone in this room somehow, whether it be a loved. Speaker 3: One or friend. Speaker 2: And raising funds is a. First step to. Speaker 3: Finding a cure. Speaker 2: I'm Anne Marie. Farai. I'm the online chair and have been a member of the event leadership team for several years and for many years before that just been somebody who walks the track and amazed me. The first time I went there, I thought, you know, like, this is one of almeida's best kept secrets we have. I don't we have raised over a million and a half dollars, one and a half million dollars in the 20. This'll be our 22nd year. And just the more we can promote it and work for a world with less cancer is good. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 2: And I also want to thank the city of Alameda and city council members for supporting the American Cancer Society and its mission to fight back against cancer and find a cure so that nobody ever has to hear the words. You've got cancer again. For all of you that don't know, really, for life. It's an annual event. Speaker 1: We do have a date. Your calendars. Speaker 2: This as a 15. 16. Sorry. Next here and now. And now. Speaker 8: Say it. Say it into the microphone. And the people watching on television can hear you. So description. Speaker 2: Okay. I didn't realize I was on TV. Our date is June 25th, 2016. Please mark your calendars. Also, sign ups are officially online. If you're interested in creating a team and joining our event, please go to WW W Dot Relay for Life Dawgs Alameda, S.A.. Don't forget that California in there. And and and thanks again. And we hope to see you June 25th, 2016. Speaker 3: Oh. Speaker 0: Thank you. Next, oral communications, not agenda. Speaker 1: We do have a speaker.

Proclamation/Special Order

Proclamation Declaring September 1, 2015 as Alameda Fights Back Day to Promote Awareness of the Fight Against Cancer and the Alameda Relay for Life.

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_09012015_2015-1964

Speaker 4: The. Speaker 5: Point of information. Maybe this is what you're doing. I'll let you talk and then I'll ask the question. I'm sorry. Are we combining speakers for both? Speaker 0: So that's. Thank you. So I was going to speak to that. We have 12 speakers on five Q And we have one on five. I would propose of counsel agrees that we go through all of the speakers together and address these items together. Speaker 8: Do you want to just inform the public who might not know what those items are? Speaker 0: You look at five Q and she will read five Q and then five are and they both pertain to the rent review advisory committee, right? Speaker 1: So five Q When I just read about adding the rent increases to the municipal code in the next one, five are is amending the altimeter missile code by adding Section two, Dash 23 to Article two concerning the creation of a rent review advisory committee. Speaker 0: All right, so do we have any presentation by staff or. I'll just go ahead with the speakers. I'm going to go ahead with the speakers. The first speaker u. T. E. You take outta your chair. And then Barbara Duncan. And then Doug Smith. Thank you. Speaker 3: Good evening. I'm here because. We need your help desperately. I had to move in 2014 after September because I had a $600 increase. I moved to new unit and just this year when the lease was up, I had $130 in increase. And I know it's not going to stop there unless the mayor and the council members do something about it, because a lot of people are being displaced, seniors and fixed income, Social Security alone, they have no place to go, no raise. They're trying to decide whether they should pay the rent or buy the food. And people on fixed income that make minimum wage. Same thing. So I'm asking the mayor and the council members to please implement some kind of law that protects some of our citizens as tough and in many others. Because without your help. People like me have no place to go. So that's what I'm here for. Thank you very much. Thank you. Hello. I'm Barbara Duncan. Of course you know me. You see me here? Every politician meeting. Speaker 8: For the microphone. Just a little four. You pull the microphone down. Speaker 3: Okay. Yeah. Speaker 0: 1985, we tried getting rent control. Speaker 3: It was they had 6000 and so many voters on that. Okay. The reason we didn't get it is because they were not ten pages and there was no holes in the paper. That instead of the people that try to get in the rent control. Speaker 0: Go ahead and do this. Speaker 3: They didn't do it. They dropped the ballot. They said, no. Speaker 0: We won't do it. Speaker 3: So what we're trying to do is we're trying to get that back because we. Speaker 0: Definitely. Speaker 3: Need rent control. There's no way we can survive if the rents keep going up. If they want San Francisco people here, let us know now. You know, I mean, we're all hanging by a ladder wondering are we going to be able to stay? Or is San Francisco or Palo Alto going to move us out? And if they do look at Healdsburg, the history is there. Right. Today, there are no more schools in Healdsburg. The town is almost closed down because they went there and raised the ranch, just like they're doing in Alameda. And I guess that's about all I have to say, that I have this. Speaker 0: Gone and read what that says for our audience. Speaker 3: Would you say. Speaker 0: Could you read what that says for our audience? Speaker 3: I rent and I vote. I voted for each one of you on here. Speaker 0: As a matter of. Speaker 3: Fact, you were in my front. Speaker 0: Yard. Speaker 3: On pieces of paper and I and sticks. So each one of you, I read up on you and I thought, this is going to be good because this they are fair. Prove your faith. Please let us have the rent control. Thank you very much. Speaker 0: Thank you. Doug Smith. Doug Smith and Garfield Cairncross and then Stefan Paul. Speaker 4: Good evening. My name is Doug Smith. I am a housing provider in the city of Alameda and I do generally support this ordinance. And the only concern I have with it is 6.5 7.10. The issue about preventing landlords from increasing rent for an additional year if they do not follow the procedure, this ordinance. So other than that, I do support it. And any time we can get a form together where we can bring landlords and tenants together and discuss and understand each other's circumstances. And I just want to remind everybody that from 2001 to 2012, the rents in Alameda did not go up at all. 2001 to 2012, they did not go up at all. Speaker 3: Thank you. Speaker 0: And audience. Audience, please show him respect. Thank you. Speaker 4: And there is a there is a lot of talk about San Francisco, Berkeley, Oakland. I just heard Palo Alto. The things those have in common is they're all rent controlled cities. Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Those of you in the audience. I know we're going to have a. Thank you. Let's go. Let's proceed with our next speaker. Speaker 3: Hello, Councilman. Speaker 0: And introduce yourself. Speaker 4: Yes, hello. My name is Garfield Cairncross. Hello. Mayor Spencer and Congress are council members. Ten Facts about rent control. Fact one Rent control laws limit annual rent increases. Without rent control. Speaker 9: Landlords are free to raise. Speaker 4: Rents in any amount as often as they want. Fact number two Rent control promotes stability. Tenants stay in their homes longer and are more invested in their local neighborhoods and communities. Fact number three Rent control leaves tenants with more money to spend in the local economy. Fact number four Rent control does not protect tenants who fail to pay their rent or violate their lease from eviction. Tenants also can be evicted if the owner wants to live in the property. Fact number five Rent control has no impact whatsoever on the development of new housing. New construction is exempt from rent control under state law. Fact number 612 cities in California have some form of rent control. Berkeley. Beverly Hills. East Palo Alto. Hayward. Los Angeles. Oakland. Palm Springs. San Francisco. Santa monica, San Jose. Thousand Oaks, West Hollywood. And now Richmond, California. Rent. Fact number seven Rent control laws are popular with voters. In 2008, California voters defeated a landlord attack on rent control by a decisive 22 point margin statewide. Fact number eight Landlords do just fine under rent control. All rent control laws are required to allow landlords to. Speaker 9: Earn a fair return on their investment. Landlords are allowed to raise the rent every year by a set percentage. Speaker 4: Pass through certain additional costs. Speaker 3: And charge any amount. Speaker 4: At the start of a new tenancy. Back number nine rent control can be cost neutral for cities. Any cost to administer the program can come through a low per unit fee paid by landlords and shared with tenants back number ten. Rent control is perfectly legal. Courts have upheld rent control laws for decades. Editorial Comments. Up with wages. Down with rents. Don Lindsay paraphrased. We don't want government interference. I consider that poster ignored political dementia. Ronald Reagan quote Government isn't the answer to your problems. Government is the problem. I'd like to have one more quote from Benito Mussolini. Ill first. She's more a corporate tease mode that translates into fascism is corporatism. Income of renters is up 4.6. Rent is up 18% in the Bay Area. Speaker 9: The foxes aren't guarding the hen house. They are the hen house. Speaker 0: Our next speaker is Stephen Hall. Please hold your applause. Thank you. Speaker 4: Good evening, honorable mayor and council members. My name is Stephen Paul. Our office serves as a joint council of the California Apartment Association. CAA is the largest statewide trade association of owners and operators of rental housing in the United States. Over 50,000 members, over 2 million residential units, 1500 of which are in your city. We generally approve and generally adopt rental mediation ordinances, and we have reviewed your proposed ordinance much similar to the one in San Leandro and in Fremont. There is one serious concern, however, about your ordinance that I wish to bring to your attention. It is the subject of my letter of August 13th to the Mayor, which I trust. All the council members have reviewed, and that is the suspension of rental adjustments for one year for violation of this ordinance may very well serve as a violation under California law and subject your ordinance to attack. And if there is such an attack were to occur, the entire ordinance would be suspended. And that's and I've spoken to your city attorney about that and offered an opportunity to try and correct this situation while keeping the intent of the ordinance. Without that defect in the proposed ordinance, which I don't believe is terribly material to the the the thrust of the ordinance, I don't believe it would suffer a challenge successfully. And we're willing certainly to work with your staff on that issue and answer any questions that the council may have. Speaker 3: Thank you. Thank you. Speaker 0: Our next speaker is Karen Walled and then Patricia Nash and then Angela. Speaker 8: Talk about Madam Chair, can I ask you a question? I noticed we've got some young children in the audience. I wonder if you would consider if those parents were interested in maybe letting them go ahead because it's getting a little late for young children. Speaker 0: I'm not sure. Speaker 8: Well, you might ask if anyone who's a speaker with young children might like to be allowed to go. Speaker 0: We have anyone with young children. If you are on this agenda item and if you'd like to go ahead, please let the clerk know your name. Thank you. Otherwise, let's continue, please. Thank you. WARD Patricia Nash and then Angela Hawk about. Speaker 3: Hi, I'm Karen. I don't know any of you because I only moved here a few months ago, but I hope I'm going to get to know you so. Especially since I'm expected to vote for you within a reasonable period of time. My daughter and her family moved here and so that she could teach in this area. And so I moved to both because there's lots of nice things about Alameda and because I don't like being more than 20 minutes from my grandchildren. And there's lots of good volunteer work to do here. Every day. I came out to the Bay Area in 1965 when I graduated from Cornell School of Industrial and Labor Relations and have never thought of going back East not only because it's too cold, but because I really like the Bay Area. I've lived in Berkeley, San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose and now Alameda. All of the other cities that I lived in did have some form of rent control and some kind of renters rights office that the city sponsored and that I learned a great deal from. And even when I was a homeowner, that I felt was a very worthwhile contribution to our community. Among the. Well, I won't go into all the good qualities of Alameda because I think you all know them. But one of the things that does concern me is the lack of diversity. And what hit me directly was the lack of economic diversity. It was very hard. I'm a retired teacher. I live on CalSTRS. We get 1% at most increase per year. That doesn't even come to a fraction of what landlords feel that it's okay to raise rents. So it really was not easy. I had to spend a lot of time trying to find a place that I could live here. I actually had to have my children cosign with me to be able to rent here because they didn't feel that that I could afford to rent in Alameda. Although I've never in my life had any trouble paying either my mortgage as a homeowner or my rent. I think you want people like me. I think you want people like us. My daughter is also a teacher, an educator. My son my son in law works in solar energy. But this influx that other people have mentioned, especially come in from San Francisco, is making it harder and harder for working families to actually settle here. The kind of families that I think you want you want to have here. Speaker 2: So what I'm hoping. Speaker 3: Is that since you're surrounded by other cities that do have rent control and renters rights ordinances, that you may already be doing this. As I said, I'm new. Speaker 2: Here, but that. Speaker 3: If you haven't, that you work together with them, you know, consult with your colleagues in other cities and find out what's working in other cities so that we could have that here in Alameda, my daughter and son in law are hoping to buy a house when as soon as they sell their house in San Jose, they want to buy here in Alameda, which means I want to stay in Alameda, too, but I need to be able to afford it. So I'm hoping that you're going to work to make that possible. Speaker 0: Thank you. Patricia Nash And then answer our Haggadah. And I'd appreciate if you'd hold your applause. Thank you. Speaker 3: Thank you. Oh, sorry about that. Speaker 2: Madam Mayor. Spencer and city council members. I am Patricia Nash. I've lived in Alameda for 33 years. I'm a grandmother of four, mother of three, and I love it here. I'm a member of the Alameda Renters Coalition. Speaker 0: Disability. Speaker 2: Committee. Our committee members have come here to show our support for creating a rent control ordinance and finish passing an ordinance for universal design in Alameda. Speaker 0: People with disabilities. Speaker 2: Are much more affected by the renters crisis than many other people because many of. Speaker 0: Us live on fixed. Speaker 2: Incomes and many places were not built to accommodate disabilities, which narrow our choices for homes. We are seniors. We are 17% of all Alameda. We face much discrimination. We need housing protection. Like all renters, we need affordable housing. But unlike many renters, we can't so easily move away because finding work is so much harder for us. Moving involves complications arising from access and mobility issues. We have deep roots here in Alameda. Generations of families. Speaker 3: Are affected by this. Whole families will be broken up. Speaker 2: And our lives made unnecessarily harder. Let's stop greed from ruling our retreat. Speaker 3: Community and make all housing accessible to all people. Speaker 0: I love it. Speaker 2: Here and I want to stay here active in my. Speaker 3: Community. Thank you very much. Speaker 0: Angela Hawk about Jason Buckley and then Gary. Speaker 2: Good evening, Mayor and vice mayor and members of the City Council. My name is Angela Hawk about I live on Bay Farm Island and I started the Alameda Runners Coalition and I'm here this evening to thank you for getting the rent review ordinance this far and that we're here tonight to hopefully finish it and provide a modicum of support to renters. Right now, unfortunately, over the summer, I've seen more and more people get displaced out of their homes. And this rent review ordinance does nothing to address 30 and 60 day notices to vacate. I'm seeing elderly people. I'm seeing seniors, single family, single parent homes. And at this point, they can't even afford to meet the 30% requirement to rent of their income for a new rental, even if they wanted to pay that extra money. If they wanted to pay three fourths of their income instead of 30%, they can't. The the rental property agencies won't take them because they don't meet the requirement. And so what I'm trying to say to you is that the reason why all these renters are here tonight is because they are worried that this rent review ordinance isn't going to be enough. And I really strongly encourage you guys or you all as the council to find additional solutions and keep the conversation going. This is a great first step, but it shouldn't be the last step. Thank you very much. Speaker 3: Yeah. Speaker 0: Based on Buckley and then Grover Rudolph and then Gary Hart. Hello. Speaker 9: And good evening. I would just like to say, it seems that, you know, there's a lot of talk about collecting data, figuring out if there is a crisis. And while we're doing that, the crisis is turning into class warfare. People are getting pushed out of their homes. People are getting evicted given 60 days so they could jack up the rent by double. At some point, we have to just say no to this. Greed. It is. Speaker 4: Naked greed. Speaker 9: And as a community, is this what we want? Do we want to be the community that just pushes people out so people can make more money? Not only do we need rent control, we need. Some kind of moratorium on rent increases and these evictions. If we want to stop our community from bleeding people. That's pretty much all I. Speaker 4: Have to say. Thank you. Speaker 0: Grover Rudolph. Speaker 4: Hello. Good. Good evening. What I want to caution you guys against what some of the other cities do in and around the country. I'm I happen to be in the middle of this sort of thing. I'm a property manager also. I've been a renter as well. And what I would encourage you to do is to not take a one size fits all approach in your city should be some sort of formula that you guys will utilize that balances. Infrastructure, current needs and market forces. Just consider those things. When you take a one step fits all at once. One size fits all approach. End up with a lot more problems than you're going to want. And again, I don't have a dog in this particular fight, but I would encourage you to do something that takes into consideration a formula that's some sort of one size fits all, because it really creates more problems than you think. Speaker 0: Thank you. And I'm a Gary. Do you have Gary? Looks like b a tr. Thank you. Speaker 4: Thank you, mayor. Council members, thank you for reviewing this subject matter and trying to do something about it. Please excuse me. I'm not a public speaker, so I'll try my best here. But I've lived in Marina Vista apartments on the beach in since 1993, and our building just got purchased by the entity that also owns the summerhouse . And within seven days of closing on August 12th, 20, about 25% of us were notified of a rent increase of about 30 to 50%. There hasn't been any work that's been done to the to the building, except for some work that maybe started today. But. This is a very huge amount and it seems to me like something needs to be done, some sort of ordinance to be put in place, to have some sort of fairness. I used to manage the building as well. I managed the building from 2006 to 2013, and in my time of managing the building, I did manage to move the rent by. The rent rose by 25%. I was able to do this by. Basically renovating and fixing up the apartments for the new tenants coming in. Who knew what the rents were coming in. They were happy with that. They didn't have to raise the rents on any of the existing tenants. They didn't have to raise the rents on the elderly, didn't have to raise rent on anybody for like that. So to me, it seems like it can be a workable formula to be able to. Not have to raise the rents on people 30 to 50%. You know, that's going to displace a whole lot of people. I mean, it might even displace me. So of course I'm here to talk about it and hopefully you guys can do something about it. So hopefully you can keep the effort and maybe put some sort of fairness in place that just keeps companies that are coming in to just be fair to the, you know, to the tenants instead of just corporate greed, just jumping in and raising 30 to 50%. That's a huge amount. So I can understand that, you know, there needs to be some sort of an increase. But fairness, you know, in the past it's been like 10%. So anyway, that's what I wanted to say. Hopefully you can do something about this and continue the effort. Speaker 3: Thank you. Speaker 0: SA three. I believe this is Sara Tariq and then Lucia and Jon Sullivan and then Jon Klein. Speaker 4: So. Hello. Speaker 3: So Southwest overnight. Speaker 4: Hello. Here we are living in the same building. 2019 and. We are first generation here in this country. And my wife has breast cancer and I'm the only supporter in the family right now. And like Gary said, the resentment from the base line, whatever, we are paying it for 30 to 50%. It is it is only unmanageable. We are not asking you sympathy, but I want you to do something about it, to fair to both parties, not just, you know, take the money. We can't even afford it. And also, you know, as a household provider, I'm having two part time jobs. If rent goes this, have within six months or after six months, it goes more higher than that. I mean, where are we going to live? So you guys consider this all and hopefully we are going to have some kind of resolution. Thank you. Speaker 3: A future rent control, please. We are. Just try to have one place. Nice place to come. Speaker 8: Speaking to the Mike Wilkinson. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 3: We just want to you know, we are community, we are neighbors. And and we are we just. Speaker 2: We want a place we can come into the job and have a place. This is. Speaker 3: My home. And we just try to, I don't know, have a consideration for all of us to have a rent control. Is is three four 500 depends of the people will be a lot of money in our building is a lot. And I mean very hard work, but right now I cannot even help or there's going to be a lot of. But to all of us. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Jon Sullivan and then Jon Klein and then Linda Weinstock. And our last speaker will be our Minda Rocca. Unless we have another speaker. Speaker 4: Good evening, Mayor Spencer. Members of the council and city staff. I'm John Sullivan at housing provider, an employer and a taxpayer in Alameda. I very much appreciate your efforts and, you know, the energy that was devoted into getting this far, really, and. And updating our rent review process. As a housing provider. I've been involved in that process. True. There are some versions of it that I don't quite have of the new ordinance that we are proposing that I don't quite agree with. But at least I had the opportunity to, you know, to debate its merits. One big exception, really, is, which is No paragraph six, dash 56 of the new proposed ordinance. And that's failure to participate. Failure to appear essentially. If a landlord. Is deemed to not be participating properly or whatever, and he not alone is deprived of his right to raise the rent, the rent that he feels justified in asking. But he's also can't put another increase in place for a whole year. Two years without a rent increase can be really hurtful. Now, that issue was never part of our discussions in the many, many meetings that we had. Essentially, the rent review board at that time was asked to submit their recommendations, their areas of concerns, and they came up with six, I believe, if my memory serves me right. Recommendations and concerns and those six and only those six items were came on onto the table for discussion. We're allowed on to the table for discussion. No. It's obvious that the rent board did not consider that item a concern at that time. It somehow got in later. Maybe well-intentioned, yes, but clear it is necessities to deprive a landlord of an opportunity to impose and increase. And for a whole year. In order to maintain its property. It really is not, you know, not justified. No. It appears that there's a legal challenge being initiated on that matter. This could cost our city thousands of dollars to defend as a taxpayer, as an employer in Alameda. I ask you to really please consider omitting this penalty portion or letting the ordinance go forward, but placing this penalty portion on hold to give your legal counsel an opportunity to speak to the plaintiff's counsel and. Try to work things out, get better legal opinion or whatever. Lawsuits, just like penalties, can be very divisive. Very divisive. In the spirit of mediation, I think that's what it's all about. I think we should work on that. But thank you for the opportunity to present my concerns this evening. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. John Klein. Linda WINESTOCK. John Klein. Linda Weinstock WINESTOCK and then our Linda Graca. Speaker 2: Good evening. My name is Linda Weinstock, and I'm. I want to thank everybody here on the council and the city of Alameda for all the hard work they've been doing. And and I hope that we can continue to move forward. I came here tonight to tell my story. I've been here for almost seven years, and I've been a very active part of Alameda. And I'm very proud to. Speaker 0: Be a residents. Speaker 8: Here. Speaker 2: I moved here and I was. Speaker 8: Paying 1650 a. Speaker 2: Month or a two bedroom. I am paying. Speaker 8: 2950 now, just got a. Speaker 2: 10% increase. And I was told I asked, what can I project? My husband just got his first Social Security check. What can I project for the next year? Speaker 8: I was told. Speaker 2: A 15 to 25% increase next year. So they're already projecting where I live, a 15 to 25% increase and letting all of us know to expect that. And I just think this is just unreasonable. Speaker 0: It's almost like they're asking me to leave. Speaker 2: And so we're planning our exit plan. And I think that is horrible because I have given to Alameda everything I searched out for Alameda for six years. I found you. And now I feel like I'm being asked to leave. Speaker 3: All I have to say. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. And our is the last speaker we have. If you want to speak on this, please turn on your slip it. Speaker 3: Evening. Good evening, Mayor. And everybody else. Speaker 8: And will you. Speaker 2: Please, good friend of mine that. Speaker 3: I'm actually going to be with. Speaker 8: You. Could we ask you to pull the mic? Speaker 3: I'm sure. Speaker 8: And then if you could just say your name. I didn't get it. I mean, Doug Rasa. Speaker 2: Good friend that I'm going to be losing. Speaker 3: Due to this. I came across. Speaker 2: An article now Me Beach. I asked the person who wrote it. Speaker 3: If I can read it tonight, and he gave me permission to say, I'm going to be the narrator for John Michael Chiodo I'm not slaughtering his name. It says Rent increases. As you may. Speaker 2: Or may not know. Speaker 3: I'm a realtor, real estate broker of 18 years. Speaker 2: And it breaks my heart that of many of my friends and people. Speaker 0: Are getting hit with. Speaker 3: Ridiculous rent increases. This has been going on for a couple of years now and I've remained kind of silent on the issue. Speaker 2: While I have no answers, I do have a response to landlords that are doing this as the movement grows from tenant rights for tenant rights and rent controls from Alameda Rent Coalition, it is because a view that there is a fire burning in the renters bellies of Alameda causing him to organize. Speaker 3: You will be the sole reason that rent control passes. It will be. Speaker 2: Your short term thinking and greed that will. Speaker 3: Affect the effect the majority of good and fair minded landlords in the city. I urge you to come to the table with to the city and the Alameda renters. He kind of like messed up. Speaker 2: A little bit that Alameda renters coalition to work out a fair strategy for rent increases before you permanently screw yourselves and the rest of the property owners. Speaker 3: Your greed is not only affecting families, seniors and those soon to be retired, but also affecting small business owners of the city who rely on the expendable incomes of those individuals who go out and enjoy this city and what they have. Speaker 0: What it has to. Speaker 3: Offer. Huge rate increases will affect their ability to take kids out to eat, taking few classes, sports programs and even deny them of Tucker's ice remain. Speaker 0: And. Speaker 3: Cookie bath. You're causing a great deal of stress on families with children, seniors and children who help take care of. Speaker 2: Their parents for short. Speaker 0: Term gain. Speaker 2: And when the market turns. Speaker 3: Against you, you will be locked into lower rates controlled by rent control. Based on your actions today to the Fair Property Owners, I urge you to be involved in these meetings being held with the city and. Speaker 2: With the Renters Coalition. There are others that are going to. Speaker 0: Decide the fate of your. Speaker 3: Investment and your rights based on your noninvolvement. This is a real problem and I urge everybody to get involved on both sides. There can be a mutually beneficial agreement, but if the good landlords do not come out and and work and fight against those landlords that are no longer living here or our our after short term gains will not only ruin the family orientated nature of the city, but also ruin the rights that you currently have as an owner. I urge renters. Rental agents. Property management. Speaker 2: Companies. To start the dialog with your owners to explain the consequences of their actions. Speaker 3: Not just financially, but to Alameda families to Knutsen. Thank you. Thank you. Speaker 0: We have two more speakers. Definition. Definition. ARD and Christoph. Crystal Felder. Speaker 2: Hi. Good evening. My name is Stephanie Shannon. I am a longtime Alameda resident. I will confess, I did move to San Francisco for a minute and I came back. I am an educator. I am a consultant. I have been an active part of the Omni community. I served on the Alameda Slow Food Board where we did a lot of investment back into the community. When I was still around and. Speaker 3: I can barely afford to live here. I live in I. Speaker 2: Just received a 15% rent increase. And so the property management people who own my building or my. Speaker 3: The property living. Speaker 2: Are not Alameda. They are stationed in or they're headquartered in New Jersey. So 40% of my take home pay is going to New Jersey. It's not coming back to Alameda. That $223 extra a month that is now going to New Jersey instead of Alameda. It's not just a $223. Speaker 3: Rent increase per month. Speaker 2: That is now leaving the city. It's that I have had to adjust my lifestyle. I have started teaching an extra class over at City College of San Francisco, which means that I am in town less often. Speaker 3: Which means that I do not get to. Speaker 2: Participate in the activities I want to do. It also means that I have adjusted my lifestyle so that I am spending less. Instead of going to monkey bars on Park Street to buy. Speaker 3: My toddler, which is I was making a record. So he's gone now. Speaker 2: But instead of buying him a toy at monkey bars, I now go on Amazon instead of buying him books. I think I go on to Amazon because I can buy them cheaper there instead of going and buying the produce box at Dan's produce. I now go to Safeway or wherever I can buy sales, so I've really adjusted my whole lifestyle to accommodate this. And again, it's more than $223 a month extra. Speaker 3: That is leaving the community. It is now my choices that I have to make. Speaker 2: So it's a snowball effect. Speaker 3: Again, it's more. Speaker 2: Than a 15% increase. I have not worked at a place that that has given me a raise, a 15% raise annually. But that is where I'm having to dig in to find that. Speaker 3: To establish a home for my family. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. There's still Felder and then Lisa. Brown. And those are our last speakers, I think. You want to speak on this? Please turn in your slip. Speaker 3: Good evening, honorable mayor. Deputy Mayor, my name is Crystal Felder. I live at 2019 Shoreline Drive. We've resided there since August of 2004, so we've been there about 11 years now. Recently we received a I'm sorry, I'm a little nervous on the door, just a piece of paper folded with things that are going to happen. The first one was a letter stating that the building had been bought by a new owner. They didn't put the owner's name on there. Then we got something saying that we would have to pay garbage and sewage and water. And then today they gave us something that said in 60 days we would have a rental increase. That was basically double what we're paying now. And then something else that said they were going to start doing renovations to the patio, we don't have a patio. Our window was right on the driveway. I wanted to show you if I can, why I think there should be a moratorium on the rent increases. Is it okay if I ask this to you? This is. Rather constant as far as the apartment that we live in, it comes regularly. It's pretty bad. It comes up from the shower or the toilet, it comes up from the tub. And so I think the new owner should really invest in. Doing. I don't know what they do to stop that, but I think they should do something about that before they consider raising the rent of 40 or 50%. Thank you very much. Thank you. Speaker 4: My name is John Klein. Speaker 0: All right, John Klein. Speaker 4: So I'm in support of the ordinance. I live in Alameda. I don't have any horror stories, and I certainly hope that I won't. But I am a renter. But this actually doesn't go far enough. And there's a lot of stuff going on there other than rent increases that the landlords need to be watched. They need to know they're being watched because their what the person there was. I was reading an issue where a new owner was back charging tenants for utilities, which is typically the landlord's responsibility. And so the tenants are going, what do we do? What do we do? But in any case. But really what I want to say. So I was looking in the binder outside with the email that the correspondence you have, you have one from. Speaker 9: The San Jose Law. These are all opposed to the ordinance. Speaker 4: You have one from the San Jose law firm, one from Hayward residents, two from residents of Pleasant Hill, two businesses in Belmont, one from Castro Valley, one from San Leandro, one from the Rental Housing. Speaker 9: Association in Hayward. One was unknown. Speaker 6: Excuse me. And one was just simply a Bay Area housing provider. Speaker 4: That was the majority of the correspondence you have in opposition. All except one speaker tonight is an Alameda resident and they've all been in favor of the ordinance. So you have to pick who you represent. Speaker 0: And our last speaker, Lisa. Speaker 2: Hi, I am Lisa Brown and I actually came to speak on another topic. So I'm not entirely prepared for this, but I'm I am a property owner here in Alameda and I have a two unit place and I live in the other unit. And I guess, I mean, you know, I, I feel for the people who are being displaced. Um, I, I don't think that all landlords are greedy. Um, and I would. I would offer the idea that this. Be there be some sort of an exemption for for smaller landlords? I mean, I have one unit, so I'm and I live next door to those people. And if I have a problem with them, you know. Being loud and they're next door to me. I'd like to be able to get them out so that I can still live in my property. So, you know, I am on both sides of the issue here, and I would just like some sort of a consideration for maybe four units or less that there there wouldn't be. And I haven't read the ordinance, so I don't know what it says, but. And, you know, and I'm I'm not a wealthy person. I just happen to be able to use the FHA loan when the market was down. So I'm very lucky to be in the position that I'm in. But I, I would like for you to consider it to be specifically related to people with large number of units rather than all landlords. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank. She's our last speaker. Staff, did you have a presentation? Thank you. Speaker 2: Good evening. So the action before you this evening, which is five Q and five are on the consent calendar is actually a second reading of two ordinances, one having to do with the rent review process and the other having to do with the formation and operations of the city's Rent Review Advisory Committee. The ordinance was approved by this Council on July 21st on first reading. That action was the culmination of about a nine month community engagement process in which there was a community led initiative to work together to look at ways to strengthen the city's existing rent review process. The action before you this evening is to do a second reading of both of those ordinances, and if the ordinances are approved on second reading tonight, both ordinances would become effective on October 1st. So just a couple of things that I think might be useful to point out based on the public comment this evening is that the ordinance is not a rent control ordinance and people may, you know, have their views about whether that's a good or bad thing. But it is not a rent a rent control ordinance. It is an ordinance that is aimed at strengthening the city's rent review process. Staff really adhere to the spirit of the community engagement process. And what is reflected in the ordinance that was adopted on first reading in July reflects that that nine month process. It is not an accurate statement to say that if property owners violate the provisions of the ordinance, they cannot raise their rent for one year. That that's an overly broad statement. There are two instances in the ordinance where we talk about how rent increases are handled. And one is one of the new provisions is that all tenants must be given a notice of the city's availability of a rent review process when they receive notice of a rent increase. And if failure to notify a tenant of their right to access the rent review process is not provided, you cannot that rent increase notice can be a defense of you as a tenant or served with an unlawful detainer that that violation of the ordinance can be cured by a re notice seen with the proper notice. So there is no penalty about any delay of a rent increase for a year that the cure for that is to simply re notice properly and consistent with the ordinance. There is a second provision of the ordinance that does talk about the rent review process. If if a tenant desires to file a rent increase complaint form with the city for a hearing before our rent review advisory committee and a landlord decides not to participate in that process, then their decision not to participate. The consequence of that decision not to participate is that they cannot the rent increase they cannot increase the rent for one year. And if an unlawful detainer is filed, our ordinance becomes a basis for a defense in an unlawful detainer proceeding. So in that one instance, if a landlord affirmatively decides that they are not going to participate in our mediation process, then there is a consequence in the ordinance. It is still a mediation process. The only obligation for the property owner is to participate in the mediation. The landlord does not have to comply with the the direction or the determination of the Rent Review Advisory Board. It's strictly voluntary. So as long as they participate, they then have the ability to have their rent increase stand. So what we are doing is implementing the recommendations that came from the process in the community that involve property owners and tenants. And we have to, as staff, have respected that process and captured that the outcomes of that process in this ordinance. So that's that's where we at. That's the genesis of the two ordinances that are before you this evening. The other thing that the council directed staff to do in July was to do some additional research about three items that were raised by the Renters Coalition in July, where they asked that we study the more to a moratorium on rent increases, that we look at inspections when rent increases are given. We got that direction from council and council asked us when we come back with our report at the end of the year about the impacts of rising rents on tenants. We will be addressing those issues per council's direction at that same time. So we will be continuing. This is an ongoing discussion, clearly a huge. Issue here in Alameda. And lastly, the ordinance does have a provision that we as staff report back to the Council on an annual basis about the effectiveness of the rent review ordinance. So we will be coming back first at the end of this year with our with our report on the impact of rising rents on Alameda residents and on the three issues that the Renters Coalition asked the Council to address in July. And then six months later, we will be coming back. If the ordinance goes into effect might be a little more than six months. If the ordinance becomes effective October one. We will then be reporting back next year on the data and kind of an analysis of how the ordinance has been working over these 12 months, if it's adopted. So that's some context for the audience and for the council, and then I'm happy to answer any questions in addition. Michael Rausch from the City Attorney's Office, who's been working with us on this, is here. And I might just add one more thing. That council also directed us in May to do a legal analysis about the validity of the ordinance. And we reported back in July with a very comprehensive analysis of the legal validity of the ordinance, and the Attorney's Office has opined that this ordinance meets all of the requirements of state law. So staff continues and council reflected the confidence in that legal opinion by introducing this ordinance on first reading in July. So we as a staff do feel confident about the legality of of the ordinance. That's before you for a second reading this evening. Speaker 8: Thank you. Speaker 0: Member Ashcroft. Speaker 8: Thank you. Thank you, Miss Potter, for your remarks. That was some of the most emotional testimony I've heard in this chamber in a lot of years of serving on the council in different bodies. And I appreciate everything that you're working on. I'm confident that we're going to pass a to do our second reading of these two measures before us. One of the things I wonder, and maybe this is already part of your work plan, but are we looking at what is being done and what is working in other cities to address these problems? I know Alameda is not alone, but as we say more than once, we shouldn't need to reinvent the wheel if there's something, something more that can be done. I'd like that to come back to council when you report back to us at the at the end of the year. Speaker 2: Yes. That is part of the work plan, part of the review. The report that we're doing on the impact of rising rents will be looking at best practices about the issue of, you know, the adverse impacts of very large rent increases on the community. Speaker 0: And the other. Speaker 8: I was just ready to move approval. But maybe there's other comments. Well, do we want to do the motion and then come in or how would you like to do that? Speaker 0: I propose first we look at five. Speaker 5: Q Are we making comments after a motion? Speaker 3: We could, yes, I'll hold. Speaker 0: Off. If you want to make comments now, you could. Speaker 5: Yeah. I can make them now, so. Speaker 8: Let's make them now. Speaker 5: Doyle has the sign there. I rent and I vote. I rent and I vote. So I totally understand all of the issues that have been raised today. Before doing what I do now, I was a landlord tenant attorney, and as Councilmember Ashcraft said, this was a very emotional thing. And the legal profession, you know, I think the only thing that's worse emotionally than landlord tenant dispute is a family law dispute. So we're talking about a basic need and that's a basic need of housing. So. You know, I didn't say this last time and maybe I should have. It's a little disappointing that this came to the council. You know, I wasn't here. I don't think anybody up here voted for this path last September. And it'll be 15 months before we have data on on the extent of the problem. You know, that's really disappointing to me that, you know, we had an opportunity to address the issues and the concerns that the tenants have been raising. And, you know, it hasn't happened. And we still have to wait another three months to get that information. You know. Each time we discuss this, more and more people come out. So I'm beginning to wonder, you know, in my head as I think about this, is this, you know, isolated to 30 or 40 people or do we have a larger problem? You know, I hear more and more people say I'm getting the 30 and 60 day notices. You know, Linda. 25% this year and 25% next year. I mean, that's that's obscene. Okay. And I'll say it. So for tenants, you know, I apologize to tenants for what we're going to do today because it really doesn't move the needle , I think, where it needs to be moved. This is I think it's a good thing that we're going to have notice and that more tenants are aware of their rights and maybe we'll take advantage of the process. But all landlords have to do is show up. You know, they don't have to mediate. I mean, they don't have to lower the increase. They don't have to listen to that to the the rent poor. They don't have to listen to the counsel. So we haven't really done anything to stop these egregious rent increases. And that's really disappointing to me that we don't have something in front of us that we can do. So, I mean, tenants, you all a lot of you talked about rent control. This isn't rent control. We haven't talked about just cause eviction. You know, we haven't talked about moratoriums. We haven't talked about rent control. But I will say to the landlords. You're pretty lucky that this is all we're doing. And without having the one year delay, if you fail to show up, there's no tooth teeth to this ordinance. There's no teeth. And all you have to do is show up. Come to the meeting, come to mediate, and you can get what you want. I don't know. I can't see where that's a burden. I can't see where that's a burden on landlords to come to one meeting and get what they want. So I'm not sympathetic to those complaints where if you don't show up to the mediation, you don't get a chance to raise rents after another year. So one thing I will say to the landlords. If it turns out that the 30 or 40 people that we keep hearing from are are not isolated, if they're a part of a bigger pattern of massive 30, 60 day notices, if they're a part of a pattern of massive ten, 15, 20% increases, this council is going to be forced to act. And if we fail to act, 51% of our voters, our citizens, our tenants, they will either kick us out or they will put something on the ballot. And what they will put on the ballot will probably be far worse for landlords than anything we could put together. So if you're doing this, if you're giving out these massive increases, if you're routinely evicting people with 30 or 60 day notices. Stop doing it. Be reasonable, because we are watching. The tenants are watching. The council is watching. And I'll be really interested to see the data that we see back in December. Thank you. Speaker 0: Member. Speaker 8: Ashcroft Thank you. I, um, I endorse everything my colleague, council member Odie just said. I wrote in my margin as people were talking and I even lost track of how many speakers did we have? Speaker 3: Madam Clerk? Speaker 8: Roughly 19. We're hearing alarming reports of extreme rent increases in Alameda. The council needs to take action on these two measures tonight. That's what's before us. But trust us, we've heard what you said. I know there are people I've gotten your emails who are impatient. They don't want us to wait for data. Just act as do something. Now, whatever a resolution is will be better and sounder and more effective with data to rely on. And we have a very competent staff working on that. I also want to address the issue of the one year suspension of a grant. I was a little surprised that the attorney for the apartment house owners raised that because I know he's talked to our city attorney and knows that it passes legal muster. And and, in fact, those same provisions are in place in other cities in the Bay Area, Fremont and San Leandro. And they have been in place for decades. What I noticed in the last term on the city council was we had two instances that happened in fairly close proximity where there was an egregious rent increase. A couple of them, two different properties. And the landlords just didn't they didn't come to the hearing. Then they're called to come before the city council. They didn't come to the the city council. They said, we don't have to. One of them sent their attorney and said, We read the ordinance. We don't have to come now. It's not a panacea. But one thing we do find and in the mediation process is that if you can at least get parties to the table to sit down face to face and look each other in the eye and hear about the things we heard about today, which is what I would call the impact that this is having on people's lives. It's possible that you can reach some middle ground. It's a whole lot more possible than if the the landlord and it's not by the way, and a level playing field because the landlord has everything the tenant needs. So that's all we're asking. It's very reasonable if you're an out of state landlord. The provision also says you can send an agent, but that agent has to have authority to act and better come prepared to enter into an agreement. If you're just going to sign us off, if you're just going to blow us off as has happened before. Then you lose. If you don't show up, you won't get to increase your rent for a year. And that's completely reasonable. And then I just want to end with quoting Angela Hawk about and I'm also very moved and impressed that so many of you have gotten together in this organization of the Renters Coalition. And I know there's Facebook groups and there's a lot of communication, and I want to encourage the landlords. We know there's good, decent landlords out there. Don't let the bad apples label you get in there and make the difference that you're able to make. But Angela, talk about said this, these ordinances that we're about to vote on tonight, they're a good first step, but they shouldn't be the last. And I couldn't agree more. Thanks, everyone. Speaker 3: Yes. Member j soc. Speaker 7: Thank you very much. Thank you very much to everyone who came out took the time to share their situation. I think it certainly is indicative that members who are raising their rents were not here, but that the tenants who live here in Alameda are here because you're turning to the city council for not just support but for action. I think tonight is a first step. It's not enough, but it's a first step. Ultimately, as I had indicated in talking with members who are affected by the rental increase, I want to see stronger steps. You know, I want to see specific language with regard to just cause eviction. I want to see specific language with regard to moratorium on prices. Now, I think we here in the city of Alameda, we're going to lose something if we lose a lot of the tenants who are here. You guys are the ones who have made Alameda a dynamic place. You know, we're not just, you know, some affluent Silicon Valley town. We're a town that does have that. But it also has a working class. It has young adult, it has older adults, and we're going to lose that flavor. So we need to take action. You know, all of you know that, you know, I have my twice office hours and I to me, you know, the number of people who come out and let me know that their rent increases is just coming down mean I know that it's a crisis already. It's not about gathering data. The facts are in front of us, in front of and in the faces of that people and the stories that they have to tell my neighbors, Gina and Steve, now, they had to move out of town because their landlord who lives in Kensington, you know, jacked up their rent, all because once again , when I got better tenant, you know, at Farmer's Market, you know, someone came by and told me that, you know, she's active in the church and also she's affected by a huge rent increase. A neighbor of my good friend on Broadway. It's happening across town and we're really losing a significant part of our town. So I look forward to passing was before us right now, but I also look forward to specific action. And, you know, I want to see I want to make a vote up or down. With regard to living wage, earner living wage, with regard to just cause evictions as as well as any temporary moratorium, some kind of emergency trigger that that councilors or the mayor can pull in times of crisis, emergency triggers, as opposed to, you know, something that's lasting. But maybe we have to do something that's lasting. I don't know. But we need we need specific action because we're losing people right now and it's sad. Thank you. Speaker 6: I swear I'm ready for the vote right now. It's. We've heard that there should be some changes as well. We can always evaluate as we have this ordinance in effect for the next six months and see if those changes are warranted. Also, any decision that's made at the Rent Review Advisory Committee is appealable to the council, so there's no reason to delay this. Let's take this step. Things. The stories are getting worse. Speaker 9: And. Speaker 4: We have to. Speaker 6: Protect it. The matter of fairness in business here in the city of of people who rent and people who are providing houses, it's got to be fair. I also heard that Santa Rosa City Council is also looking they're looking at rent control. So I think the speakers alluded to the fact that people better start acting fairly. Otherwise, there's going to be there's going to be a groundswell of action similar to what we're seeing in other cities. I'd also like our representatives to League of California Cities to push this issue to see what the league is doing because it affects every city in California. Again, I'm ready for the vote now. I think we should pass this both ordinances at this moment. Yes, but. Speaker 0: Member de. Speaker 7: Sa madam, I'd like to pass make motion adopting the first item as the second reading. Speaker 0: We have a second. Speaker 5: I'll second that. Speaker 0: So that's five Q But correct. Okay. Five. Q I wanted to speak to that. It defines the base rent as other than fees or charges for utilities paid directly to the housing provider. And a concern I have it's been raised as it's my understanding and we had to speak one speaker us to that at least one this evening that landlords are passing along more charges, whether it's for utilities, electricity, sewage, things like that. And I'm not sure how we can where that can come in, but that can also be a significant increase. That is a new increase, even though it's not defined as part of our definition here on base rent. So I would propose that can we include utilities in that definition? Speaker 8: Well, doesn't the paragraph say, Madam City Attorney, help me out? Or I guess it is Mr. Roush So I'm reading this is under section page two of our staff report. You know, page two of the staff report, section six, dash 57.2 Definitions based rent means the rental amount, including any amount paid directly to the housing provider for parking, storage or any other fear charge associated with the tenancy other than fees or charges for utilities paid directly to the housing provider. I wasn't clear whether the speaker who charged was saying that there were now the tenants were being required to pay directly to pay junior or whatever. But perhaps you can clarify that terminology for us. Speaker 4: Madam Mayor, members of the council, Michael Roche. What? The city attorney's office here in Alameda. I think the concern that if if we were to do sort of as a procedural matter, if we were to change that tonight. Speaker 7: We would then have to reenter and. Speaker 4: Reintroduce it tonight, have a second reading, and that would cause some delay. So leaving that issue aside, I think the idea here with the with the definition was that. Speaker 7: If the if the. Speaker 4: Tenant is paying the utility directly to the landlord, then that would not be included. It's only when the utilities are sort of embodied within the the rent that the tenant is paying. We can certainly come back. And when we bring back the the report in December, take a look at that definition. If if that issue is arising and causing a problem, we can certainly fine tune that a little better to try to deal with the issues that have been voiced here tonight by our residents. Speaker 0: And we've also received, I believe, emails or other communications of, for instance, a landlord taking the total amount of the water bill because they don't have individual water to the homes. And then they divide that by the number of people and they just demand that they pay that now. And I believe there's other utilities that are these new charges to tenants in the past the landlord has absorbed. So this is a new this this seems to be another tactic that we're seeing of landlords being able to charge additional moneys to tenants that are already. Feeling, you know, that they're being over having too it's too much. Too much. So if we can address this, look into that issue. Speaker 4: There is certainly some law with respect to mobile home parks, with respect to that issue, in terms of requiring sub metering so that the you know, if you if you're using more utility than your next door neighbor, you shouldn't be you should be paying for your charge. We'll have to take a look at whether or not that is as applicable with respect to residential rental units. I'm just not sure that answer, as I said, or stand here tonight, but we would certainly look at that as part of the report we bring back in December. Speaker 0: Okay. So if you could also look at that, which I appreciate. Thank you. And also making I've also heard of a landlord of making it retroactive, going backwards and saying that they have utilities that have not been paid and charging tenants to make to make them whole. Can you look into that issue also or would you have an opinion in regards to the legality of retroactivity on something like that? Speaker 4: Councilmember It was probably much more well versed in that issue than I am. I don't know the answer to that, but we certainly can take a look at that as to whether or not a retroactive application can be applied. It certainly seems somewhat suspect, but without without delving into the weeds with respect to that issue, I wouldn't be able to answer that definitively today. Speaker 0: Thank you. Did you have I. Speaker 7: Just want to say, I think the points that Mayor Spencer is raising is important, because what she's what is really getting at is whether we're going to define rent in terms of gross rent or we're going to define it as the, you know, the cash contract rent for purposes of affordable housing policymaking. It's really the gross rent that is always used in terms of defining people who are at or below the 30% threshold. So in a way, it is correct to somehow take into account utilities for those who have to pay utilities and for those who don't have to pay utilities. So gross rent is a rent plus zero, whatever the utility says. The only careful thing you need to watch out, though, is that whatever language that you have, utilities is always going to change from month to month, season to season. So, you know, somehow that nuance has to be incorporated, but I think we could certainly catch it later this year. But by the same token, you know, if we can start on a lot of other things, too, that people are concerned about, like just cause eviction and things like that. Speaker 0: I also wanted to thank Jeff Canberra as well as all the tenants and landlords that participated in the multiple hearings that resulted in this. I also want to acknowledge that I believe that there's been a change in the landscape, if you will, and I'm not sure if we looked back that we would be arriving at this solution , quote unquote solution today. There. I am also a renter. I will share. I've been renting the same home for 16 years. Under. Costa Hawkins single family homes are not and would not be affected by rent control. Many of us do rent single family homes in this town. And one thing that this this approach goes to is trying to address all renters and under Costa Hawkins. And that's something that I encourage all of you to look at, anyone that. There are exclusions to it. And that's the state legislation and it excludes from rent control. Currently in the state of California, single family homes and apartments that were built after 1995. This is Brian, it's my understanding. One. One thing you see sometimes is condo conversions because then you end up with essentially a single family home from an apartment. So there are responses. So at this point, I will be supporting I'm confident this will pass this this. This ordinance that is really goes to mediating. However, when we see these increases, for instance, $650, up to 2900, and I can tell you, my landlord and I know many local landlords are not doing this. We have a serious problem here and that that's been alluded to as we have. But I'm going to call out of town onwards that. Don't really seem to be to to to care. If you will, what our about our community. And this is a serious problem. Of our local landlords are trying are trying very hard to help mediate this from what I've seen. And I want to give them credit for that. So this is a step. However, when we see these large increases from apartments that could be addressed through rent control. As well as the 30 to 60 day notices to vacate. We have a problem. So going back to what I had said earlier, I, I don't believe I'm I can't help but think that we would be asking for more concessions at this point if we were looking at the current landscape, which means this does need to circle back sooner rather than later. We do need all of the tenants who renters. If you're experiencing these increases, you need to strongly consider taking advantage of the rent review advisory committee. We want you to use that process and then we encourage the landlords to also participate in that process. And I have attended those meetings and many of the cases are resolved. It is they it is taken seriously. And cases cases are resolved. There is resolution. It's not all of the cases, but a significant number. And that's actually what we're hoping that we will see, especially now, is that we want where we want more of the cases to be mediated through this process. So that's what this goes to. We will, as a council and staff, be monitoring the cases. So please participate in the process. And we will also have that data to see if the process is working. And so that is a means that is can impact all of our renters can fall under that. So it's a way for us to address every renter with the cooperation of our landlords. So this this like others have said, this is a step. And and I do appreciate all of you coming out this evening. What I call the question. All those in favor. I. That's for five Q which passed unanimously. Speaker 8: Do I move passage of the ordinance? This is item number five. Are I the final passage of ordinance amending the Alameda Municipal Code by adding section two, Dash two three to Article two concerning the creation of a rent review advisory committee. Speaker 0: Like any discussion. All those in favor. I know that five are also passed unanimously. We're going to take a short recess right now. And those of you that are not interested in staying for the balance of the calendar, you may now leave or. Speaker 10: Please take your seats so we can read them first. If you could please take your seats, we're. Speaker 0: Going to review. Thank you. We are now going to resume the meeting. Please take your seats. Thank you very. Speaker 3: Much for that, Sergeant, at. Speaker 9: Our. Speaker 3: Part of the job description. Speaker 0: All right. And we have a request from counsel to actually have the 60 from his counsel. UNESCO sorry. Of regards to item six be to have that item brought back. I know we have at least two speakers on that item. The concern is that. We are paying someone to be here now for this, and we'd rather do it at the next meeting because we have all these other items. If that would be the two speakers that are. I think there's two speakers. Would you mind if we reset this and imposed upon you one more time to come back? I'm really, really sorry. As you can tell, we have not yet made it to the regular agenda items and it's 9 p.m. that we have. So thank you very much. And we will kick over six B until. Speaker 3: The first being October. Speaker 0: It'll be in October, October and then won't. Thank you very much. Speaker 8: I promise. Speaker 0: Appreciate it. So we'll try to get to that first on the agenda next time. So we appreciate you. Tucker's is still alive for any inconvenience this may have caused either of you. Speaker 3: Yeah. Speaker 0: And we do appreciate your service on that commission to. Next. We are now on 6 a.m., adoption of resolution. Speaker 2: Three. Speaker 1: Adoption of resolutions appointing Arnold Bollinger and Susan Deutsch as members of the Commission on Disability Issues, David Mitchell and Sandy Sullivan as members of the Planning Board and Hoyt to the Public Art Commission on the motion. Adam prior to the Park Commission and Chris Smiley to the Transportation Commission.

Consent Calendar Item

Final Passage of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding Article XIV to Chapter VI Concerning the Review of Rent Increases. (Community Development 481005)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_09012015_2015-1956

Speaker 1: Adoption of resolutions appointing Arnold Bollinger and Susan Deutsch as members of the Commission on Disability Issues, David Mitchell and Sandy Sullivan as members of the Planning Board and Hoyt to the Public Art Commission on the motion. Adam prior to the Park Commission and Chris Smiley to the Transportation Commission. Speaker 0: And we have nine speakers on this item. Dania Alvarez, Walt Jacobs and Laurie Zupan. We're not going to have a presentation by staff. For those of you that don't know what this is. The mayor, myself, I have appointed nominated different people to different commissions. And then it comes to council to vote whether or not to approve my nominations. Speaker 2: Good evening, city council and city staff. My name is Donna Alvarez and I'm a lifelong resident of Alameda. I submitted a letter to the city clerk late this afternoon, and I would like to read it so that it can be a matter of public record. Dear Council members to serve on the Planning Board is an honor and a privilege and a wonderful way to perform one's civic duty. I consider myself quite fortunate to have experienced this type of community service firsthand, and for that I will be forever grateful. It became clear during my days as a planning board member that those appointed to the Planning Board should have an ability to listen to opposing views while keeping a clear focus on where the real public interests lie. What was not only within the law, but also really fair, and the ability to distinguish between fact and opinion with the position one needed to assemble information from both written and oral testimony and apply it to the making of meaningful recommendations that were based upon adopted plans, ordinances, required findings of fact and established policies, and not upon personal values. Therefore, the letters written to convey my disappointment in the wording found in the Planning Board applications submitted by Sandy Sullivan on June 15th, 2015. Specifically the comment made in the other comments section of Ms.. Sullivan's application. I am not a realtor. I found this comment unnecessary and inappropriate, and because I am a realtor personally offensive. In some cities, it is a requirement that at least one of the members of a planning board commission be a representative from a community group that participates in land use issues. On a personal note, and as a lifelong Alameda resident, I believe in individual. Taking a leadership position on a city board should not make disparaging remarks towards other members of the community as a validation of their qualifications. To appoint an individual that demonstrates the same attitude is not the best interest of our residents in our city. Therefore, instead of appointing Mr. Sullivan, I am asking you to submit another nominee for the position of Planning. Board Member. Thank you for your time and consideration. Speaker 0: Walt Jacobs. And then Lorazepam. Speaker 6: Well, it's been a few years since I've had the opportunity to address the City Council, but my name is Walt Jacobs and I am a realtor and I just wanted to speak on behalf of Donya because I've had an opportunity to work with her for many, many years in the profession. And she is a thorough professional, a caring individual, and she does her job right. That I agree with everything that went on in the Planning Commission last year. Not necessarily. But good, lively discussions and lots of listening on her part. I seem to be trapped in the world of history myself right now. Been around so long that they just keep me there to remind them the way things used to be or not to forget this or not to forget that. And I enjoy that role. But I think that having the history of what was before, along with what is going to happen, is critically important because you know, that word seamless and things like that is a crock. What you really need to do is try to generate a smooth transition as you can into the next evolution of where this city is going to go. And I think that she has performed in a way that would definitely be the way I would like to see something transition, because Elamite is changing and we all know it. Thank you very much. Speaker 0: Laurie and then John Knox White and then David and Lisa McDonough. Speaker 2: Good evening, mayors and members of the council. I appreciate you listening this evening. I currently sit on the planning board and past president of the planning board and have sat on several city commissions. I've done a lot of volunteer work for the city and I'm very concerned about the process that's happened for this nomination, because I feel that it is a process of intimidation for sitting volunteers on every board. It has been the practice of mayors in this town for as long as I recall. In almost every case, members are reappointed to the board when they're up for a term and they apply for the reappointment to the term. They respect all of the efforts that those volunteers have made in serving their city. And if those volunteers want to continue, if there has not been misconduct, they typically extend that. It's been very rare that that does not happen. The reason I think that that happens in many cases is because mayors understand that volunteers give up a lot of their time, a lot of their energy and a lot of their resources. I know I personally put several hours into the planning board activities every week and have for the past several years. I know when member Marilynn as you Ashcraft was on the planning board, I know she put me to shame bicycling to every single location across the island and spending time to talk to all the neighbors. An example that I do try to emulate as much as possible, but it is a huge investment and there's a huge amount of insulation. There are a lot of ordinances, a lot of plans, a lot of guides. There's a lot of history. You have to understand what it is you're charged with implementing. It is not a matter of personal opinion. There are restrictions on what it is that you can do and say, what you can provide as guidance, what is legal, what can what you might do that could cost this city a significant amount of money. It really requires a lot of startup time. It requires a lot of staff time to disrespect all of the effort that a good performing member puts into a council or commission is really, in my opinion, a matter of bullying because the reason those members are typically excluded is because they have expressed an opinion or a point of view that is not aligned with the person . It suppresses expression on all of the boards because, you know, if you speak out of line with the mayor who's appointing the members, you won't be reappointed. Donnie Alvarez was probably the best member on the board of this last year, two years that she's been on there in terms of soliciting opinion and bringing it forward, bringing forward misconceptions, bringing forward opinions that were not aligned with hers and making sure that they were heard by the whole board. She reached out like almost no one else on this board does because of her role, because of all the people she can reach and because of everything else she does. I'm extremely disappointed with the failure to renominate her, and I hope you will do what you can to address this. Thank you. Speaker 0: John Knox White. Speaker 9: Good evening. John Knox White. I am a current planning board member. I have two reasons for being here. First, I want to just give thanks to Donya for her for her service. I was disappointed that she has not been renominated. She has. You know, a year and a half ago she was along with me and president at the time, David Burton. Every other week at 7 a.m., we were here at City Hall, the city staff working on the two point plan for two and a half months. There are very, very few people who have put the time and energy into trying to bring forward plans that this council, the five of you have all supported. So far, not one one plan has come forward that has not been supported. And yet, you know, I'm also here to acknowledge that the mayor has the right to nominate who she wants. And I think we have to fully move forward with that and support that. In fact, actually, I think it's very good that we are reevaluating the process for nominating the nominating process. The nominating process, I would say, is the charter is clear. The mayor nominates I would I would correct what was said a little earlier. The charter is also clear that the council appoints the planning board. The council appoints our commissions. Our boards and commissions are the council's bodies. They are not the mayor's bodies. And I'm here to say, as a part of the shaking up of this process and throwing tradition out the window to encourage the council to really, you know, take on that role in a way that they haven't for many, many years. And it's something that I've been critical of for many, many years, that the the appointment process is not supposed to be a rubber stamp. And really, it is on you, all five of you, to take ownership of each individual that goes to the boards and commissions and to make sure that you are aware of who is who is being nominated and what they stand for and to make sure that they embody what it is. This the entire group, all five of you wish to see in our planning board. I'm not here to speak against either of the nominees. I know very little about them because there's very little about them in their in their applications. That could be great. And if you if you so appoint them tonight, I look forward to serving with them and will do so. But I will ask you to do your due diligence. So far there have been two appointments that did not require City Council or City Council approval for the Sunshine Committee and for the Rent Advisory Committee. And the appointment from the mayor at the Sunshine Committee is a person who just last month said that he thought the Brown Act was a problem because you can't get together with a majority to the council and come to a consensus in a back room when nobody's watching. And his question, the efficacy and the need for a sunshine ordinance, the appointment of the latest appointee to the rack to the Rent Advisory Committee, that the topic that we all just sat through about an hour and a half of discussion is somebody who led the fight against affordable housing in the eighties in Alameda, who literally wrote the ballot measure against affordable housing in Alameda. So don't just take it that everything is everything is great and we should just move forward. Please do your due diligence and do the things that you were elected to do. This is one of those key things, and it's very important and I encourage you to do your due diligence tonight. Thank you. Speaker 0: David and Lisa McDonough and then Larry Witt and Chris Christopher Koster. David and Lisa McDonough do not appear to be here. Larry. And Christopher and then my kind of very. Speaker 4: Madame Mayor, members of the City Council, thank you for this opportunity to speak to you. My name is Larry Witty. I'm a 15 year resident of the city of Alameda and a neighbor of Dan Alvarez and ordinances. I move to Alameda and have come to value her neighborliness and her knowledge of the city. Alameda is going through a great deal of change. And I can tell you that I've seen quite a bit of it. 15 years ago, I couldn't see moving on on the island. The residents of Park Street were nothing to write home about. And also, I think Alameda has started the the school district's enrollment started to start to decline. And obviously now it's been exacerbated by my entire day in Alameda going to movie shopping, having lunch and dinner. And now enrollment in the schools is almost 11,000. I know that there are a lot of challenges going on as well with Alameda. As we know, people are concerned about transportation, traffic, overcrowding and as you've heard, rising rents. And at this critical point, I think it's important that we have people who are on the planning board, who are experts on, you know, on on Alameda. And and, Don, you're really being brings a lifetime of experience and expertize to to to the to the planning board. She has she's studied and worked internationally. She's proven herself as a professional who looks out for the best interests of Alameda. She seeks collaboration and strives for solutions that are fair to all. She has deep knowledge of the real estate market and the impact of development on the quality of life in Alameda. She thoroughly prepares for meetings. She listened to those on both sides of an issue and is valuable by members of the commission. Now, as we as we as we've heard, El Camino will always change. No one can stop that to optimally, optimally deal with this change and to enable controlled growth. We need experts like Daniel Alvarez. And I ask the mayor and the city council to consider permitting Daniel Alvarez to continue her work with the planning board. Thank you. Speaker 0: Christopher Koster, then my Canterbury and then Nancy Garden. And if you'd like to speak on this issue, please turn in your slip. Speaker 9: Good evening, dear mayor. Vice Mayor, City Council members. Come or come before you tonight to ask that you reappoint a member of the Planning Board who would like to continue doing the great volunteer work she has been doing tirelessly for the last few years. Just a few years ago when I myself joined the planning board, the board was badly in need of volunteers who would want to join council. Councilwoman, as he asked Gaffney, attest to her being president of the board for an extended period of time as the board didn't even have enough members at the time in order to hold elections. I myself was asked to join the board after I had applied in 2010, but as luck would have it, I started a new job with a different architectural firm and position. My elects are postponed my election to the board for one year. The spot was still available one year to the date I filled someone's vacant spot and now I serve on my own, only my first term. Since then, we've been fortunate enough to have the full board to assist the city in delicate decisions for future development design review and decide on amendments to the City Charter Code and design guidelines. For each of these aspects, Danny Alvarez has tuned to what's going on in Alameda and often raises concerns that she has with new projects when she disagrees with, often sparking debate among the board members. She has been an asset to the board and the community. Having a background in real estate, as you know, has provided her with the skills and understanding current market about current market rates, housing needs and affordability issues. Finally, in just a short period of time at the board, Danielle has risen to the position of VP on the board, which has to stand for something here. Again, I urge you to keep Daniela Alvarez on the board at this critical time in Alameda history as we gear up to work together on Alameda Point and other great future Alameda projects. Thank you. Speaker 4: My name is Mike Canterbury. I'm a lifelong Alameda resident, and I'm president of the Planning Board. I'm here this evening to discuss the mayor's nominations for the planning board. Actually, more succinctly. I'm here to discuss an appointment. The mayor did not put forward that of current Vice President Tonya Alvarez. It has been the practice in Alameda for mayors, nominations to various boards and commissions to be authorized by the council with little or no discussion. Although in my case, I must admit, I garnered a no vote when I was appointed to the Planning Board. It's also been the past practice of mayors to reappoint board members who are eligible to serve out additional terms. In my particular case, I harbor no illusions that I'll be reappointed. But I'm a political person. I can live with that. What I don't understand, what I'll never understand is why an eligible person completely qualified like Donna Alvarez, is not being reappointed. She's basically an apolitical person. She does her homework. She works with every issue that comes before the board to the envy of its members. If you've been to one of our meetings, as most of you have, you know, we have some very detail oriented folks, so that's quite a complement. Her credentials as a caring, committed Alameda. Alameda are unparalleled. Everybody knows a story of her family overcoming huge odds after becoming Cuban exiles after Castro took over. If anyone understands a call to service and the obligation to serve, it's Tanya Alvarez. What this non appointment does is send a message to members of boards and commissions that we don't care how well you served or how hard you worked or how committed you are to Alameda. If you're appointed by someone we don't like, you're out. It looks to me like the only thing Donya Alvarez is guilty of is being appointed by Mary Gilmore. As I said earlier, I understand your prerogative. I also understand that if the rules are going to be changed, throwing out the past practice of reappointing previous mayoral appointments, then the council has an obligation to assert itself. In this case, the mayor's put two Ford, two names instead of rubber stamping the appointments. The council should stand up, evaluate the applications and vote accordingly. In a situation where the mayor has the ability to make appointments over her term to reflect her views. The council has to take a stand. There are many appointments that are going to be made over the next three and a half years. It would be completely reasonable to reappoint Alvarez and then reappoint one of the mayors suggested appointees. Daniel Alvarez does not deserve to be collateral damage in a political calculation. Those voting need to explain why they're taking their positions. In Alameda tradition die hard. The mayor and the council are treading new ground here, and I urge you to be very careful and cautious. Thank you for your time. Speaker 0: Nancy Gordon. And then she's our last speaker on this item. Speaker 2: Mayor Spencer, Vice Mayor, Metro, AC and Council. Thank you so much for your outstanding service to our wonderful city. I became aware of this not from my business partner at the office, Donna, but from the article in the paper by Mr. Hanna. Barry and I went, Well, this doesn't seem to make sense to me. So I did a little bit more research. Speaker 3: And I just want to speak incredibly. Speaker 2: Positively for Donna Alvarez. I chose her to be my partner at the office to take care of my real estate clients when I'm not there. I totally trust her. She goes beyond the call of duty. She does more than just her homework that she needs to do. She thinks beyond the box. Outside the box. She's way more techie than I am. And to rely on that. She wants to go beyond what people might ask. Speaker 3: And anticipate what they may need to know. Speaker 2: And I've seen her in action, and I've appreciated. Speaker 3: Her quality of leadership and her integrity. She was the president of the Board of Realtors, as most of us know, did an excellent job. She's just an exemplary person. Speaker 2: And I was very pleased to come to a recent planning board meeting and hear all of you speak and hear Donya speak. Speaker 3: On the project. I think we're the island high schoolers, and the architectural drawings didn't seem to be popular with anybody, gratefully, but I could see. Speaker 2: That there's a lot of conscious consideration of what's going on in Alameda. Speaker 3: In line with. Speaker 2: How many more developments we're going to. Speaker 3: Have. All the issues. Speaker 2: With the traffic. Speaker 3: But I really trust Donya. With. Decisions on. Speaker 2: The planning board and to. Speaker 3: Give it her all. And I if there's any possible way. Speaker 2: To reinstate her, I think it's definitely worth it. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 2: Madam Chair. I believe. Mr.. I'm sorry. I believe Mr. McDonough has returned into the room. I know he had a speaker slip. Speaker 0: She'd like to approach. That's okay. That's what I thought. A different story. Okay. Thank you. Speaker 2: Well, sorry. Speaker 0: So at this point, you. Speaker 2: Had your chance. Speaker 0: At this point there being far as I know, there are no other speakers on this item. Right. Speaker 5: M.I.A. Speaker 3: Yes. Speaker 5: I actually asked the clerk to have the two planning board nominees come so I could do my due diligence and ask them questions. Are they here? Speaker 3: So. Speaker 5: So before I do that, I'd like to move adoption of the appointments to the Commission on Disability. The Commission. The Public Arts Commission. The Recreation and Parks Commission. And the Transportation Commission. And then separate out the Planning Board until we have a chance to talk to the to the individual nominees and then have a deliberation. Speaker 6: I'll second that. Speaker 8: After the vote. Speaker 0: Well, okay. So I would also suggest if we're going to be if we're going to do that, that we pulled the item of reappointing Chris Smiley to transportation. Speaker 8: We have a motion on the floor. It's been seconded. I call for the vote. All in favor. Speaker 7: I suppose I'm going to support passage of the motion. Speaker 0: To leave. That was for the 4 to 1 motion carries or to one. Speaker 8: Okay. So we've approved the other nominees to the commissions. Speaker 5: Including the Transportation Commission. Speaker 0: I got it right. Speaker 5: So. Is Miss Sullivan the only one here? Speaker 2: Yes. No, she's here. Speaker 5: Is she the only. Only one of the two? Speaker 3: No. Speaker 1: No, Mr. Mitchell. Speaker 5: This is her, too. Okay, great. So I don't know. Does anyone else want to ask questions or. Because maybe we should have. Speaker 8: I have some comments to make, but you can if you. It's up to the mayor. I, I can wait to make my comments. Speaker 5: I just like to, you know, kind of judge some of their, you know, how they go about making decisions on the planning board and know I don't care if I ask one, one, one set of questions than one the other, it doesn't really matter to me. So. Speaker 0: So I'm not. As far as I know, this is unprecedented. However, it is not unprecedented for the mayor not to reappoint everyone that had been appointed in the past. Speaker 5: I understand that. But we do have a responsibility to actually make the appointments and confirm them. So, you know, I did not have the opportunity to have a discussion behind closed doors with any of these these candidates. So I'd like to, you know, have that discussion here in public. Speaker 0: I'm not sure how this works. Anyone want to weigh in on how we could do this. Speaker 7: Madam Mayor? Well, at this. Speaker 0: Point. Speaker 7: I would encourage that we at least hold off on the appointments to the Planning Commission so that council members who so decide can have the time to meet the nominees. That would be my recommendation. Speaker 8: Well, then I'd like to make a comments. Speaker 5: You know, I'd like to do that in public. I mean, this is, you know, we're going to have a referral on this later if we get to that point on the agenda. But and this is the most important board and commission in the entire city. And I think the public has a right to hear the philosophy of what people that will be making important decisions affecting everyone's future, whether it be traffic or development or anything like that here in public in a transparent manner. So I mean I'd like to go ahead and ask my questions if was. Speaker 0: So that's impressive as far as I know. Are there other councilmembers that would support doing it in public but in that manner? Speaker 8: I'm of two minds. Did the did the applicants have notice that this was going to occur? And Ms.. Sullivan's indicated she has no problem addressing questions and. And Mr. Mitchell says it's fine as well. So. STAFF Is there any problem with this? Okay. Speaker 3: Any issue. Speaker 0: All right. Let's continue. So did you want both of them diverge at this point? Speaker 5: I'm not going to ask different questions of each one or. Okay. US the same beach. Yeah. Maybe we can just come up and then alternate. Speaker 0: So with that. Speaker 2: I'm Sandy Sullivan. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 8: And you are? Speaker 6: Mr. Mitchell, I'm David Mitchell. Speaker 5: Thank you for coming, and I appreciate you being amenable to answering some questions. So, you know, I can feel comfortable with your nominations so you can pick who's going to go first. But I think the first question is. You know, housing affordability is an issue of great interest and concern here in Alameda. What do you feel is the Planning Board's role in maintaining affordability, and how would you propose the board do so? Speaker 0: Well, that's a very good question. Speaker 2: I just lost my son, my grandson and my daughter in law to Folsom because of the affordable housing issue here in Alameda. So it is a concern. I am not fully versed on what the solutions should be. I am a person that believes that property owners have certain rights and tenants have certain rights. And I think you've made a good first step and we'll see how it goes. It may not be nearly enough, and I like the idea of seeing what best practices are across other cities. Speaker 6: Yeah. I think the best way to handle affordable housing is to look at new construction that's happening in condos and things that are going in the city and making possibly certain percentages of that. Those homes are affordable. That's one way to look at it. And then I think another way to address it is to, of course, look at to see what other cities are doing and see what works best with a community like ours. With. With. Similar populations, that sort of thing. Speaker 5: Maybe we'll just switch so you have a chance to think. Speaker 4: Okay. Speaker 5: So can you kind of explain your understanding of the role of the planning board? Speaker 6: Yeah, well, so the role of planning board is to, you know, approve projects that are happening throughout the city. My particular philosophy is, you know, I'm for growth, but I'm for smart, sustainable growth. I want to keep Alameda charming. And, you know, I'm a basically a resident first and foremost. And I live here for a reason. And I want to keep Alameda a really good place to live. And, you know, that's where I'm coming from. Speaker 0: Yes. Speaker 2: I have lived on both sides of the island. I started my stint in Alameda on the. Speaker 0: West. Speaker 2: Side as a younger person. I now live in Harbor Bay and I've been in this location about 24 years. The planning board is a really critical role in in in the city and what it is and the character of the city, because it makes the decisions that are going to determine what the city is like in years ahead, long past our terms. And I think based on my background in the kind of work I have done in that I can be an asset to this and to the planning board and. Speaker 5: Q So how would you adjudicate on an issue that you might philosophically, philosophically disagree with, but there is no legal reasoning that would allow you to vote against it? Speaker 2: I think it would if there's no legal reason that you can't. Speaker 0: Still vote. Speaker 2: Against it. I mean, I like to think of myself as a very open person. I have a lot of experience dealing with the public and dealing with issues. And I. Speaker 3: I, I like to. Speaker 2: Look at both sides. I like to do my homework. I like to do some investigation from the standpoint of getting feedback from other publics that are involved or would be impacted. And that's how I work. Speaker 6: Yeah. I would just address it with, um, not wanting to bog the city down. Of course, in litigation that could be really problematic as well. But trying to also put Alameda first and any decisions that they do make. Speaker 5: And then, you know, this kind of a two parter, you know, what do you think was a good decision made by the planning board in the last year and why? And what was the decision made by the planning board that you would have made differently? And why and how would you work with your fellow board members to create that consensus? What kind of good and bad and how you would get people to change their mind. Speaker 2: I think the good is that we are getting some exciting things happening in the city and some new building going on. I think if if you asked me an example of of less than optimal, I would use Bayport as an example. I spend a lot of time out there visiting friends. I don't know if any of you have gone on Easter or Thanksgiving Day with a car full of food and there's no place to park because most people use. Speaker 0: Their. Speaker 2: Garages as aboveground basements and so they are parked on the street. So parking in that development is a huge, huge issue. I would say there were some things that could have been done design wise that would have added more parking without destroying the ambiance of the neighborhood. And that would be the one thing that would have been done better. Speaker 6: Yeah. For me, I think the the Del Monte Project, you know, the parking obviously could be problematic and that's criticism. And I think I would look at another issue that maybe hasn't come before, but is the Harbor Clubs a very interesting issue? And I think most people support leaving it where it is. Um, so to the two issues that I recently looked at that I thought were very interesting. Speaker 5: Do you have an opinion on that Harbor Bay Club? Speaker 7: Um. Speaker 6: Well, I. I don't think I would. Speaker 8: You don't want. Speaker 0: To really. Speaker 8: You don't want to. Speaker 5: Say what's going to come before me? And I don't have an opinion because I believe, you know, some of some of the opinions have been expressed. Speaker 6: And, yeah, I would want to look review all the material before I would make a public announcement about that particular property. Speaker 8: I was thinking the city attorney might want to weigh in. Speaker 2: Yeah, I think what you have heard here is you cannot express an opinion on something that might be coming before you. So I think that's a clear direction that needs to be thought about and addressed. And I think maybe one of council member Otis questions was kind of directed that way. There is a problem in prejudging. Speaker 3: And having firm opinions before you have the facts. Speaker 2: Before you that could cause you to recuse yourself from. Speaker 0: Yeah. And I appreciate you sharing that. And in asking it that way, I think that that would have been nice to include that in your question. Well, it's important that we be fair here. Thank you. Member de started you. Speaker 8: Well I. Speaker 5: Guess I am now. Speaker 2: With. Speaker 7: Well, the question that I have just for both of you if you can just. Well, first of all, let me say thank you very much for submitting your application to serve. I will say this much, though, that Dana Macedonia Alvarez, she did a yeoman's work. And I would have preferred that she be nominated because of the work that she had done substantively and procedurally, the way in which she worked. The charter is clear, though, that it is the mayor prerogative to nominate. It make nominations. So and generally, when we get the packets, we get the backgrounds of the persons, you know, the things that you fill out. So if you could just for the public, just kind of give us, you know, the 62nd summary of who you are, you know, how long have you lived in Alameda for the public? Any pertinent background? That's all. Thank you. Speaker 2: I've lived in Alameda all total. Speaker 0: Over 30 years. Speaker 2: I have a long track record in in my community of providing surf service, volunteer service. I spent six years on the Architectural Committee for the Community of Harbor Bay, all 3000 homes and only left when I termed out. I have been chairman and am chairman of the Landscape Committee for Bal Point and it has 14 parks and integrating three landscaping plans into existing infrastructure has been a major project. I have also served on the Bal Point Board of Directors a total of four different times, twice as President, and have been responsible for a number of initiatives and policies that have put the association in a firm financial footing, as well as brought some new thinking and some new ideas and to to. Speaker 3: The. Speaker 2: Board. So in a nutshell, my child was raised in Alameda, attended Alameda schools. Speaker 3: I like it here. Speaker 6: Hi. My name is David Mitchell. As you know, I, um, I've lived in Alameda about ten years. I represent the new blood of Alameda. Really? I have five year old twins that just started Otis in kindergarten on Monday. And my my idea was to try to interject some new blood into the planning board and into volunteering here. Um, I currently own a company that produces, um, luxury home decor items and everything is manufactured in Oakland. Um, so I do have a background in design and also work really closely with architects and contractors on projects. I know how to do CAD drawings and drawings and using computer graphics, which is like illustrator and things. Um, I, I just have a real interest in seeing aluminum continue to prosper and grow and just do it in a very smart, sustainable way that makes sense for everyone that lives here. Thank you. Speaker 0: Any other questions? Member Ashcroft. Speaker 8: Just one for Ms.. Sullivan. Could you help us understand why you included the sentence in your application? I am not. And you underlined not a real person. Speaker 2: It had nothing to do with Donna. Donna, I didn't even know you were a real estate agent. It had to do with my beliefs that in some of these boards and commissions. Well, there are certain parts of being a realtor can be an asset. There's certain other parts that can be a conflict. And that's a personal feeling. And I felt it was important to say that I had no connections to any realty firm or developer. I'm really interested in representing the residents of Alameda that the character of this town and the what's important to residents is integrated with all the new opportunities and new building that is coming forward. Speaker 8: Thank you. Speaker 6: Oh, I'm sorry. I just like to mention also that in case my background seems unclear when I do, when I did submit my application, I also included a cover letter and my full resume is for you to review. Speaker 0: And those are public information. Speaker 3: Right. Speaker 8: And remember and I have some comments that I want to make when I'm over it. Does anyone else have questions or should we let these good people sit down? Speaker 0: I'd like to share that. I actually I appreciate member Otis idea of having you come here. It reminds me as to why I nominated you. I thought I think you both clearly answered the questions and are very impressive. Thank you. And I thank you for the opportunity. Speaker 3: Yes, yes, yes, yes. Speaker 6: If I may, can I have each of you explain what your experience has been in interacting with the City Border Commission or the city council or any other public activity where you had to participate or or otherwise contribute? Yeah, I'll answer that first of zero. I have never been part of a board here, participated in on the board or volunteered for anything. This is basically, like I mentioned, I'm I'm trying to interject something new to the city. I think I represent some of the families that are living here and moving here. And I do obviously, I have volunteered for my kids schools and things like that, but that has nothing to do with sort of this public forum. So. Speaker 2: I have attended council meetings under the former regime or council and mayor and found it a very, very positive experience with a couple of very small exceptions that are no longer here. So it was a really it was a good experience. I've been to planning board meetings, also a good experience some time ago and I've worked with the planning permit department, which was also. Speaker 3: A positive experience. So this is been a good city to work with. Speaker 6: I guess I should say that I have been to previous city council meetings and planning board meetings. I just have never been a nominee to any of these boards or commissions. Speaker 8: Well, I'd like to thank you both for being such good spirits. Speaker 5: Yes, thank you. I appreciate it. Speaker 8: So may I make my comments? Yes, thank you. Thank you, everybody. I know we still have some items to to cover, but thanks for all the people who are in the audience. So I want to disclose that Donna Alvarez and I have known each other a long time. Our sons played soccer together when they were little boys. They're not little boys anymore. Mine is 24. But that is not why I'm speaking out tonight. I had the opportunity over the city council's August break to reflect on Donna not being reappointed to the planning board. Donna, as we have heard, is a member who has served her community and this board with distinction. She has spent hundreds of hours or more reading, probably thousands of pages of materials over the years and familiarizing herself with the matters that came before the planning board. She would like to be reappointed, but was not. What troubles me most and again, reflection over the city over the summer, I just decided sometimes your conscious conscience dictates that you have to say what you believe and can't keep silent about it. What troubles me the most are the events that led to the mayor's decision not to reappoint Donna. It is well known that the mayor attends almost every board and commission meeting, sometimes getting up to offer public comment. But one can attribute that to a new mayor, and certainly with no previous border commission, city board or commission experience herself trying to familiarize herself with procedure. But I have also heard from a number of board and commission members that the mayor told them that she attends these meetings to see how they vote and wants to appoint people who share her political position. This concerns me as a lawyer because of what I would call a chilling effect. I want to have well-qualified individuals serving on our boards and commissions, and they don't all have to agree with my political perspective. But I want independent members who will render objective decisions based on staff report, staff reports, and that would include include the applicable, applicable laws and regulations. Public testimony, meeting with applicants, meeting with residents. It's all the things we do in the course of preparing to make a decision rather than voting the way they think the mayor wants them to in order to be reappointed. The city council and the city are better served by this course of action. And of course, the city council always has the ability to call a board or commission decision for review. That's essentially an appeal, as is being done this evening, later in this agenda. This is not just my personal opinion. Since I returned in August from a vacation in August, I have heard from a number of not only members of the community, but other members of boards and commissions who shared similar sentiments about Donna not being reappointed, including this one, and I'm quoting The mayor's recent action also dismisses the investment of all city board volunteers and represents a dangerous path. With rare exception, past mayors have expressed their appreciation to all of the many volunteers required to run this city effectively, even those with whom they disagreed. The failure to renominate Ms.. Alvarez is a corrosive and divisive decision that sends a warning to all board members to comply with the mayor's specific agenda or be removed. This requirement to mimic the mayor the mayor's views and echoes the mayor's voice or be dismissed is the opposite of representative representative government. This is not about mayor's prerogative. It is about a process that should not be endorsed. And that's the end of the quote. What I would say to my fellow colleagues is I think there's a couple of ways we could proceed. I would love to see the mayor reverse her decision and reappoint Donna. But failing that, I would ask that we think carefully about the votes we're about to take on the nominees that have been put before us. Thank you. Speaker 0: Iran's man. Brody. Speaker 5: Thank you, Manama. So I just kind of want to take what my colleague just just said and take it one step further. You know, I, too, am really distressed over the fact that Ms.. Alvarez was not reappointed in the planning board meetings. You know, I've shown, you know, she was probably the most independent and the one that probably disagreed the most with the majority of the board. So, I mean, if we're looking for someone who has an independent voice and looks at things differently, then, you know, I think we have that person already there. And, you know, why why replace them? I do appreciate everyone who applies from board and commission. And, you know, we're very similar to, you know, we do this on a volunteer basis. We do have to run through a campaign that's not a, you know, a ten minute interview with with the five of us, but it takes a special breed to actually volunteer. So. And, you know, listening to the people talk, I can't recall any time since I've been here that, you know, while Jacobs, Nancy Gordon, John Knox, White, Mike Henneberry and Larry Zupan all agreed on one thing. And that one thing was that, you know, the best person to be on the planning board is. So I think and I kind of disagree a little bit with my colleague, Mr. De Saag, while the mayor does have the right to appoint and nobody is taking that right away from her, nobody's nominate. I mean, nobody's taking that away. But we also have a duty and an obligation to confirm. And I take that obligation seriously. And, you know, to this day, I have not voted against any of the mayor's appointments. So I don't have any issue with, you know, this mayor and her appointees. I just have an issue with this one. So we have, you know, a couple of choices here. We could rubber stamp these two appointments, which, you know, we may, in fact. Well, do we could, you know, pick one of the two and encourage, you know, a reopening of of one. You know, I don't know if I could pick one of the two because, you know, they both had, you know, some very good answers to the questions, you know, or we could say, let's reject both of them and let the mayor go back and pick, you know, which one of the two she wants to bring back and hopefully reconsider reappointing Donna. But at this point, you know, I, I do not intend on on voting in favor of these, because I think Donna should be one of the people on this list. Speaker 0: So first I'd like to share. I appreciate Ms.. Alvarez's service for the past two years. I take the nomination process very seriously. Myself along with a staff member interviewed personally. Almost every single person that applied for every commission, including those that were seeking reappointment. I attend the meetings of. Speaker 3: Of. Speaker 0: Ten many commission and board meetings. I listen to the public as they speak. I try to. I tried to. Here coming with these nominations. I tried to make very what I would call fair and balanced nominations that best will meet the needs of our community moving forward. I'd like to share that. I did ask for reappointment of, in fact, all other candidates that were seeking reappointment. There was a suggestion that I was not reappointing anyone that the prior administration had appointed. That's not true. And and I appreciate that member already had of Mr. Mitchell and Ms.. Sullivan speak today. First thing I had, I had never met either of them before. I was very impressed with their answers during the interview process, and I was very impressed again today with their answers. In regards to another member's comments that I only appoint people that share my political perspectives. I don't believe that is true. If you look at all of the other people that have been renominated, we do not necessarily agree on on political issues. What I was looking for truly was an interview process similar to what people would be asked to go through when applying for a job, because this is very serious to our community. And and and I appreciate that some people may disagree with me on this. I would encourage. You know, the applications are here, they're public information. And I'd also encourage people to attend these meetings. And I'm confident I stand by my nominations and I hope that council will support my nominations. Speaker 3: Yes. Speaker 7: I am saddened that Ms.. Alvarez was not renominated by Mayor Spencer. But my reading of the charter. The charter clearly says that it is the mayor who nominates certain positions. And whether one chooses to call that politics or not. You know, if the mayor has a certain agenda in mind. Then. Speaker 3: Oh. Speaker 7: That is that comes with the territory of elections. Elections have consequences. So she has nominated these two individuals who on paper and in person, in my opinion, are qualified to serve on the planning board in lieu of not nominating Ms.. Alvarez. So I'm ready and willing to support the appointments. I would have preferred that Ms.. Alvarez receive the nomination. But the charter is clear about the process that is in place. Speaker 3: Yes. Speaker 6: I think. Speaker 9: That we've had some discussion here. Speaker 6: About some points that go to people's qualifications. I did look at the applications of all the people who applied, and we have very qualified candidates here. I appreciate the candidates and the nominees and Mr. Rudy's initiative to have the public here and present themselves as they will be serving with the city where I diverged in opinion from the planning board was not on their ability to fulfill the law. It was on the application of discretionary decisions. Speaker 9: On our housing element. Speaker 6: Which in my opinion, has over a zoned the entire northern waterfront of the city and of the application and compliance with our density bonus ordinance, which this Council had to add to additionally clarify. I'm confident that these two nominees can do the task. And I think it will be healthy at the discussion level in the planning board to have some new faces of. I am glad, Miss Sullivan. And I'll take her at a word for it that her remark about not being a realtor was not meant to disparage Ms.. Alvarez. I will not stand for any member of a board of disrupting or acting otherwise unprofessional with their colleagues when they get there. So I hope that that case is closed. I'd like us to go forward and hit the challenges that we have in front of us, especially with planning, especially with dealing with with the over zoning of the city. Speaker 9: And especially with managing the. Speaker 6: State mandate of a density bonus that has contributed to some of these difficulties. Speaker 0: Their emotion. Speaker 7: I'll move the nominees or the planning board is 11 and Mr.. Speaker 6: Mitchell was second. Speaker 0: All of us in favor? Speaker 3: I suppose. Speaker 5: No, no. Speaker 0: Motion passes 3 to 2. Thank you. Speaker 1: Now, if the council could just have all of the people who have been officially added in to come on up, to take the oath really quickly, we will juggle them in. And I'm. And again, their room. Speaker 2: But. I'm. Speaker 3: I do. Thank you. He had a. Speaker 2: Oh. Speaker 8: Good luck. Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah. Speaker 4: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Speaker 3: Yeah. Speaker 6: I was just getting back home. Speaker 8: Not for the first day with Peters. Speaker 6: She couldn't. She couldn't go. She. Me. Speaker 3: Yeah. Speaker 0: So now we're going to proceed with a sexy. Speaker 1: Review of 100 room hotel development at the Harvard Business Park. This is a public hearing considered appeal by Unite here of the Planning Boards Final Development Planning Design Review for construction of 100 room hotel at 2350 Harbor Bay Parkway and Mayor Spencer's call for review of the Planning Board Action and adoption of a resolution documenting the Council

Regular Agenda Item

Adoption of Resolutions Appointing Arnold Brillinger and Reappointing Susan Deutsch as Member of the Commission on Disability Issues; Appointing David Mitchell and Sandy Sullivan as Members of the Planning Board; Reappointing Daniel Hoy as a Member of the Public Art Commission; Appointing Ronald Limoges and Adam Trujillo as Members of the Recreation and Park Commission; and Reappointing Chris Miley as a Member of the Transportation Commission.

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_09012015_2015-1950

Speaker 1: Review of 100 room hotel development at the Harvard Business Park. This is a public hearing considered appeal by Unite here of the Planning Boards Final Development Planning Design Review for construction of 100 room hotel at 2350 Harbor Bay Parkway and Mayor Spencer's call for review of the Planning Board Action and adoption of a resolution documenting the Council Action. Speaker 0: Vice Mayor. Speaker 6: Madame Mayor and Council. I will have to recuse myself due to a conflict of interest or potential conflict of interests. Speaker 3: Yes. Speaker 0: Which means for those of you that don't know, it means that here you will not. He can't sit here during the discussion at all and also cannot vote. Speaker 8: You explain why he. Speaker 0: He he said that he was recusing himself. He has a conflict of interest. Speaker 8: Because he owns a business. Speaker 0: For that. Well, that's the first thing. I don't. Sure. They don't. Speaker 8: I think it's the public's right to know. Okay. Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. All right. You may continue. Speaker 11: Reading, Madam Mayor. Members of the council. My name is Andrew Thomas. I'm the city planner for the city of Alameda. And I am here tonight to run through. I'm going to just go through five slides quickly to give you an overview of the situation before you tonight and our recommendation, I'm then available to answer questions. The applicant on this project is also here with her representatives. They don't have a presentation, but they're available to answer any questions that you might have as well. The Appellant Unite here is also available here tonight. I'm sure we'll be speaking. So what we have the issue before you tonight is the planning board's approval and final decision to approve a the Marriot Fairfield in here in alameda. It's located on harbor bay parkway. And the two issues that are really being brought to you tonight are the appellant is arguing that the parking there was approved by the planning board is not consistent with the zoning and they are arguing that the city did not use the right a process under the California Environmental Quality Act or as we like to call it, um, Mayor Spencer and I won't speak for the mayor called it for review. And I believe based on my conversations that her concern also overlapped with, you know, I here and it was really about not the square piece but the parking. So I'm just going to focus on parking and CEQA in this presentation where. Speaker 0: You proceed, could you just explain a little procedurally that the planning board approved the project? Speaker 3: Yes. Speaker 0: And and then there were two appeals filed, one by myself and one by Unite. Is that. Speaker 11: There? Unite here. Speaker 0: You're not here. And in which case, the Planning Board's decision to approve the project the way it was at the Planning Board level would stand unless there were three votes. My understanding to support an appeal, to support one of the appeals. Speaker 2: Men in council. That is correct. The charter requires that the Council act by three votes. So three of you will have to take an action. If you fail to take any kind of an action for whatever reason, then the planning board decisions would remain. Speaker 0: The people that are for the project. You may want to clarify your for the way it was when it was at the planning board level. I can tell by looking at these slips that some of you may be confused on what's in favor of versus as opposed. Speaker 11: And let me just say just right off the bat here, so you have a planning board approval. I'm going to just quickly describe what they did. The the council has a few options. You can just a what are the staff recommendation is to just uphold the decision. We think they made the right decision. You can also amend that decision tonight right here on the floor. So if you want to change something about what they did, you can basically re approve the project with a slight change. Your third option, if three of you agree, is to remand it back to the planning board for some specific change if you want them to consider a change. So let me just quickly make sure that everybody in the room understands what the actual project is. It's, as I said, a new a brand new hotel Harbor Bay Business Park on Harbor Bay Parkway. It's a 100 rooms. The reason that the staff supported this project and recommended approval to the planning board and the reason the planning board approved it, I think there's a number of reasons. But just very quickly, this is an important piece we believe, to support the continued evolution of the business Park Harbor Bay. Business Park. It will be one of our top five commercial tax generators once it's built and occupied. It is finishing the Shoreline Park and Bay Trail, which is between it and the water. It is designed to be basically a building in a park because it is surrounded on its waterfront side by an urban park. It is surrounded on two sides by urban park. And then, of course, there's the office buildings that are across the street from it. We designed this project to really minimize parking lots because it's close to the Bay Trail and because it's close to the Shoreline Park. We wanted to reduce the amount of exposed asphalt. So there was a big emphasis on trying to minimize car large spaces paved over for cars on this particular site. So we started this conversation with the planning board and the applicant about how to really minimize the need for cars. This project is going to be served by the Harbor Bay shuttle, which runs right past its front door, which provides access between the ferry terminal and BART. It was a business park. It also will be providing its own free customer shuttle. That means anybody who stays at this hotel can just ask for it to be taken or picked up from the Oakland Airport. It can be be taken to anywhere in the business park. It can be the the customer can be taken to the ferry terminal. And this free customer shuttle will be shuttling people who would like to go to Park Street for dinner, for the movies, the hotel shuttle be providing that. So the whole idea was to minimize the need for cars for the business traveler. They are also providing a customer bikeshare program. So if you stay at this hotel, you can use one of their bikes for recreation or if you're there. And many of our hotels here in the business park I mean, excuse me, the customers in our existing hotels are actually coming to the business park and staying in these hotels because they're doing business in the business park. So they really are supporting the business park. So we're hoping they'll use the bikes to move around. Of course, they've also doing valet parking and as part of their plan, they have a and a planning board approved plan, a shot, a shared parking agreement, so that in the event that they have a big event at the hotel or an abnormal amount of cars, they'll have overflow parking essentially across the street. And the concept of the shared parking, it works very well when you have a use like a hotel which is immediately adjacent to an office park in during the weekends and at nights. The office park parking is is generally empty. Weekends and nights is when a hotel has its largest demand for parking. So it's a very nice shared arrangement. Couple just baseline zoning issues. What governs the Planning Board's decision on this is the Harbor Bay Business, Park Zoning and a development agreement between the city and the developers of the business park. So that provides the property owners in the business park with certain rights. Just so everybody in the room knows, hotels are permitted by that zoning and by that contract. So there was no debate about whether this should be this site should be a hotel or not. It is essentially pre-approved for a hotel. The height limit, this is a tall building. It's 63 feet. But the height limit on this site is 100 feet. So it's well within the height limit. What but so what is the city's discretion? What was the planning board's discretion? Their discretion was over the design of the project, the site plan for the project, which includes the parking and of course, the the determination under the California Environmental Quality Act. So I said two issues. Let's just I'm going to deal with one on each side parking. When we tackled this project right off the bat, we did a parking study, the parking analysis, and which was done by a third party outside of the city and analyzing the project said with the shuttles that already exist, with the shuttles that are being provided, this hotel needs 60 parking spaces. The zoning code requires 125. So what we did is what the planning board is. They said we will want to because of the park location, build 82 on the site, which will be more than enough to accommodate your 60 that we reject, that you will need, and then have the shared parking off site for another 43. So you add those two numbers together, you get the full zoning requirement of 125 between the shared and the onsite. Under our zoning code, the planning board even has the ability to reduce the total amount of parking. But in this case, what they did is they said, no, give us the full amount, but give it between the existing site and a shared facility. So the planning board action is absolutely consistent with the zoning. They used their discretion to decide what percentage should be on site and what percentage should be shared. That discretion and that decision was based on experience in the business park. So this is not the first hotel. It's not the first hotel that has been required to have some of their parking on site and some shared. The ratio was specifically set to match the ratio for the other hotel that has a shared parking arrangement in the Harbor Bays Business Park. So this this ratio of on site versus off site was not just a hypothetical that was sort of dreamed up by staff. It was based on experience with with the existing hotels in this business park. Your options on the parking, of course, are to uphold the planning board approval. You also have another option that's been discussed since the call for review, which is and the basic question became, well, what if she what if the property owner and operator loses their lease for the shared parking? The city's requirement and the planning board's resolution. It's a requirement of the project. So she might lose the lease, but she's going to have to get another lease from somebody else in the business park. And because it's valet parking, you know, it's there's lots of parking in the business park. We were very confident that they will be able to get a lease for shared parking. But the question became, well, what maybe would be better to have the property owner purchase a piece of property? So the applicant is here tonight. She has gone out since the Planning Board's decision and acquired an option to purchase a piece of property which would allow her to build the 43 spaces on a piece of property she owns. If this council wants her to do that, that is not part of the planning board approval. Speaker 0: Member Odie. Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam Mayor. So is your presentation show where that piece of property is? Speaker 11: No, but I can tell you it's 1500 feet away. It's on North Loop Road. 1500 feet from this site. Once again, this is it wouldn't be a situation where the customer comes into the hotel and says, hey, don't rent a room. And they say, oh, we go park your car. 15 feet. What they would say is, okay, yes, that's great. Your room is number 302. Leave your keys with us. We are going to park your car in our parking area. So they would then valet park at that space. Speaker 5: So my understanding is that the lot she has the option on, it's next to the Gardiner preschool. Yes. At the end of the Cantu Mar Association. Exactly. Three houses or four houses? Speaker 11: Exactly. Speaker 5: One of them used to be mine. Speaker 11: But no longer. Yes. Speaker 5: So I can vote. I'm not accused. So it's that that that small piece of property between the Gardiner and where the. That's right. Where the there's some new construction. Speaker 11: V.F. South Campus is under construction right now, next to it. Speaker 5: Close to Mr. Hager's house. Speaker 0: And can you explain the 43 that would be leased? How many feet away is that? Speaker 11: Well, she doesn't have that lease yet. The way the planning board condition of approval is written is you cannot occupy this hotel till we see your executed lease. Her hope is to have it as close as possible because it will be as as convenient as possible. Speaker 0: Is there a radius within which the leased spaces need to be? Speaker 11: They should be within. We like to have them within a thousand feet. Speaker 5: Toby. You so the owner can't occupy if she doesn't have that leash. So, I mean, worst case scenario, the attorneys are supposed to think worst case. We have this brand new building that can't be occupied sitting on the waterfront. The owner cannot get this lease from anywhere. And then we're stuck with an empty building. I mean, is that that theoretically possible? Speaker 11: Theoretically. It's a good question. And what you could I think an easy fix to that problem would it would be for the council to say, you could do this tonight, change that condition so the trigger is not occupancy, but building permit. So before we even give you approval to start construction, show us a lease. So that way at least we know we have it. We see a lease. It's for ten years. It's like, okay, go ahead, start building your building. You know, you're good for the first ten years. Speaker 5: I mean, the owner is not going to expend all that money, you know, without having a lease. But. But practically speaking. But, you know, theoretically. Okay, thanks. Speaker 11: Okay. I'll just let me just last word on if you decide as a council to require the offsite parking spaces, what what we would what I would advise that you do is you make it a condition of approval that she acquire it and get the design review approval for the improvements. I mean, it's a vacant lot so as to be paved, needs to be landscaped, trim lighting. And the reason the design review is important, not just so we make sure it looks nice, but also that's the opportunity to to notify the neighbors adjacent to it. So if she fails to be able to get approval of design review because all of a sudden we have a huge problem with the neighbors don't want it, then it would cause the project to be reassessed. Speaker 0: And what is the zoning of that property? Speaker 11: It's the same as this. It's a commercial zoning, it's a sqm, commercial manufacturing, zoning. Speaker 8: So I have a question. Mr. Thomson, maybe you're getting to this. You seem to be talking a lot about the owner having an option to purchase, a lot to use solely as surface parking. But my reading of the staff report and the staff reports for the planning board that were attached as exhibits all talk about the disadvantages of having a dedicated asphalt lot in a in a business park that friends the water. So I hope you're going to talk about that because if you don't, I will. Speaker 11: Well, let me let me explain just a little bit. Background this, you know, the issue of parking obviously came up that the planning book or since we're talking a lot about the planning board tonight they took six months on this. So you know this plant your planning board works very, very hard and they make sure that we have the best project. So during this series, I think we had 3 to 4 public hearings on this. The issue of shared parking and permanent parking came up and the applicant early in the process said, Look, if you want me to go by a lot, I'll go by a lot. City staff, me and the rest of the staff. Our recommendation to the planning board and to the applicant was like, No, don't go and buy a piece of the business park to pave over for a parking lot for two reasons. One, we think you have plenty of parking on your site, just even on your site. Forget about the shared on your site to accommodate your need if you need overflow. We think it's going to be occasionally. And we've got tons of asphalt all around your site for the for the office buildings and they're not using their asphalt . So let's have you share their asphalt rather than paving over more. And that site that she has the option on, it's small, but it's the opposite. It has it's a lost opportunity. I mean, we want businesses and jobs in the business park, not parking lots. So it's we were our reaction, our recommendation was, no, let's not require this. We are comfortable. We have experience in this city with other hotels in the business park and on Park Street with shared parking. It it works. So it was not our recommendation. But at the end of the day, you know, if it's something the council wants to do, we think this the benefits to the community of the entire project are big. For all the reasons I stated. Was it our recommendation to do it now? It wasn't, but we only make recommendations. We need you to make the tough decisions. Speaker 0: And. Speaker 5: Brody Thank you, Madam Mayor. So just to be clear, though, the neighbors that would have a parking lot outside their master bedroom, windows with lights and nonsense that goes on at night and no security or yes, security. I mean, they don't know any this is the first time they've heard that they may have a parking lot outside their window. Speaker 11: Unless they're listening on TV right now, they don't know yet. Speaker 5: And they might have the same. And they'll come to us with light pollution concerns like like Mr. Hager has come to us with. Speaker 11: So that's why. Speaker 5: So I mean, what if the community and the council decide they want to go, not with the shared parking, they want to go with the permanent parking. I mean, what's the path forward? I mean, what what are our options? Speaker 11: This is what I would recommend. I would recommend that you direct staff to and basically use the way you would. What you would do is you would say, all right, we want to move forward this hotel. We want to change the planning board's parking plan. So you would condition you say we would like to change this condition. We would like that permanent parking lot as a condition on this project. So the condition would read the following before getting a building permit. The current condition before occupying the building, you need a lease. And we want might want to change that to we want to get you released before building permit. Take the exact same approach. Before you can get a building permit, you need to do two things. You need to get the the property purchased. You need to design your parking lot and your lighting. You need to get design review approval from the city of Alameda. What that means is city staff, planning staff sends a notice to the neighbors and says, hey, we have a proposal to put a parking lot here and here's where the lights are going to be. Here's where the landscaping is going to be. We would obviously design it to buffer, but there's going to be concerns, you know, all sorts of concerns about parking lots from those neighbors, as they should. They should be involved. We should notify them and talk about that. If she gets her design review approval, everybody's like, okay, we're comfortable. She gets it. Then she can walk in the next day and we can issue her a building permit. If she cannot, now the project is stuck. She has to then come back to this council. We have to have another hearing here and go, okay, project is stopped in its tracks. What do we want to do? That parking lot that we thought was a good idea on September 1st. Turns out it's not such a good idea. Speaker 5: So we could send it back to the planning board or I mean, is there some other in a way to keep this project moving and still have some change in the parking or. Speaker 11: Yes. I mean, that's that's what I just described, is you just change the parking plan to. You know, the other approach you could say is remand it back to the planning board to have them reexamine the entire parking program with a. Looking more seriously at the permanent space we can pursue through that. Then they could approve the entire project again, and then we could wait to see if there was another appeal. Speaker 4: Okay. Speaker 11: So there's that approach. Speaker 0: Member Ashcraft. Speaker 8: Thank you. So, Mr. Thomas, I'm just looking now at Exhibit one to your staff report. This is the at the April 13th, 2015 Planning Board Staff Report. And specifically on page four, there is a section that says staff does not think that purchasing a development opportunity site in the business park for a satellite parking lot for this hotel is necessary or in the best interests of the city or the business park for the following reasons. One development of the North Loop site for business purposes instead of for a parking lot would increase job opportunities in Alameda and increase property taxes generated by the property. Number two, the business park already has large areas paved for parking which are not fully utilized, and that could be better utilized through shared parking agreements. Number three, the planning board requested a shared parking agreement. The planning board did not request development of a satellite parking lot. And then there's also the environmental consideration that paving a lot in the business park gives you yet another impervious surface, that when you know, if we get that El Nino winter that's being predicted just helps that runoff go all the more quickly into the bay. And as you noted and in my years in the planning board, we did a number of shared parking arrangements because what a city really doesn't need is more asphalt parking lots. And as you also noted, the businesses for the most part tend to have their parking lots busy during the day, vacant during the evening, and yet this is the reverse usage of a hotel. So I just I can't tell whether there's an advocacy going on here. Speaker 3: I mean. Speaker 8: It flies in the face of everything I know about good planning. Speaker 11: The staff is not changing its recommendation. We don't think building another parking lot is in the best interests from our perspective, for the reasons you said, if this board is if the city council is concerned that the shared parking will not work in this case, then I'm just here to tell you, you have this option. You don't have to follow staff's recommendation. As I know you guys know, our recommendation tonight is to uphold the planning board's decision. That is the last sentence in the staff report. Uphold the Planning Board's decision. My board's decision has these shared parking. It does not have this. But I want you to know what your options are. And the applicant who wants to build a hotel with 100 rooms is basically through me saying to you, she will do what you on this issue. She will do what you ask her to do. What the three of you, you know, at least three of you ask her to do. I mean, if there's consensus, I don't not I don't know if there is, but I just want you to know what your options are. Speaker 0: But remember, Audie. Speaker 5: English to bring in our colleague for that vote. Right. I guess my question is. You know, my colleague just pointed out, you know, the parking is more heavy at night in a hotel. But, you know, there's two one there's two meeting rooms. Right. You know, we need more meeting rooms in Alameda. And I can imagine meeting rooms, conference facilities right there on the water can be very attractive, you know, and if we approve this project, you know, I hope they're wildly successful. And if they're wildly successful, you know, they'll be used by folks in Alameda, you know, driving there. So, I mean, I guess. I mean, that's what my kind of my concern is that, you know, even though we're going to have people come during the day. You know, we want people to come there during the day. And most people in Alameda, like when I go to Grandview for Rotary or whatever it is, you know, I drive out there and there's not a lot of parking there, you know, and when there's no event there, it's great, it's empty and you can carpool and do all that good stuff. But now I'm hoping that this is wildly successful if we approve it. And, you know, I just worry that there's not enough parking with really good meeting conference facilities. Speaker 0: And I want to clarify that the lease spaces are available in the evening only they're not for the day. When you're talking about shared parking for the audience and for all those that don't understand, we're talking about. Isn't that correct? Speaker 11: You have she doesn't have the lease yet. So that's another option available to you, is to amend that condition of approval so that it specifies that the shared parking lease needs to be 24 hours so that she has the ability to she has a an event. All of a sudden we have extra 20 cars that she has the ability to spread them around. Speaker 0: Member Ashcroft. Speaker 8: So, Mr. Thomas, going back to your April 13, 2015, planning board staff report on page five, it says the meeting rooms on the first floor are provided as an amenity for guests of the hotel. A condition of approval has been added to restrict the use of these spaces to guests to avoid the Planning Board's concerns that the use of rooms by non guests could create an overflow parking problem. Is that conditions still. Speaker 11: I the April I would have to check if that condition is still in the final approval that went to the council. Speaker 0: And while you're doing that, you need to have a motion. Well, it's almost 1030. Okay. Why don't you take. Speaker 11: That and then let me look quickly. Speaker 0: Thank you. And then we're going to have member vice mayor return to the dais at 1030. We need to have a motion to consider additional items and that requires four votes on item six. We have seven speakers and then we also have items nine A through 90 the right. Now, we weren't. Speaker 8: Going to we're doing we're. Speaker 0: Interrupting this because 1030 the motion to consider additional items and the additional items are 60 and the nine A through nine D. Speaker 8: Do we do we add. Speaker 0: So. Now this is a case of 60 is the. Clement development. And then on here it says nine A through 990. Are additional items that are on the agenda. Speaker 8: Moves that we consider additional items. After 1030, it would be unfair to all these good people who are in the audience waiting to hear the 2100 comment. So I. Speaker 5: Be I'll second. Speaker 0: That. So 60 is the amount development and then nine is the council referrals. Speaker 8: The whole rest of the agenda. Speaker 0: 9839 Dear Counsel Referrals. Speaker 8: We have a second. Speaker 3: Okay. All right. Speaker 0: Any discussion? All those in favor. I oppose a motion passed as 4 to 1. Speaker 3: Thank you. Speaker 11: See you, Frank. To answer your question. This whole during the. It's not in the planning board's resolution anymore. And it's not in the resolution upholding the Planning Board's decision. During the course of the many hearings we had. The. The issue of the need. Your point. The need for more meeting rooms. Many of the planning board members also knew about that and people talked about that. So I think I had forgotten about that. It. Staff remove that from the final planning board thing because everybody said, yeah, we actually need these rooms or others to use. They're not huge. So this is not a conference center. It's two meeting rooms that can probably hold maybe 50 each. Speaker 3: Maybe so. Speaker 11: But five. Speaker 0: Zero. Speaker 11: Then the five. I mean, they show 50 chairs all lined up. If you acted in auditorium style, if you were actually having more of a you know, then presumably you might be able to get that many people crammed in there. Speaker 0: Okay, that's. Did you have any other questions? Speaker 8: Not at this moment, but I. Speaker 11: Mean, why don't I just I have one more real slide so we move to secure, and then I can then then you can call speakers or ask more questions. But you covered the meat of the business here on parking. Okay. Last the second issue, California Environmental Quality Act. The staff recommended and the planning board approved the use of what's called the urban infill exemption. Remember, everybody should know state law, California Environmental Quality Act to look at the effect of projects on the environment. A The state legislature passed a number of amendments and guidelines over the years to try to encourage urban infill because obviously the best thing to do for the environment is focus development in the inner urban areas and not let it sprawl out into the natural areas of the state of California. So in this case, why did we recommend the urban infill exemption? Well, first of all, we are right smack in the middle of a major metropolitan area. We are a city. This is in city boundaries. The land that we are building this project on is manmade land. I mean, this has never been natural habitat. This was not you know, Indians did not live on this land 30 generations ago. This was made by us for a business park, and it is surrounded by a business park. There is no work in the water or the bay. It is separated from the bay by an urban park. There is no we had biological we have biology experts, third party experts who deal with biological impacts out on this site twice to make sure there were no burrowing owls, no no habitat on this site. I mean, this site is surrounded, as you can see, by a major road and a major chunk of Bay Trail. So it's not super and it's pretty small. So it's not surprising that endangered species haven't found it to be a great home. And this project is completely consistent of the zoning and general plan. So we absolutely believe that this is an appropriate exemption to be used as it is used throughout the city of Alameda for these kinds of projects that are consistent with the zoning on small sites in our urban area. This is the definition of urban infill. The appellant is arguing, Well, you're next, you're right next to the San Francisco Bay. So it can't be surrounded. So it's not surrounded by urban uses. There is a court case, it's which deals with this very issue in San Diego where the project is surrounded by an urban park. And the appellant said it's not surround, you know, that's not a urban use. And the court said, yes, it is. It's an urban park. We are surrounded by an urban park and a business park. So we are very comfortable and confident that this is the right use of Sequoia. And frankly, you know, this is the problem with Sequoia in California and why there's so many calls for reform of sequence, because it's being abused for reasons that have nothing to do with the environment. So we do not think this is an issue to do with the environment. We think this is an issue about this is a design issue, a parking issue, but this is not a sequel issue. And we fully support the Planning Board's decision on the sequel exemption. Speaker 0: Member authority critique. Speaker 3: Oh, I'm. Speaker 11: Sorry. And that's a recommendation. Uphold planning board action. I'm available to answer any questions and. Speaker 5: Brody Thank you, Madam Mayor. I just. It was in the staff report, but maybe for the benefit of those that didn't read it, if the city attorney can kind of describe that that case and. You know how she thinks it's analogous to the situation we have here. Speaker 0: And typically I want to ask in regards to when I look at this hotel, it looks to me like it's on the water. And I appreciate it's being referred to by staff, an urban park right there. But my guess is it's I don't know how many feet away from the water and the case that you have, I'd like to know, is it on the water or how far is it away from the water? Speaker 2: Well, the case. Speaker 0: That that Andrew referred to is very much applicable. Speaker 2: Because. The person, the entity challenging the decision. The second decision was saying that this is not a proper use. It's not an urban and the surrounding area is not an urban use. So the court ultimately held that even though the the park, which was about a over a thousand acres of open space and some water and also museums and theaters. Speaker 8: And it's Balboa Park. Speaker 2: It's Balboa Park in San Diego, if you guys are familiar with it. Speaker 0: So it's not directly on the water like this? Speaker 2: No, it's not directly on the water, although I would I would also suggest this is not directly on the water. There is a a pathway that separates it from water. Which is part of the urban park that Andrew's describing. Speaker 0: And, you know, the distance of that park from the water to the hotel. Speaker 2: I believe it's about 20 feet. Speaker 0: And the main park is more precisely. But so to me, I think that could very well be. Speaker 3: Mean. Speaker 11: If I may. I think just from a sequel perspective, The Seagull exemption says you're surrounded by urban uses. The so the question is, is it surrounded by urban uses, not how far is it from water? The question is, is it surrounded? The Balboa case is important because the appellants said, well, it's surrounded on by a park that's not an urban use. And the court said, no, an urban park is an urban use. And in this case, we are surrounded by urban uses on one side of business offices and on the other side an urban park. Now, the fact that there is a bay on the other side of the urban park is interesting, but not relevant to the question of what the Sequoia exemption says. So we're bounded by urban uses. Speaker 0: And we're being asked to make a specific finding. That secret does not apply because this advice. Correct? Right. We're being asked to make a specific finding. Speaker 11: Exemption under Sequoia. Speaker 8: And just for clarification, with this same CEQA exemption have applied to the other hotel in Harbor Bay, the Hampton Inn. Speaker 2: I believe that. Speaker 3: Is what we used. Yes. Yes. Speaker 0: And can you tell me how many floors is the Hampton Inn? Speaker 3: For. For. I actually don't know. So I. Andrew. Speaker 0: We could find out how many? Four and a half. And how many. Speaker 8: Floors do I hear. Speaker 0: For? How many floors is this? Speaker 2: This has. Speaker 8: Oui, oui, oui, oui. Speaker 3: Now, let me just. Speaker 11: This is a five story. 63 feet. Speaker 0: And no one knows the height of the Hampton. One thing when I look at these illustrations, I think it's nice to end this. I'm glad you have this one here, because I think you can tell by looking at this appears to dwarf everything else in the area. Is there anything else in the area that is of this height? Speaker 11: There is no other building in this neighborhood that is 63 feet. The the Palladium is 60 feet. It's not anywhere near in the neighborhood. But just to give you a sense, I mean, the the top of the historic theater thingy, you know, the big sign, I mean, I don't know what that is on top of my head , but it's it's up there in that neighborhood. Speaker 0: And can you explain why this falls under the code of our city to have a building of this height along the water? Speaker 11: The height limit is 100 feet on this site. That height limit is in the zoning for the Harbor Bay Business Park. It was adopted in the early eighties. The original vision for the Harbor Bay Business Park was, you know, multi-story office buildings. And it has ultimately built out with more one and two story buildings that you see out there today more trucking, more warehousing and less office building. But that was the original vision upon which the zoning was created. That zoning was then consummated through what I mentioned earlier, which is called the development agreement. So that's where the property owners get those rights guaranteed over the long term. So for a 20 to 30 years in this case until 2019. And the reason they do that and the reason the city enters into a development agreement in this case is it was 25 years ago where the developers of Harbor Bay built us an entire waterfront Shoreline Park and all of the roads and all of the infrastructure for Harbor Bay, because we guarantee that we not any of us, but the council and in this eighties said, yeah, we want all of that stuff upfront. You built all of it for us and we promise not to change the rules on you later. You will be able to build your business park even if it takes you 20 years to do it. So that's why the height limit of 100 feet and the why I keep mentioning the developer agreement at the planning board and the council is, you know, they have certain rights and they they they paid money and invested in this property for us and all of our enjoyment 20 years ago on the assurance that we wouldn't change those rights. Their vision at that time, the council's vision at that time was this entire business park would be filled with up to ten storey office buildings. As it turns out, that's not what they did. But that's why 63 foot building is 40 feet less than what's actually permitted by the zoning on this site. Speaker 0: So is there a way for council to revisit that height issue, if not on this piece of property on any other pieces of property out there in 2019? Speaker 11: Yes. Not until the Belmont Agreement is expired. I believe it's 2019. Speaker 0: And that's for all. Speaker 11: Recollections of 2019. It's been 20 years since. Well, it's 20 years ago. We signed that agreement. Speaker 3: Bill. Speaker 0: Thank you. Any other questions? Counsel. Any other questions? Member. Speaker 5: Thank you. I just have one request of the speakers and I'm really interested in hearing the opinions on the shared parking versus the permanent lot. Speaker 0: I don't know. Could you say that a little louder so they can hear? Speaker 5: If the audience has the public comments, have opinions on the shared parking versus the permanent lot, I'd be really interested in hearing those thoughts. Speaker 0: And then I would clarify the shared parking at night versus shared parking 24 hours. All right. And I'm going to call the names of the speakers now, Gary Thompson and then Kerry Thompson and then Robert Sanger. Speaker 4: Hello. My name is Gary Thompson. Thank you for hearing me tonight. I live at 88 Red Oak Road and in the Kent Moore Association. And I'm on the board of directors also, although I'm here tonight as an individual, the homeowner, the homeowners behind, behind V.F. have been in an ongoing run with them over this light cast onto the back of our houses by headlights from cars day and night and their development. And I'm happy to see that most of it's been mitigated. They've done various things that have helped out, but the traffic and that is a big issue, especially these parking lots you're talking about. And I happen to believe that what you have here is this. This is just a poor spot for a hotel. That lot is not big enough. I think that they're kidding themselves if they think that the traffic, all these people are going to take shuttles and the shuttles are going to run people around, I don't think it's going to happen. They're going to have a bar and a restaurant. They're going to have weddings, they're going to have meetings. If it becomes a very popular place, people are going to drive over there. And I just think that we're not against the development of the properties over there. We just think this was a poor choice, that five storey height, there's nothing like it. From the back of our homes, we will be receiving direct broadcast light onto the back of our homes. And I don't see any way to mitigate that from the hotel. The businesses at the park right now, they come to work in the morning about six and they go home at six. That hotel is going to be over there running 724 with a bar, a restaurant, meetings, shuttles, running back and forth. And I just think it is just a unless a parking situation and traffic situation is addressed. And also, I'm very concerned about the direct lighting. At at five storeys, it will direct light over the office buildings that are they are now directly broadcast right into the back of our homes. When we first moved in there, the light was so bright in my back yard I could read a newspaper at midnight. And I just think that the the light mitigation, the the cars, the parking, all of the extra activity, it just doesn't fit out there. Those are beautiful places. The Stacey Whitbeck property, a beautiful place, V.F.. The work they have done there are two storeys high. They're very tastefully done. And this is just not a place for that hotel. And I just don't see how you're going to make it work. Thank you very much. Speaker 0: Carey Thompson. Thank you very much. Speaker 2: Good evening. I'm Kerry Thompson. I am the past president of the Chamber of Commerce and the current Chairperson of the Government Relations and Economic Development Committee of the Chamber of Commerce. I am also a resident on Bay Farm Island. I live at 3016, Linda Vista, and I urge you to reject this appeal. Number one, I just think that it's we're taking steps back. We've really made progress in showing businesses that we are ready to move forward in Alameda, that we're making progress, you know, by approving site A, by approving the Del Monte Project. We've been making great strides and this is a step backwards later on in the agenda. Councilmember de Sade has a referral on the agenda to increase the transit occupancy tax, which 100% goes to the city. This hotel would generate quite a bit of tax. So would the future hotel on site. So these are also things to consider. I think as a resident, my family sometimes comes to visit. If we don't have room. When there's a lot of us coming together, we try to find another place to be. The Hampton is usually full. We do need another place. And that is not an unattractive building. You know, this is planning board. The planning board has put a lot of work into making sure that designs fit well into Alameda and in actually it looks iconic. I don't think that it is unattractive. I think I can actually imagine coming on the ferry home from a long day's work or if you were visiting in the city, what a nice thing actually to look at is it's not bland, boring office buildings. It is something different and it's kind of nice. I think it enhances it. Are the hotel that is being proposed there, the people that are wanting to put it there have been working. And I think you guys are wasting their time. And I don't think that that's very fair if the planning board is doing their job, which they did. And I think to now revisit a height thing, after all, you know, that's not the reason that you put it on the appeal. So I think that's gone and done. So I just you know, they are providing shuttles. This is not a pie in the sky thing. They are providing them. Whether or not people utilize them, that's up to them. But they are providing them to the airport, to the various business districts, to South Shore, to wherever it is they're wanting to go. They're providing it. They're doing everything they can. So I don't think that it's right that you reject this project. Thank you. Speaker 0: I have a question that was raised by the last speaker. When when I file an appeal is my understanding. I do not have to specify any grounds so that I would not be precluded from can. Is that correct? Speaker 2: I'll address that. So in terms of best practices. What you just said is exactly right, because you don't really want to take a position on something that's going to come before you. It goes to the whole bias. You are not taking a position until you hear the evidence. There's a little bit of a cleanup job that we have to do in our current municipal code. The section that deals with appeals seems to suggest that you have to say, have a. Speaker 0: Reason. Speaker 3: For. That's something that staff will. Speaker 2: Bring back and clean up. But what we've been telling you guys is, no, you don't have to specify your reasons, because it could be construed. Speaker 0: As you having. Speaker 2: Taken a position on why you're against or for the project. So we've been advising council members and the mayor, too, to keep a more general. Speaker 8: So when I read here in this staff report for this meeting on page two that on July 23, 2015, Mayor Spencer formally called the Planning Board decision for review, citing concerns about whether the project met the city's parking requirements. What what does that tell me? Speaker 2: I believe in private conversations with Andrew. She expressed some concerns about the parking, but when she filed her call for review, she didn't say she didn't take a position about parking or anything else about the project. She just called it for review, saying, I want it to come back or come before before the council to to revisit the issues and say. Speaker 8: And it was just an oral request. There was nothing. Speaker 0: No, it was an email. Speaker 2: No, it was it went through the right channels of one to its original request. Speaker 0: But during the appeal. Speaker 8: I didn't see it. Was it? It wasn't. Speaker 2: I believe it was an email. So it was in writing and it went to either the planning staff or the or possibly Laura as well. Speaker 8: So maybe this is a housekeeping issue, but how then would one prepare to address an appeal if one doesn't know what the grounds are for the appeal? Speaker 2: Well, in terms of an appeal, it's a little it's a little different from calling something. Speaker 3: Out for review. Speaker 2: So when Unite Here filed their appeal, they had a very kind of detailed letter that laid out various grounds, three grounds for their appeal. But in terms of. Calling something for for review which council members and planning board members do from time to time its in terms of best practices. And I've consulted with other cities and and in fact the city of Berkeley has something very specific in their code that says do not say why. If you're going to call something. Speaker 3: Up for review, just. Speaker 2: Call it up for review. If I can jump in here as well, it is a de novo review on a call for on a call for review. So it is open at to have anything addressed. Thank you. The unfortunate part about it is if we don't if staff doesn't have an idea of what it is, then the Speaker 3: . Staff report, as you can see, was. Speaker 2: Addressing the parking issue and of course, the appeal that was done, which was sequence and parking. So that was all put in the staff report. But the. Speaker 3: Mayor, by. Speaker 2: Calling it. Speaker 3: Does have a de novo. You can. Speaker 0: You can you put that in English so that the ordinance that. Speaker 2: Is talking about it means that you start again. I mean, you had the whole thing in. Speaker 3: Front of you for this this. Speaker 2: Board to be able to look at all of the facts. Speaker 0: Thank you, Mayor Brody. Speaker 5: I think that was my question. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I mean, can we address other things that weren't brought up in the appeal besides sequent parking, like, for example, the light in the reflection and, you know, the issues? Speaker 3: The only thing. Speaker 2: I would say is let's take care. There are two things that are happening here. There's an appeal by United Local, which is on specific made here. And then there is the call for review from the mayor, which is kind of. Speaker 8: Open. Speaker 3: Ended, opens the door. Okay. Speaker 2: Looking at the project and. Speaker 8: Okay. Should we at some point here are the speakers. I guess the rest of the speakers were then they're. Speaker 2: There any other. Speaker 8: Oh, we'll. Speaker 0: Call you Robert Sanger. Chris and then Chris Clark and then Joy Bose. Speaker 9: Good evening. My name is Robert Sanger. I'm regional vice president of Lodging Development for Marriott International. I'd like to take this opportunity just to really convey how we are very supportive and very excited about this waterfront development project. As you see before you, it'll be a five story iconic building, as the previous speaker mentioned. This will be a beacon on the bay coming from San Francisco on the ferry. We're very excited about this project. To address your concern regarding parking, we we feel that 82 spaces are more than sufficient to service this hotel operation of this size, particularly given the location being proximate to Auckland Airport. I'm a frequent business traveler. I travel on a weekly basis. I try to stay at hotels near the airport and if I don't have to rent a car, I'll take the shuttle to the hotel. And I see a lot of business travelers staying at the airport hotels, near airport hotels, so they don't have to pay the high taxes that go along with the rental. Not to mention the time they take to fill up the gas tank and check in and check out. It's it's not an efficient time use of my time when traveling for business. The other thing, too, is that at at the young age of 82, Mr. Marriott visits over 200 hotels worldwide. And I'm confident that this will be on his world tour when this hotel opens up. It's a project that I think the city and the community will be very proud to have. Beyond the bricks and mortar, I think we need to look at the developer as well. I mean, a Patel is a proven developer and operator with Marriott. She's a valued partner. She's built beautiful hotels in Texas. This is her first project in California. And we hope to build more with Mena Marriott. It's very involved in the communities that we serve, where we operate hotels, we have our spirit to serve program. And our other mantra is take care of our employees. Our employees will take care of our guests and our guests will continue to come back. If you look at me as a hotel operator, she embraces and practices that philosophy. At the end of the day, it's all about making money and keeping the tax dollars here in Alameda as opposed to going to Auckland airport. I think the guests will find that this is an attractive destination. Thank you for your time. Speaker 0: Thank you. Chris Clark. Speaker 5: I think we all need coffee in this place. Speaker 4: Thank you for having me. My name's Chris Clark. Speaker 5: I'm from Amarillo, Texas. Mayor Thank you for having me. Speaker 4: Council members The reason I'm here and the reason I left my wife and kids at home. Speaker 5: This morning. Speaker 4: Is because this family not only. Has built several. Speaker 5: Properties in the Texas area that were amazing. Speaker 4: But they're an amazing employer. I worked for him. Speaker 5: For many. Speaker 4: Years. Speaker 5: And I'd still be working for him if they would still have the hotel that I worked at. Speaker 4: But they ended up selling that hotel and I am doing something different. So when Mina called. Speaker 5: Me and gave me the opportunity to come speak on her behalf, of. Speaker 4: Course I did in a heartbeat. Not only were. Oh four out of my five kids born when I was working for her. Speaker 5: But every time my wife needed me during those pregnancies, I was home. Every time I. Speaker 4: Was short of money, she took care of me. I didn't have to ask anytime I needed anything. These people were here for me. They're amazing people to work for. Speaker 5: But not only that, they're amazing people to have in your city. Anything you ask her to do, she'll probably do for you. Speaker 4: She's an amazing person. So is her husband. So is her family. That's the most I could say now listening to the parking thing in the meeting space. I was a. Speaker 5: Sales guy at a hotel for 18 years. Speaker 4: I've seen a lot of these projects. I've never actually seen the parking lot full, even when the meeting space is mainly. Speaker 5: Because those conference rooms in these types of hotels, they're built for smaller conferences, smaller board meetings, things like that. Speaker 4: And a. Speaker 5: Lot of times you're using it for corporate entities that are probably. Speaker 4: Offices across the street, but they want to have a small. Speaker 5: Meeting in their hotel. So I don't see that being an issue, and I haven't seen that in an issue in the past. Even with the other Fairfield that she did build. Speaker 4: It's pretty much identical to this one. That's it. Thank you so much for having me. Speaker 3: Thank you. Speaker 4: Get coffee. Speaker 0: Joy. Both those Daniel Brady and then Sophie Dromi. Speaker 3: Yes. Speaker 9: Hi. Good evening. About Amir and members of the City Council. I work at Penumbra Inc. I'm head of marketing operations there. And I'm here just to speak about my personal experience and my team's personal experience. We moved into the business park in 2007 and we've been a regular client of the Hamptons. We love working with them. And as you some of you may know, our business has expanded. We have about 1000 employees now, but our sales force has expanded, our customer base expanded. Everything was okay till about when VF moved in, which is about three or four years ago, if I'm not mistaken. And now repeatedly, about 10 to 15 times a year, I don't have any rooms to hold any meetings. Now, most 99% of our meetings are guests, so it's our sales reps who come for a meeting. Speaker 4: At our corporate headquarters or it's. Speaker 9: Physicians. We're a medical device company. It's physicians who come to attend a meeting. We use busses. We right now, when they stay in San Francisco, I hire borrow a limo to shuttle a bus full of people over to Alameda. No one wants to rent cars. We as a company actually tell our employees to use the shuttles because it's not ideal for them to go rent cars. Also, when we have the ability to hold groups staying at the business park, it adds to a community feeling because in the evening we can hold events in the in the city of alameda, trabuco ever since they opened and the South Shore Mall, we have had about ten events there because it's easy for us to do that when we have our people staying offsite in either Oakland or San Francisco. It's hard to do that because then after dinner, you have to then. Take them back to the hotel off site in January. I have a 100 room block and I had to go to GW because there's absolutely no way I can do an event like that in Alameda. So I just wanted to share my experience. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. We need a motion that requires three votes to continue the meeting past 11. Speaker 8: So moved. Speaker 0: Do you have a second? Speaker 8: We need. Speaker 0: Frank. Oh. Speaker 3: Yes. Thank you. Yeah. Okay. Yeah, we need. Speaker 4: Right. Speaker 2: Now. We need a. Speaker 0: Motion to continue past 11. And how did you move? Speaker 8: I moved in to Tony. I mean, Councilmember de. So did you. Speaker 3: Second? No. Speaker 0: Okay. So, yeah. Member de SAC seconded. All those in favor, I suppose. Motion passes 4 to 1. Speaker 2: Thank you. All right, Frank. Speaker 3: Thank you. Lina would be proud. Speaker 6: Had a mayor, members of the council, Dan Reedy here for the Harbor Bay Business Park Association. I did distribute to the members of the council a a copy of a resolution and also a letter. So their part of the record, I don't think we have to restate it, but I would like to summarize a couple of points in the resolution and then make some other comments from from my longer letter that the business park asked me to write. We did have a meeting of the Members General membership of the Bay Business Park Association, and just ten days ago or so on the 19th of September and there was a briefing about the new hotel. A year ago it was talked about as a dream. Then everyone said, you know where it is now, and also about the appeal. And so the members who were there were the property owners and the major companies are the members of the at large. They were very interested and showed appreciation about the hotel, similar to what you heard here about that would support some of their business activities. And also that they heard about the, you know, the income because looking they're hoping that some of that income that the city would have would come back for infrastructure improvements of the roads in the business park, which are on hold because of lack of funding. So there was interest and this would help jumpstart the business park. But then when they heard about the appeal. Like a lightning rod. This sequel issue really came up. And so let me just paraphrase part of what's in the resolution. When they hurt, they became concerned as if the planning board had not followed sequence properly and that there would have to be more sequel analysis, more environmental analysis going forward. And they were concerned that if the if the here if the appeal were approved, that would become like a precedent for subsequent activity, because there are still a number of larger parcels left in the business park. Many of the bigger firms bought more property than they needed. So there are other parcels around that, as well as the land going out toward the ferry terminal in the Esplanade development. And so people were concerned that they'd say, Well, do we have to have more sequel? When in 1989, when they did the business park, we did in a big addendum to the air. And so the rest of the of the build out of Harbor Bay is now a cluster of little projects, each of which gets a sequel analysis. There was a sequel analysis looking at as a whole because you could look at it the traffic, the storm drainage, the infrastructure, the nature of the land. It were all the same. So it wasn't like different parts of things so that each of them have to get a new sequel. You already had a big sequel. And so in the development agreement it says there will be no more sequel analysis required to finish the build out of Harbor Bay, which would have been the homes that weren't built yet, and the still at that point, empty parcels in the business park. So a number of the members became concerned. They said, let's get a resolution, get speakers here to talk to you, because some of them were concerned that that would perhaps stymie or delay or confuse their their hoped development as they would finish out their projects in the business park. So in our resolution at the at the end, there's a strong the association unanimously the members, you know, voted they would recommend that the city council uphold the planning board's resolution approving the final development plan and design review. And and they deny the appeal. Also our Business Park Association has an architecture review committee. And so we worked with the planning staff and the planning board through the different iterations because they kept improving the plan and that the Architecture Review Committee of the Business Park has approved it and recommends that it go forward. So if you have any questions, but I definitely want to give you the sense that our our membership is on board. We knew about the parking either the if at lot of 29 is in contract so it can be purchased if it's subject to whether you want it approved or that our manager was would facilitate connecting the ownership with the property owner. So we gave information to our manager, to the developers, how to connect with the people at the venture condos across the street or Zephyr or others nearby about their parking. So we will work with the city to try to make this happen. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. I have a question for staff. If you've raised the issue of the secret being approved, believe was it how many years ago. Speaker 11: We used a there's been as Dan was saying, there's there was a huge cordon for the entire business park development of Harbor Bay. That was done and it was updated, as he said, in 89. What we used for this so that that's right. And that document is important. I don't want to discount it. It's very important because it was the it was designed to be the final secure for everything on this site. It was also important because it helped us size it back in the eighties, the side streets, the sewer. That's what we did. We did not rely on that document for this decision. We used the secure exemption that I described to you earlier. So this is a new exemption on top of that air. And we backed it up with environmental studies done this year. Speaker 0: Okay. So does this secret normally address traffic? Is that part of a secure. Yes. The impact on the community? Speaker 2: Yes. Speaker 0: Cars. Okay. When was the last time that there was a secret that addressed traffic? Speaker 11: We looked at traffic for this project this year. Speaker 0: And staff determined that there's not traffic getting on at the Harbor Bay? Speaker 11: No, we determined that the traffic that would be generated by this by this hotel would be much less than what was originally assumed to be on this site and in this business park. Under the original development, we also determined that we will need a stoplight at the intersection of Harbor Bay Parkway and North Loop Road. And we determined that the original development agreement that was approved by the city 20 years ago actually created a funding source, too. And they envisioned they knew this was going to happen, that we were going to need these additional lights. So there's money to put those lights. Speaker 0: I appreciate that. A concern I have is and this is this is why I want to know. Yeah. Are we making a fine do it. Does this have anything to do then with traffic? Because when you try to get on and off of Harbor Bay, there's there's traffic. Speaker 11: There is absolutely traffic. This what we found is this project. It will not impact that already bad situation. Speaker 0: It will not. All right. So the finding is that building a hotel with 100 rooms employs two conference rooms. 50 that can accommodate 50 each will not impact the traffic on Harper Bay. So we're making that specific finding. Speaker 8: Were you saying over there. Speaker 11: Is over the bridge yet? Let's be clear. You have a significant impact in the mornings, during the school year, leaving from people, dropping your kids off and trying to get on and off. At that point. That's not the trips that are made for a hotel, an airport hotel. You are making a finding that there is no significant impacts being generated by this hotel that were not already identified in the original air. Speaker 0: And when was the original air? Speaker 11: In 1989. And that's when you designed the entire roadway system for into all of Harbor Bay in the seventies and then the 89 addendum. Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Okay, now I'm going to call the next speaker. Sofie. Jamie. Thank you, Ty Hudson. And then Robert Sanger. And then Pat Lambourne. Speaker 7: Hi. Good evening, Mayor and City Council. My name is Ty Hudson. I'm with Unite Here Local 2850, the appellant. Speaker 6: You're going to hear from a couple of members. Speaker 7: Of ours about why, you know, this this this hotel has very little to recommend it in terms of the sorts of jobs that it will provide. In case it's you know, in case folks are wondering why the union is against it. And you'll hear a little bit from our members about why that matters so much. But I just before I get into that, the real grounds for our appeal, I want to. I just want to say that I met with the the developer a number of weeks ago and we were talking about these sorts of issues. And she told me. Speaker 4: And when we were talking about job. Speaker 7: Quality that you wouldn't want to pay house employees like housekeepers too much because then they might not want to move. Speaker 4: Up. In the world. Speaker 7: You wouldn't want to pay employees like housekeepers too much. So since that issue has been brought up, the quality of the you know, that their character as an employer, I wanted to address that. Is that the kind of employer that that the that we want in Alameda? But let me get to the grounds for our appeal, because those aren't the the the quality of the jobs and so forth are not the issues before you tonight. And I. Speaker 9: Have a letter from from an. Speaker 7: Attorney that written on our behalf that was sent just, you know, earlier today. I have copies of it for the for the council. That addresses the the seeker issues and spells out better than I can in from from the podium here what why this project does not qualify for the exemption from secure that. That it's claiming or that the staff is claiming for it. Speaker 4: First of all. Speaker 7: As the as the the gentleman from from Marriott mentioned, this is a waterfront project. Speaker 4: Whether it has a strip of dirt and rip wrap around. Speaker 7: The front of it that separates it from the from the bay by 15 or 20 feet. It's a waterfront project. Speaker 4: That is relevant. And one of the. Speaker 7: Reasons it's relevant is that apart from the issue of whether it's surrounded by urban uses or not, which I'll get to, there is also an exception. There are exceptions to the exemptions. One of the exceptions to the exemptions, and this is spelled out in the letter, is that. When there are unusual circumstances that create the possibility for impacts such as impacts on water quality among others. A project cannot be cannot use these exemptions. Having a waterfront project like this, that's an unusual situation for a project that would call itself a infill project. Speaker 4: Furthermore, to talk about the strip of dirt, the undeveloped future bay trail. Speaker 7: In front of the hotel as an urban park is. Kind of absurd. And the court case that was cited about Balboa Park. I mean, come on. Is that Balboa Park? Balboa Park has museums in it. This is a this is a project that is directly up against the San Francisco Bay, which is not Balboa Park. Speaker 4: Furthermore, the study that was done. Speaker 7: About endangered about the protected species, that burrowing owl. Speaker 4: Notes that further observation, both studies, there were two of them. Speaker 7: They both note that further observations should be done and that this is a. Speaker 4: Potential site for burrowing owls. Speaker 7: And the Sequoia exemption requires no value for habitat for burrowing owls. Does all of this mean that you can't build anything there? No, it doesn't mean you can't build anything there. What it means is you have to do an analysis under Sequoia to find out what the impacts are. So we. Speaker 6: Hope and expect. Speaker 7: That the council. Speaker 4: Will. Speaker 7: Recognize this as this is a place where as a situation where squat should be applied and that the spirit and the letter of the law should be should be followed, and that development projects should be truly studied and analyzed and approved on their merits. Thank you. Speaker 2: Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Not Lamborn and then Michael McDonough. Dana, sorry. And then Maria Aguilar. Speaker 2: It's. Good evening, Ms.. Spencer. I was going to say good evening to Vice Mayor, who's not here and to all of the city council members. And thank you for your service. I come here when I'm passionate about something and you're here all the time. I don't know exactly how to put this. Let me see. I'm going to speak from three perspectives. One is I'm a 24 year resident of Alameda. I live right over the bridge at install and high. Secondly, I'm a business traveler. But what kind of business traveler I am? I am the training director for Unite Here International Union. Travel all over the country. And I absolutely think there is a legal basis. This is not an appropriate exemption to the urban infill exemption. This is a really incomplete picture of this entire waterfront area. I went out there today and photographed it. Unfortunately, it's on my phone. But listen, this isn't. This is the San Francisco Bay. This is on a tiny, tiny piece of land. The reason it's five stories tall is because it can barely accommodate this kind of an establishment. There isn't enough parking there. I went looking for 2183 North Loop Road. It's already in use. And then I went and I found a 2.88 acre parcel of land. That would be a better place for this hotel. There's a huge as you know, the Esplanade project is is potentially huge. It's a vast piece of land right next to the ferry terminal. Who's buying it? What's it going to be? Yes, this could definitely challenge whatever urban exemption they're looking for. Are they planning any parking for the ferry terminal? That place was jam packed. So is this really going. Is there going to be available parking? Potentially unlikely. So, yes, you could end up building this. I'll describe what this is in a minute and not really have parking available. Councilman Odie. What is this? I travel Houston. You know, San Antonio, Dallas, Florida. This is a business travelers, low and moderately priced, downscaled hotel upscaled motel. Just like the Hampton Inn. Just like the extended stay. It's not. There aren't going to be weddings and events there. There aren't going to be people there on the weekends. I stay in places like this where you usually put something like this is right near the freeway, right near easy access on to the freeway, close to an Applebee's. And if you're in Texas, Hooters, it's not the kind of development that belongs on our waterfront. And I don't think it'll stand up to the legal appeal that we're talking about, much less the unavailability of the parking. Hampton Inn isn't going to help you out. They're worried about the competition. So I ask you to do anything in your power as our council, to stop this development. The fact that it's zoned for a hotel doesn't mean it has to be. Doesn't the fact that it's zoned for 100 feet doesn't have to be? And you should be doing the kind of examination of development of Harbor Bay that you did for Alameda Point. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 2: And then you would know how tall Hampton Inn is. Speaker 0: Thank you. Michael McDonough. Maria Aguilar. And then Melody Lie. Early. Speaker 9: Welcome back, Madam Mayor and the rest of the Council. It's been a long month without you. I'm Michael McDonough, president of the Alameda Chamber of Commerce. And I'm really glad that you're letting the speaker speak over the over their time limit, because there is not enough time for me to tell you everything I want to tell you . So I'm going to take as much time as the union people did if if you agree. You know, the LME, the Chamber of Commerce is pro-business. That's what Chamber of Commerce is all over the world do. And this is a good project for business. We've heard about the shuttles that'll take people to Park Street. I'm surprised the Park Street people aren't here because this is good for Park Street when we've heard about the businesses there that need places to stay. I know that's true. There's a lot of businesses there that need this hotel. We've heard from a couple of people how the Hampton Inn is always crowded and full. But, you know, this square issue is a red herring. There is studies done about sexual abuse. And this is a classic example. This is associations that are not. And you would expect if this was a secret issue, we'd have environmentalist here. We haven't heard from an environmentalist. We are hearing from associations that have another agenda using Sequoia as an excuse to get up here and try to hold this project up. And that I think we're all smart enough not to let that be pulled over our eyes, because this is this is not a secret issue. We've got a couple of issues where the original plan says that this whole park was approved through Sequoia. There should be no question at all. We've done other sequence studies where, well, there's an exemption. I believe it's probably a fair exemption. We have attorneys I haven't heard from any attorneys from the unions. And I'm not against unions, by the way. I used to be a member of one. This just doesn't seem like a union issue to me. This is a red herring when it comes to sequel, trying to get another agenda passed, using an environmental issue by someone who is not an environmental association. Interesting. I would have I would expect that some environmentalists here, if it was on the parking issue, it looks like the the people are the developers are willing to work with us on the parking, whether it's the shared parking. And we have the option of saying you can't get a building permit until you have the lease. I mean, that would be an and an amendment you could make if that's a concern of yours. They're saying occupancy without. I'm sure, like Mr. Odey said, they're not going to spend the money until they know they have the shared agreement. But if you wanted to, you could say you can't get a permit until you get the shared agreement. So I think whether it's the other parking lot that they could purchase or whether it's the shared agreement, they're willing to work with you to make sure there's plenty of parking. And I think so that doesn't really seem like an issue either. So if sex was not an issue and parking is not an issue and we're not within the law to challenge the height until 2019. And the other thing I was thinking about the light issue. I don't think there are going to be spotlights going out from the fifth floor of that building so that it should project light into the neighborhood. There might be lights projected on to the building to show, you know, that there's a hotel there. But I can't imagine it going, you know, half a mile or so away to to be a really problem with the light either. There's so many business reasons for doing this. Revenues alone with the occupancy tax as it is, even if we don't raise it at 10%, which is low for the for the surrounding areas, this the performance for this hotel will show that one the first year we'll get the city will get $400,000. In the 10th year, it'll get $1,000,000. And probably upwards from that from there. And if we raise it with Tony's recommendation, it's even more so. This is a real win for the city. And if the square is not an issue, it's a red herring. If the parking is not an issue, because they got solutions for that. And if we can't challenge, then this comes down to numbers. And it's good for business. It's good for the businesses on Harbor Bay. It's good for businesses on Park Street. It's great for the city because we want to keep the revenues here and not in Oakland or San Francisco. This is a really good project for the city. I don't think we're going to destroy the bay. This is something that I think is I would like to recommend from the chamber standpoint not to challenge this, to let the planning board do its job, to let the city attorneys do their job and let this stand the way it is without appeal or review. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Maria Aguilar. The Melody Lee. And then wailing Huber. Speaker 3: Not just. What? I don't just. Speaker 0: Mean. I'm Rosemary. I love. Speaker 3: Me. Speaker 7: Good evening. My name is Maria Aguilar. Speaker 3: Yesterday, I kept our whole global housekeeper thing. Speaker 0: It made. Speaker 3: Me think. Speaker 7: I'm here because I work as a housekeeper in Emeryville. Speaker 0: A little higher even. I hope our won't support opportunity that is that. Speaker 3: Trabaja boys are larger. More more people when America in sympathy and thought. Speaker 7: I work in the Hyatt Hotel in Emeryville. I have very good opportunities at work. I have good, good wages, good benefits, good health insurance. That's 100% paid. Speaker 0: Even your pocket, Miss Companero, some men don't care. Representative Hacking is the thing. It's not Central. Speaker 3: Perk. Speaker 0: No Zoroastrian war movie one of Beneficios You know not gonna be any gay, Barry me thank you I don't know Bill can of resigning homeboy boyfriend if he's your pal Austria-Hungary's yes or be any are we not? No. It's a condition the trabajo cancerous tenemos. Speaker 7: I'm here because my coworkers nominated me to come represent them here tonight. We have good benefits and good wages and benefits where we work, but it would really hurt us if you approve a hotel that doesn't offer good wages and benefits. Speaker 0: MARQUEZ Yeah. I'll tell you. Speaker 3: What else I can offer them. One over two features by La la la housekeeper. Speaker 0: And Thatcher's paternal biographer. Oprah said No longer is the hotel hero princess. Speaker 7: Because if if this hotel is built, that doesn't offer any benefits for the housekeepers. Our bosses are going to want to offer us whatever this this hotel offers. Speaker 0: In Las who they met. Speaker 3: Will not. Speaker 0: Hang up or yellow a housekeeper get the hammer when US opportunities move. Weintraub Our whole NOI says, I throw our whole you Carol Ekeremor jealousy that they allow me to say are you while Gabriela housekeeper. Speaker 7: In the city of Emeryville. They've supported us a lot to make sure that we housekeepers they deported housekeepers a lot to make sure that we have good opportunities, job opportunities, that we don't have an excessive workload and and good benefits. And we we hope that the city of Alameda will do the same. Speaker 0: Yet what I say this today that we were I'm. Speaker 3: Not just. Speaker 7: And thank you for this opportunity. Good evening. Speaker 2: I'll also be translating if necessary. And then. Speaker 3: Melody. Good evening. Speaker 2: Uh, well, hang on. I made you something. I've lived in Alameda for 20 years. Speaker 3: Utilize the mo suck to do yoga phase and structure. Speaker 2: There used to be not as many problems with traffic. Now it's extremely there's a lot of traffic problems. Uh. Speaker 3: I, I own dojo right now. Speaker 2: I work in oakland, the corridor. Hey. Speaker 3: So this could l.a. Mogollon, we got lala. You can go out the more benefit moa you saw. Oh, my. Ah, vacation. Banga. Uh. And my holiday career. Speaker 2: So if there's a hotel here billed with no union, it's likely to have no benefits, no sick days. Vacation. Health care. How much. Speaker 3: And my pay a minimum wage and. Speaker 2: Pay minimum wage. Speaker 3: More guy and go. Speaker 2: No raises. Howdy. I'm doing some clinical patents are proposing a medical. Take the Hill Hampton end. The workers there pay 50% of the cost. The full cost of medical insurance. How to keep, I hope my night watchman. Speaker 3: Tong Ghazi. Speaker 2: The housekeeper and the houseman don't get the same rate of pay. Q What an idea is something you don't take over. That hotel is only three stories. This hotel is five stories. It's just too tall. Well, the Hemel Mole pie. We hope that you won't approve this project. Thank you. Thank you. I think I'm the next speaker. Speaker 0: When. Speaker 8: You hear her name. Speaker 2: Melody Lee. Speaker 3: I think you. Speaker 2: So my name is Wiley Humor and I'm the president of Unite Here Local 2850 thank you very much, Mayor Spencer and council members for allowing us to speak today. So as you've heard from some of our members, one of our concerns is the quality of jobs. You know, I believe that that's a concern for the city. We've heard that expressed by the city manager that, you know, using a space for parking when it could be a job generator would not be a good use of Blandin in Alameda. So I think that that is a priority, but it's not something that is before you today for your consideration. Right. We are concerned because of the conversations that we regularly have with nonunion workers here in Alameda and on Helgenberger in the limited service hotel industry, where first there are very few jobs. I mean, a hotel like this might have ten housekeepers, four front desk agents and, you know, a couple of drivers. We're not we're talking about a hotel that small enough to be exempt from many of the provisions of the ACA, exempt from the family medical leave. Right. Not a giant job generator and then quality of jobs we're very concerned about. We speak to Hampton Inn workers here in Alameda about the quality of their jobs. You know, as they some of them work also in union hotels or recently moved from a nonunion to a union hotel. So. So that's a concern for us. We wish it could be a concern for you, but of course, it's not before you. Today, the parking is the issue that is is before you today. And the question that I have is, given that it's not going to be a huge job generator or a quality job generator, the employer has made no commitments about the level of benefits or wages. Right. Why would the city then bend over backwards to go out of its way to give it exemptions to the code on the issues of parking and secure? So we're talking about possibly having them purchase land, which for all the reasons that have already been said by the city staff, by the Planning Commission is not a good idea. It's furthermore pretty far from the hotel or leasing land. Now the issue and the idea of leasing shared parking from the business park across the street has been out there since April. So my question is, why has the developer not secured such a lease since April? And they came before the board again in July and said, no, we still have not secured such a lease. And then they came before you today in September, said, no, we still have not secured such a lease, but we're looking at some purchased parking instead. Now, I should point out that the code requires it's not just a suggestion, but it's a requirement that any shared parking be less than a thousand feet or less away from the hotel. So the only option is the Harbor Bay Park. Across the street is the office park across the street. We had one speaker come to the July planning board meeting who said, interestingly, I am a part owner in the parking lot across the street and we don't have enough parking. We certainly do not have an agreement with this hotel that we're going to provide shared parking. And we are already concerned that the people who are coming to this hotel are going to UN illegally or without our permission park in our lot, which we don't have space for. We've already established that every meeting space in the city is full. So this these meeting spaces are going to be full all the time during the day, not when the shared parking is available. Right. And I should note that only 50 of the spaces are actually at ground level. 32 of the spaces at this hotel are being proposed are on lifts. So you're going to need staff who are going to have to valet people, shuttle people, operate the lifts. Only 50 people are going to be able to park by just driving their cars into a space that is going to create a massive traffic problem. There's going to be people walking the quarter mile to get across the street by going around to the next crosswalk if they do secure that space that furthermore, the code requires that they have a seven year lease in place and and and so far they haven't been able to produce anything. So thank you for your time. Speaker 0: Thank you. Next. I have a slip that doesn't have a name on it. Someone that lives on Otis. Anyone turn in a slip without a name? Speaker 10: Oh. All right. Anyway. Speaker 0: Is it all right to identify you? It is 2811 notice. All right. Mike had a very. Speaker 4: My name is Mike had a very present planning board. I apologize for that lapse there. So my testimony in front with the planning board on this project is on the website, so you could just refer to that. But I feel obligated to give you guys a thumbnail sketch of what my reservations were on this project. And the project was not a unanimous vote at the planning board. I was the one dissenting vote on it. And basically my feelings on this project are I feel like I've been here before. We've done this before in Alameda. We've been sold projects that look wonderful and they're going to be fantastic. And the planning board spent six months on this. So I am pretty conversant with this. And I saw the designs come. I saw them get sent back. I saw them come back again and really appreciably in the massing and design and just the overall appeal of the project didn't change much. And the drawback with the project in my mind's eye is that you've got a site that is too small to accommodate this hotel, and that point has been made by several previous speakers. So I won't belabor the issue, but this reminds me of the wonderful, beautiful, unique Alameda Target store we're going to have, which is going to be unlike any other Target store you've ever seen. Well, that Target stores exactly like every other Target store that you've ever seen, you could be in Dublin or Kansas City, for that matter . So this building, this is probably the best looking drawing I've seen of it yet, but I've also seen a lot of Fairfield Inns. I'm a business traveler also. There's a Fairfield Inn over by the Coliseum. And, you know, this is not what Alameda should be aiming for. I think that, you know, the Patels, it puts a lot of time and effort into this. But I don't think this is the right spot and I don't think it's the right project. On the sequel issue, Andrew Thomas has a famous quote. Now, Harbor Bay was built by the hand of Man. Well, I agree with you, Andrew, but so is the Naval Air Station. And we're not exempting projects down there from secret consideration. The infill thing I am familiar with what happened in the legislature a couple of years ago on the infill development stuff as under Jerry Brown. I think we're all pretty sure why that happened. All we got to do is walk out and look at this. This is not an infill project. I'm not an attorney. I'm not a secure attorney, but I tend to believe what my eyes tell me and not unfounded type of things. So I said I was going to be brief, but I see the yellow lights on. I think that's at the parking was an issue, obviously, but out of those three issues, I think parking would have been the third. So thanks for your time. You have to extend the meeting past 1130 now. We do at the. Speaker 0: End of it now, we can just go all night. Joe Ernst. Speaker 2: If I if I may, Madam Mayor, just quickly, I just want to make it clear that the planning board supported this project, approved. Speaker 3: The sequel. Speaker 2: So, Mr. Hanbury, I mean, he is not speaking for the planning board. Speaker 0: I believe the vote was 4 to 1. Speaker 8: Yeah, but the. Speaker 3: Planning board. Speaker 2: With four votes made a recommendation and actually decided this this matter. Speaker 0: Thank you, Joe Ernst. And he's our last speaker. If you'd like to speak on this item, please turn on your slip. Speaker 4: Good evening, Madam Chair. Members of the. Speaker 7: Council. My name is Joe Ernst, and I'm here tonight as president of the Harbor Bay Business Park Association. I was asked to come to this meeting on behalf of owners and also as a landowner and developer at the business park. As Dan Reedy mentioned, we did have a recent annual meeting of the owners, and there was a lot of significant concern expressed by the ownership over the appeals and the reasons for these appeals and what what impact it will have on the existing approvals and development agreements. And what rights do these owners have if these approvals these rights are impacted? You know, so therefore, on behalf of the business park and the owners, you know, we do oppose this appeal based on Sequoia, which, you know, in this case is for non environmental purposes. And we do oppose the appeal of a project that does comply completely with the planned development that is in place. The development agreement and plan development are very important documents. In addition, you know, bccdc, we do have bccdc documents in place for the business park and Bccdc had to render an opinion on this project and found that , you know, there is adequate public access and distance from the waterfront, that there are not negative impacts on the water. So, you know, this, you know, by definition is appropriate for the waterfront and does not impact, you know, on the measures of Sequoia. You know, we've approved you know, my firm has developed, approved, recruited companies to over 1.3 million square feet of property of buildings in the park in the last 12 to 15 years, using these same documents, these same processes. Nothing's been challenged on this basis. You know, we're very familiar with the environmental issues, the wildlife issues. So and furthermore, you know, the business park, the original secret documents approved five over 5 million square feet of development. To date, there's less than three square, 3 million square feet of development in the business park. It approved building structures up to 100 feet with a conditional use to go to 156 feet. You know, so, you know, these this project does comply with the with every aspect of the planned development in the development agreement. You know, limits then says that, you know, if it complies, therefore, you know, that's on the basis which you have to approve. You know, there's still about 60,000 square feet or excuse me, 60 acres of land in the business park yet to be developed. That's about 22%. Most of that is held by significant owners who have plans in place to develop, are very concerned. You know what? Upholding an appeal on these basis would mean and would like to know what their rights are. You know, the business park does need hotels. You know, Penumbra was very accurate. You know, Hampton is always full. V.F. is having to send employee visitors on a daily basis to San Francisco. That's just. Speaker 4: A lost. Speaker 7: Opportunity for Alameda. You know, I think it's a well-designed project. I think it brings nice variety to the business park. And, you know, we spent a lot of time over the last several months talking about what it takes to recruit businesses to Alameda, that we want jobs and we need to send the right message. And I think. By upholding or by opposing the appeal here, we're sending that right message and honoring the agreements that are in place. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. He was our last speaker on the item council member. Comments, questions and Brody. Speaker 5: Comments have come in. Question So Andrew is still here. Sorry. No, it's all right. So this this issue with this parking thing is still I didn't nobody said whether they liked one or the other. But Miss Huber said something about. You know, the different appearances before the planning board. Yes. We'll get a lease. Yes, we'll get a lease. And then the conversation with the owner of the property. I mean, where are we on that? I mean. Speaker 11: Well. Speaker 5: Is that accurate that there there's no parking there now and there's no there's been no approach. Many of them, you know, about a lease or we. Speaker 11: The discussion with the applicant has been very clear. We're not going to let you open this without at least now, of course, they also. But the planning board never said, oh, let's see the lease, let's see the lease. We want to see an executed lease. The assumption was and the way it's always handled in every project is it's going to be a condition of this project that you get a lease and that you prove you have a lease. I mean, you think about it. She doesn't even know if she has a project yet. Why wouldn't she signed a lease for parking? She needs to know that she can build a project. Then that way we structure. It is you. But we're not going to let you occupy unless you have the lease. And then based on our prior conversation, if you want to change that and move that trigger further up. So it's like, no, you show us a lease before you build a building permit. Speaker 5: I guess the thing I'm concerned about is it has to be within a certain number of feet. If we have the shared parking and looking at this map on exhibit three, page three, I think it is, you know, there's not a lot of spaces around there and within that that limit. And if, you know, there's not availability there and there's no desire on behalf of the owners of that one property to even enter in such a lease because the parking lot is full. I mean, realistically, where is that going to go. Speaker 11: If she can't get a lease? I like your proposal to change the condition to a building permit. She can't get a lease and she can't do shared parking. And then obviously then the assumption behind the planning board's approval is was faulty. We have been assured throughout this process that we can get a lease now if she can't actually come up with one, well, then you're right. We shouldn't build a hotel. Speaker 5: I mean, through no fault of our own, I'm sure, you know, they're making very good efforts at it, but. Speaker 11: Nobody in the past has had a problem getting a lease. So if she has a problem, then she should not build this hotel. And we should I should not be standing up here telling you she's going to get a lease if she, in fact, can't. But we have never required somebody to show us and executed lease before we give them the very first land use entitlement. It's always been okay, we have agreement. Your conditions. Here's what our entitlement is and we proceed. Speaker 5: And then what about the lighting? I mean. Speaker 11: The lighting of the hotel. It's you. Speaker 5: Know, if you look on I think it's page. Oh. What was it, Paige? It's still page three. So all of those homes along Lagoon on Ratto. All of their master bedrooms at night. You know, I'm going to look out onto this hotel. You know, they wanted, I heard iconic. And, you know, the picture this picture here that's up on the screen, you know, shows a building that's. From the waterfront looks iconic. But you know, what about from the other side? I mean, are there things we can do to mitigate? There's a couple of lights, the reflection, the colors, the windows. I mean. Speaker 11: There's a couple of things we can do. We have a condition of approval that requires a lighting plan. Well, first of all, let me start. The planning board already started this conversation. They said, look, no signage up there. So the signage on this building is actually for a building of this size, very sedate. There's a there's a building on the signage on the side, not in the front or back, and then a low one on the front, which is basically a monument type sign. And so they're not going to see any lit up signs at all. They are going to see a building. There's a condition of approval about a lighting plan to be submitted with the with the building permits, which is typically reviewed at the staff level. The types of things we look for is downward facing lights, not shedding on neighboring properties there. Certainly, there's something any particular things you want to add? You can certainly do that, like make sure that we communicate with the neighbors. The other thing I will point out, though, there is prop. I mean, you're right. Maybe this gets built very quickly. Those neighbors to their living room windows will be seeing this. That is a temporary situation because what they're going to be seeing is the expansion of the V.F. campus. There is a vacant parcel between the lagoon and this property. So and everything out there is very, very flat. So they're not going to see this hotel five years from now. They're going to be looking at the back of the next expansion of the VRF campus, which is going to block their view. Speaker 5: You mean? I guess my concern is if you look at this picture, I mean. Speaker 3: And sorry. Oh, go ahead. Speaker 5: This is the view from the master bedrooms of the rental road. People, you know, it's it's white. So, I mean, I'm a layperson, but white reflects light, right. So moonlight, car, cars and whatever spotlights they put on it. You know, I'm not that concerned about the view from the from the bayside. Speaker 11: You know, right. From the I understand. Speaker 5: Is I don't I don't want Mr. Hager to come back and say, you saw the the VFR problem, but then you built this other thing that's giving me even more light. So give me what we hope it will be. But so, I mean, that's kind of my my issue. And we do have the right under de novo review to kind of that's ask a planning board to go back and look at the light issue. Speaker 11: Well right. Or you can tell us how you want the light issue. You can either refer back for further discussion about lighting. You can also give us and we have the project architect here as well tonight. I mean, if you want specific kinds of lighting. Speaker 8: I'd like to hear from the project architect because I was ready to ask for that condition to slide steady. Speaker 2: But Councilmember. Speaker 3: My name is. Speaker 8: Will you pull the microphone down? I'm a little. Speaker 3: Short. I have. Speaker 5: One more thing left for. Speaker 3: This. All right. Speaker 2: Mayor. Nice. Mayor, Councilmember, thank you for the opportunity in addressing your question. The latest title 24 California Energy Code strictly restricts the amount of lighting you can have on the building. And also, we can definitely, as a responsible architect, we definitely will shield the lighting from what shooting projecting into the neighbors windows. In terms of what your comments about the white reflecting light, that's a simple color palette. Color is very hard to depict in renderings and also in real life and daylighting it bounces light differently and everybody has different perception of it depends on the weather and sun angle. So what we can do is actually putting in a condition to have a planner or staff going out there and do a final approval of the colored palette on site, which we have done in other jurisdictions successfully. Speaker 5: Okay. And then I guess my other and I'm still kind of debating this in my head, you know, I wonder if my colleagues would be interested in, you know, having one vote on the secure. Because that may be a different we may have different findings on the sequel and then having a second vote on whether we're going to upheld based on the mayor's de novo review of the project that, you know, may include things like the parking. Speaker 8: Well, can we hear from the city attorney on that? Speaker 2: Yes. There's no reason why you can't do that. You have two separate actions before you. One is the appeal from the from the union, which is the Sequoia appeal. And you could vote on that to to deny the appeal and uphold the Sequoia. And then you can also address then the mayor's call for review on de novo and make decisions on that. Speaker 8: Is that what you're making? Speaker 5: I mean. Well. Well, I think I've made a decision on the sequel, but, you know, I haven't really on the other because I. Speaker 0: Think I hear appropriate. So it's very clear in regards to any appeal that may be brought on this we what findings we made, what our decision was. So I would recommend that we bifurcate the two points. Speaker 5: Then I would like to move to move at least on the sequel that we we deny the appeal based on sequel grounds. And uphold the Planning Board decision on those grounds only. Speaker 0: If we have a second. Our second. Any discussion. I believe that there were significant. Issues raised in regards to the secret issue that at least warrants more than an exemption. And I and I don't support of the city waiving something that I think is very critical of the project I believe is on the water could very well have impact and not only in regards to being on the water, but also in regards to its impact on our community to suggest that traffic. To me, it's not a minor issue. It is a significant issue. We are talking about two conference rooms to accommodate 50 each as well as 100 spaces of the hotel and employes. So I think that that could very well result in traffic that at least warrants a review of a current review as opposed to something that was done in 1989. So for. So those are issues that I have with the project. Speaker 8: Any other comments in a second? Speaker 7: My comment is that. Speaker 0: Member days. Speaker 8: I just see. Speaker 3: Yes. Speaker 2: Madam Mayor, just a point of clarification. The traffic analysis was done in 2014. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 7: On the matter of Sequoia as it relates to traffic and the cities that are serving users in the meeting spaces. When I look at the people who are gathered here and count the people, I mean, it's practically 50 or so people who are in the audience. Maybe we're south of 50, but you get. So that tells me right off the bat that I'm not convinced that what we're seeing here rises to the level of not following through on planning, board and staff and city attorney's recommendation. So. I'm okay with. Brexit. Speaker 8: That you're voting for the motion, is that correct? Speaker 0: We haven't called the question yet. Speaker 8: We're just. Yeah, we're just trying to see. Okay. Speaker 3: Did you. Speaker 5: Still have. Speaker 8: Issues? Yeah, I have a number of. Speaker 0: You have to. Do you want to make them? I'm ready to vote. All right. All those in favor. I oppose to the motion passes 3 to 1. Speaker 3: All right. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 5: And then I want to hear what my colleagues have to say about the others. Speaker 8: I'll be happy to start unless. Speaker 0: Mr. Brash. Speaker 8: Councilmember de do you want to start? Because I think I often do. Oh, jump. Ready? Not really. Speaker 3: No. Speaker 7: I'll. I'll. I'll listen to what others have to say. Speaker 8: Okay. So I am going to move that. We uphold the planning board's action. And I spend a lot of time on this and talked to a lot of people. A number of you here in the in the room. Anybody who contacted me about this, I talked to and this is what it comes down to for me. I appreciate hearing from the homeowners because we always need to balance adjacent uses. And you are homeowners who live next to a business park. But I appreciate hearing from the project architect, because I also know from my six years on the planning board that this is the sort of thing you do all the time. And I think lighting and a ways to address these problems have become even more sophisticated. So it is my desire and I think we will find a way to add a condition to make sure that the neighbors are not impacted. But we also need to think about the message we're sending to the business park. And not only that, to businesses who might be thinking of locating here in Alameda because we still have vacancies in that business park. We'd like to fill up our Alameda point development. And we you know, we celebrate the fact that Penumbra is adding employees. They've acquired more buildings and they're looking to acquire even more VF outdoors in North Face and we just heard earlier about our sales tax revenue reported for the last quarter. Two of the top producing sales tax generators are Penumbra and V.F. Outdoors. This is this is good for our city. We want to do more. We have heard that the hotels that we currently have are filled up. This is good. I want our hotels to be filled up and I don't want to see our business park visitors having to go to San Francisco or over to Oakland to stay because I'd rather have them stay and spend their money and generate revenue here in Alameda. We also know that this project, the Tier, which stands for Transient Occupancy Tax, which is a significant contributor, contributor to our general fund, is going to contribute between 400 and $500,000 annually starting the first year of business and increasing after that. And the so the need is there. I think we can make it a project that serves the community well. I think it's attractive. I like the fact that the waterfront trail is being extended, a crosswalk is being put in across the street. A lot of improvements are coming along with the developer's money. I'm also concerned with fairness. We want to have applicants feel that they come before our bodies and are treated fairly. So the same requirements we required of the Hampton Inn in terms of following what the Alameda Municipal Code its the law says for parking we're doing here . I am adamant though because I feel it's good planning principles that we do shared parking, not just paving over a waterfront space to be an asphalt parking lot when I know there's plenty of potential for shared parking out there. And we again, we need to be aware of. The benefits to the tourist city were always looking for ways to generate revenue. We are really fortunate that we have these great companies. I mean, they're doing Penumbra is doing a wonderful life saving kinds of work. Let's, you know, let's make it easier on them to have their visit business clients come to visit them and not add to the traffic with them having to have their busses and limos ferrying people to San Francisco to stay. So I think we can add a few conditions to make sure that the needs that were addressed are addressed as far as the union issues. Nobody from the union met with me. I did ask Mina Patel when I met. She mentioned Alameda is rather low minimum wage. And I said, well, why don't you match what Oakland is paying? And I think hopefully people have seen the letter that was sent that they are starting to pay, starting with a wage of $12 and I think $0.32, $0.35 an hour, because that's what Oakland does. And and I want to see more employers doing that. But the issues before us right now are the appeal of the well, we've we've dealt with the Unite Here Appeal. And now I know this is a more open ended call for review, but I am prepared to follow the Planning Board's recommendation with a couple of tweaks to make sure that this is the most sound project we can put together. Thank you. Speaker 0: I have a question. Could you clarify, are the shared parking, is it within 1000 feet or less of the development? Is there a code section? Speaker 11: There is a perimeter. There is a distance in the muni code, I believe it's a. Speaker 8: Microphone. Speaker 11: And they're there. My recollection of the municipal code for me, my recollection is there is a standard for the distance. It's designed for retail projects, but that is the standard and I believe it is a thousand feet. Speaker 0: And this proposed lot that could be purchased as 1500 feet. Yeah. Speaker 11: But it's not a shared parking lot, right? It's so it's a different animal. Speaker 0: Is there any code section that goes? Speaker 3: No. I mean, let's be clear. Speaker 11: Just for the record, since we've got folks here who are threatening us for not following the code, the code says the planning board. And upon appeal at this hearing, you can set the parking at exactly what you want. You could today say no parking at all. You're fine. But so you have the ability to to structure this parking exactly the way you want it. But under your zoning ordinance. Speaker 0: And the only code section that pertains to the distance of the parking speaks to 1000 feet or. Speaker 3: Relates. Speaker 11: To 1000 feet for a shared parking arrangement. You know, it's designed for Park Street and it's designed for customers. That's why the 1000 feet, it's, you know, but if you want to hold them to that standard for this thing, then, you know, it's just just a different application. In this case, it's valet parking. It's not customers walking to a store, but that's what that standard is designed for. And the code is for more of a Park Street or Webster Street, where a retailer is sharing parking with another retailer. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 3: Ben Brody, I'm. Speaker 5: Sorry to have a question. So, I mean, is it feasible that the developer could enter in a contingent lease saying, you know, you'll give me this shared parking, but I'm not going to start paying rent, you know, either, A, until the the project is open and B I cannot get out of the lease. Yes. If for some reason I don't get approval on the project. So, I mean, I'm wondering if that would be something that. You know, should be pursued because I'm still not feeling well. Council member doesn't talk, but. Speaker 0: Member, De Saag. Speaker 7: Well, thank you very much. You know, these are the type of tough issues that we as council members get elected to make. Oftentimes when there are situations where residential land users bump up against business land uses. You know it. Sometimes we shy away from making these kind of decisions. But but here we are. And it's imperative that we continue to move forward with strengthening the local economy here in Alameda. And we talk about Penumbra, for example. You know, when we went out to their annual employee celebration several weeks ago, now we got a chance to talk with the with the CEO of the company. And, you know, he himself a lot he's uprooting his family, moving from San Francisco to move to Alameda. So we need to continue to move that kind of progress along. You know, this this project that we have before us. You know, it's not the silver bullet that's going to answer everything with regard to our economic development, but it is a key part of it. You know, the businesses that we have now at Harvard Vale, to the credit of all the people who have put together that business park throughout the decades. You know, you've got some great corporations there. Peet's Coffee, V.F., Outdoors, Penumbra, the Oakland Raiders. All these companies bringing in clients, people from throughout the world. And we need to keep moving that momentum. And so I hear what the residents have to say. I know that they're concerned, particularly in light of the concerns about the light coming from V.F.. I hear that. But but this is one of those tough decisions, though, that I think we have to move this project along. So I'm supportive of it. Speaker 0: And Brody. Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam Mayor. So. I mean, if I had my druthers, I would refer this back to the planning board to resolve this parking issue, either with some contingent lease that that we can be safe and secure knowing that there's going to be one or there's some permanent solution that's been approved and gone through a design review that it doesn't also shine light into into neighbors windows. But. And also the lighting. But based on, you know, there's four of us up here and we need three to to pass something. And I'm not sure that I'm going to get a remand. So I'm hopeful that those that are supportive of this project, you know, would consider, you know, some type of of, you know. Contingency on on this this parking being resolved one way or the other and and some way to mitigate the light. Well or agreeing to remand it back to the planning board until those those two issues are resolved. What if we don't get the one? Then it'd be good to get the other. Speaker 7: Well, my recommendation then, on that, what you just said right now is for us to just figure out what's the language here. Because if we can move the project along without having it remanded and, and that meets, that satisfies the project proponents and that satisfies you then. No. Yeah. Why not? Speaker 5: I don't think I have the votes to remand, so. Speaker 8: I think you're right. And also I'm with Councilmember De. So he said it more than once. We need to move this project along. If we bounce it back to the planning board, we just stretch this process out and it's already been stretched out quite a bit. I think we can give Andrew Thomas adequate instruction as to what we want. And I think the the architect put it very well in terms of the lighting, and I think the condition regarding shared parking is already. But, you know, I think the difference was you want the issuance of a building permit rather than an occupancy permit to be the triggering event. Speaker 5: I mean, I'd be more I think that's probably more fair to everyone now. Speaker 8: I think you. Speaker 5: Just know. Speaker 8: That. But that can be done, you know, like right here. Right now. Right. Speaker 5: But. You know, also that there be some concrete solution. You know, not I might get a lease or I might go off and buy because I don't think building a parking lot behind people's bedrooms is the best idea. And if that's the alternative and it doesn't sound like leasing, it seems there's problems with the possible of getting a lease. So. That's why I'm leaning towards remanding. But again, without the votes, I select the solved. Speaker 8: And I'm just going to jump in. Sorry, Andrew, to talk of you with your permission, Madame Mayor, that I actually had a conversation with Joe Ernst, president of the Harvard Business Association. And he indicated to me that because this is such an important project to the business park and the leasing agent is working on finding shared parking , they're going to find a solution. I mean, it's it's a mutually beneficial situation. So I think by upholding what the planning board did, but just tweaking it to require that they won't be able to get their building permit until that lease is in hand. We solved the problem, the parking problem. Speaker 11: I would. Speaker 3: Certainly. Speaker 11: Agree that their next step to moving forward on this is getting a building permit. And what if you amend the condition to say you don't get a building permit until this city sees the signed lease for the additional spaces, then that basically ensures that you get that lease. I would also suggest that given the conversation, I think there's a relationship between the valet parking and the distance, the thousand foot. Is its design for Park Street, Webster Street. And it's not designed for a valet situation. So I. The other thing I will put forward for you to consider in that exact same same condition is we want to see a lease for a thousand feet. This project is require to have valet service, but we're not going to limit you to the 1000 feet. So that's something for you to consider. Speaker 0: And with the lease, be just for the evening parking spaces, not during the day spaces. Speaker 8: I mean, I think we have the example of the other hotel and that the parking I mean, that's what I was told that the parking lot tends to be just about empty during the day because that's when business travelers are out doing business. Speaker 11: The need is in the evening, the. Speaker 8: Need is in the evening so. Speaker 0: That. Speaker 8: It's not a case of first impression, in other words. Speaker 0: And that takes into consideration the conference rooms. Speaker 11: I think we have to let's not overplay. I mean, I know we want conference rooms and we've been saying it's got conference rooms. These are two, you know, reasonably small rooms. So it helps. But this is not a conference center by any means. Speaker 0: I don't plan to support it. I think it requires I think it has insufficient parking. I think when you're talking about 101 hundred rooms to conference rooms employs, I think that 82 spaces on site is insufficient. I think that the suggestion of the 1000 feet or less in regards to valet when I've done valet parking, that means that you have people running to get your cars. I think 1000 I don't think it should be any more than a thousand feet for valet. I actually think that's a long, you know, to suggest that it's appropriate for valet parking to be farther than a thousand feet. That's a good runner going back and forth. And I haven't seen that in valet parking that I've used. So. And there was a comment in regards from the president kind of worried my Canterbury sites are too small to accommodate a hotel this size. I actually would agree with him because I don't think the that it is sufficient in regards to parking. I do think long term we could very well have a problem with parking. I appreciate that. It may not be a problem right now. I think you have examples all over the city, including at the ferry on Harbor Bay, that we our projects have been approved in the past with insufficient parking. So I think that that is critical that that be addressed at the beginning of the project. I also have concerns about the light and whatnot, but I don't think. I don't think it's appropriate to proceed. MEMBER Audie. Speaker 5: And you know, I agree with the mayor's points, but if we don't cast an affirmative vote to add these additional conditions, then the project gets approved. As it is. Right. So. So I'm faced with the choice if I want something reminded. I agree with what the mayor says and all of her concerns. You know, do I vote for it so I can get something out of it that I think makes it better? Or do I not vote for it? And then I don't get anything that I think makes it better and it still goes forward in a way that I don't really like it. So. I would much rather have a vote for something that at least we can get some of these conditions in. As much as I really want to remain this, since we don't have the votes, it's it's I have to be I have to be for it with these extra conditions. It's really this is not a pleasant vote to do, but I'd like to have some say in how this works rather than let the the. The decision of the planning board to go forward as it has it's written today. Speaker 8: Right. Well, with that, then I will move adoption of the resolution documenting the council action on this property. Do I have an address? 2350 Harvard Bay Parkway. With the with the conditions or the additional tasks that we've given staff to address. Speaker 2: It's some clarification. I think I want those to ask you. Speaker 11: Just get those on the record. Speaker 5: So I think that that that the parking is resolved there either with a. The sign contingent lease or some other executable contract. Speaker 11: Executed lease prior to building permit. Speaker 5: Write for 24 hour lease. Speaker 4: Parking. Speaker 5: And or an approved, you know, parking lot that's gone through the design review process because if that doesn't work. Speaker 8: She doesn't know. If it doesn't work, there's no project. But I'm not I'm my motion does not include paving over something to just be a parking lot. Speaker 5: So then I think we should be clear that. We don't want any paid parking lot. Speaker 3: I guess that's my fear. Speaker 8: That felt like I said it six ways to say. Okay, I'm willing to say it again. I am talking about least shared parking. Speaker 5: And then if it doesn't get through, there's no project. Speaker 8: Exactly. So. And then the ball's in the applicant's court. And I think that's fair. You know, sides have to bear a risk and. Okay. Speaker 5: And then that the lighting issue is mitigated. Speaker 8: Absolutely. Speaker 7: Well, let's play that out, though. Okay. So if for some reason they can't get the shared parking. Is the project die as is, or can the applicant come back to the council planning board and say, for whatever reason we could not get the we could not get at least. But as we had expressed from the beginning, we were always all too happy to purchase land to build. Is that a. Speaker 11: Yes? They can definitely come back at that point and say, we want you to reconsider the motion from September 1st. Speaker 9: Okay. Speaker 8: But they would still need three votes. Speaker 7: It would still need two votes. Speaker 3: Okay. Speaker 8: So is that enough clarification, Steph? Speaker 2: I think so, yeah. Speaker 11: But the lighting. The lighting. We have to review the lighting plan. I've been talking to the architect. There's no plans to light this building. You know, there's going to be laying on the ground floor. There's going to be a red light on the roof. That's the lighting plan. Speaker 8: So what we want addressed is to avoid the impact on the neighbors like this. Speaker 11: I think when somebody on the fifth floor turns on the light in their room, you're going to see that the light is on in the room. But there's no this is not about there's no need to light this building. We don't have to update it. We don't need to it doesn't need to glow at night. It's going to be a building. When the when you turn the lights in the rooms, you'll see that. Speaker 8: Because it'll also be energy efficient, I believe. Yeah. Speaker 5: Well, there's ways to mitigate. Speaker 8: Okay. All right. So. Speaker 3: Okay. Okay. All right. All right. Speaker 0: All those in favor. Speaker 7: I. Speaker 0: I oppose motion passes. 3 to. Speaker 3: 1. It's. Fish. Speaker 0: And we're going to take a short break before we continue the next agenda item. Speaker 7: Oh. Speaker 3: My goodness. Speaker 1: Oh. Speaker 0: Could we take our seats? Let's proceed. If everyone could take their seats, please. Speaker 10: We have more agenda items. All right, it's 1220 and let's go. Speaker 3: All right. Speaker 0: 60. Speaker 1: Public hearing to consider the Planning Board recommendation to approve a vesting, tentative map and density bonus application to permit construction of 52 units on a 2.78 acre parcel located at 2100 Clement Avenue. An adoption of related resolution.

Regular Agenda Item

Summary: Review of 100-Room Hotel Development at the Harbor Bay Business Park. Public Hearing to Consider (1) an Appeal by UNITEHERE! Local 280 Challenging the Planning Board’s Approval of Final Development Plan and Design Review for Construction of a 100-Room Hotel at 2350 Harbor Bay Parkway, (2) Mayor Spencer’s Call for Review of the Planning Board Action, and (3) Adoption of Resolution Documenting the Council Action. (Community Development 481001)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_09012015_2015-1947

Speaker 1: Public hearing to consider the Planning Board recommendation to approve a vesting, tentative map and density bonus application to permit construction of 52 units on a 2.78 acre parcel located at 2100 Clement Avenue. An adoption of related resolution. Speaker 11: I am going to spare you a PowerPoint. Thank you. As much as I love to giving those and tell you that this is a project that has been before the planning board also for about six months. The initial version of this project was not very good. The neighborhood made it very clear that they didn't think it was very good. The planning board made made it very clear they didn't like the design and to the developers credit, they then went back to the drawing board and really tried to respond and completely redesign the project. The big changes that I just will highlight and the big highlights to this project. Inclusionary housing another seven or eight units. I think it's seven total. Affordable, very low, low and moderate, which are interspersed throughout the project. So not separated, interspersed the open space, a very nice open space plan that exceeds the zoning requirements and also is designed to not just be a public open space for the residents of the new project, but really tries to create an open space and neighborhood park for the project. And the adjacent neighborhoods, as we just think is a great way of integrating new neighbors into an existing, really wonderful neighborhood. And the total unit count also, just for your information, went from the project, qualified for a density bonus to increase the total number of units up to 58 through the the initial proposals 58 through the redesigning the unit count came down to 52 units. So the developer essentially eliminated six bonus units that they qualified for under state density law to make this a better project for the neighborhood. So final planning board hearing a couple just a month or so ago. All the speakers who came to the meeting were in favor of the project, which I can't remember a hearing that has happened in recent history. So that for me was a huge validation of the work that the developer and particularly the neighborhood. I cannot express how much gratitude I have for the neighborhood, you know, hosting meetings out of their homes, walking around the site, really helping us design this project so that it would really work well. So I'm really pleased about that. The planning board at the last hearing, though, pulled out a condition of approval that staff had been recommending about parking. Parking, as with all our projects, as we just spent 2 hours discussing parking as an issue, parking was also an issue on this project, and we had a condition of approval recommended by staff about the cars and how the project should have cars. That really made it clear to the new homeowners, Look, parking is an issue. You need to park your cars in your garage, not use your garage for storing all your stuff and then putting your cars out onto the neighborhood. The planning board pulled that condition out. They added some concerns about some of the wording in the condition and the fact that, you know, I've identified in the staff report some of their rationale. The neighborhood is very concerned by this last minute, not last minute, this final action by the planning board. I think what you'll hear tonight from some of the neighbors who were able to who are still here, if any, are still here. I know some of the neighbors left during last year and they said, look, I'm sorry, I'm can't stay. I just can't just can't stay. But tell them I'm here to support the project, but I want that condition back in. What you'll see I handed out this morning or this afternoon in the staff report we gave you, we highlighted this issue and put in a two sentence condition in your staff report that you could consider putting back in or the neighborhood if you want to do that. And I think you'll hear from some neighbors tonight asking you to do that. Since the staff report was published before, you know, a while ago, the neighbors have tweaked the language a little bit. We've reviewed this language with the developer. City staff is certainly fine with it. And the language that the neighborhood. Yes, it's that little piece of paper there that the neighborhood would like you to re-insert into the conditions of approvals before you tonight. And I think you'll hear from them also. Suggesting that language. We worked it out with them ahead of time so that if you decide to put off or three. So we try to save you the effort of trying to word it yourself tonight, but you obviously can adjust the language if you see fit. Marilyn, you should see a separate piece of paper. The separate white piece of paper. I'm going to end my my comments here. I think you have a speaker slip from Andrew Warner City Ventures. That's the project applicant. He is also going to forego his 25 slide PowerPoint presentation given way I forced him. I'd like you to. No way are you getting up there and giving that. But he would like to say a few words under public comment about his project, and I think you. Speaker 0: Have a few questions for him. Speaker 11: We are I am finished with my presentation if you have any questions. I know I haven't given this project very much attention here, but I. Speaker 0: Remember our. Speaker 7: A question. Thank you, Mr. Thomas, for for you. So in the base case, there's 43 units. And we through email, we discussed how you arrived at the 43 units via the language of the zoning. So, so I get that. And then. In order to get ultimately to the 52 cases, two events happened. One is that the applicant indicates that they're going to dedicate 5% of the units to a very low income. And when you when you pull the 5%, very low income trigger, then you're eligible for the bonus, which is 20%. So that so 20% of 43 is nine. So 43 plus nine is 52. So here's the question. Because what I hear over and over again at my office hours and, you know, already all of us on council and the planning board here is just too much housing, particularly in our historic areas. Why don't they pull the moderate income trigger of 10% off? If 10% of the 43 is moderate income, then that leads to instead of a bonus of 20%, it would be 5% or a total unit of from 43 to 45. Is it this? Is that the part of the applicant the say? Speaker 11: Yeah, it's the way state density bonus law is structured. It's the applicant's choice to either just in arc in the city of Alameda case just give us our minimum inclusionary requirement which doesn't trigger density bonuses. And then if they want a bonus or a waiver, then they can choose to give us more affordable. And they get to choose. In which category they want to do it. Speaker 4: Mm hmm. Speaker 11: So in this case, they chose to increase the very low. Which gives a 20% bonus. Speaker 7: Okay. Speaker 0: Can you clarify for. In regards to parking, you have 52 homes. Is it based on the number of spaces that are required? Is it based on bedrooms? Speaker 11: It's based on, you know, in Alameda, it's based on size of units. So every unit in this project has a two car garage in Alameda. If your project if your unit size is over 3000 square feet, then you need a third parking space. But in this case, it's two per unit plus six guest parking. Speaker 0: So so then we're being asked to prove these spaces based upon this formula. The garage. Speaker 11: Two per. Speaker 0: Unit. So the garages are actually two parking spaces that are the formula that we require for this number of homes. Speaker 11: Correct. Speaker 0: So the formulas say that if they don't, someone doesn't own a home. I own a car. I'm sorry that they then don't have to have a space. Or is the form because. Okay. Speaker 3: So whether you. Speaker 0: Which this language suggests that and I mean that's what it says residents who own vehicles park their vehicles in their garages, which I think suggests that if a resident doesn't have two cars, that they can put storage in one of the spaces. Is that what that is supposed to mean? Speaker 11: So what this so this is a condition of approval. It says that your car shall require that if if a every unit comes with a two car garage. Right. So they're going to have a two car garage. Speaker 0: Right. But if they. Speaker 3: If you want car. Speaker 0: Or zero cars, can they fill those two spaces with anything else? Or do they have to keep. Speaker 11: The way this language is written is okay, you have to park. If you have a car, you have to park it. Speaker 0: In your right. Speaker 11: But it doesn't don't have a car. Then you can use your garage for something else, but not for business workshops or offices or living. Speaker 0: Okay. But the formula truly is so if you have 52 homes, you're required. It's based upon that formula that we required to parking spaces for each of those homes, parking spaces. Speaker 11: We are building two parking spaces for each home. So every home will have two parking spaces. Well, what this condition is really getting at is the people who live in those homes. If they have cars, we want them parking them in the garages that were built in those units. But we don't want them doing it parking their cars in the neighborhood. Speaker 0: So I appreciate that. Speaker 3: I know I'll. Speaker 0: Listen to the speakers, but I have a question. Speaker 3: Regarding that. Speaker 0: Any other questions before I call the speakers? Dorothy Freeman. Then Joe Woodard. And then Andrew Warner. Speaker 2: Good morning, Mayor Spencer. Speaker 0: Council Members Thank you. Speaker 3: Staff City Ventures and any citizens that are still with us. The development. Speaker 8: You see before you tonight is. Speaker 0: Very different than the development presented. Speaker 3: To the Planning Board six months ago. Speaker 0: We believe this layout will help the new residents become part. Speaker 2: Of our. Speaker 0: Community. The large open space will give the children from the. Speaker 8: New. Speaker 2: Families and the. Speaker 0: Neighborhood a place to come together and play. Some of the large, bulky units have. Speaker 2: Been made smaller. Speaker 0: So they fit better with the. Speaker 3: Existing historical. Speaker 2: Homes in our neighborhood. There are. Speaker 0: Now two entrances, one. Speaker 2: On climate and one on Mulberry. Speaker 0: Instead of just the one off a vehicle. These positive changes are the. Speaker 2: Result of many hours spent. Speaker 0: By a lot of people working. Speaker 2: Together. Our city government board members. Speaker 8: City ventures. Speaker 2: Our own historical. Speaker 0: Society. Speaker 3: All made themselves available. Speaker 2: To the neighborhood. Speaker 0: Community. Speaker 3: For many, many meetings. Some people deserve extra recognition. Andrew Thomas, city planner and his staff. Speaker 0: Chris Barclay of the Alameda Historical Society. Speaker 2: Andrew Warner at City Ventures. Speaker 8: All of our city. Speaker 2: Council members and many. Speaker 0: Neighborhood folks, especially Jenny Meyer, who have busy jobs but took time to be involved. The nature of housing in Alameda is. Speaker 2: Changing from Measure eight. Speaker 0: Compliant developments to high density. Speaker 3: Developments. Speaker 0: These high density developments like Site A at Alameda. Speaker 2: Point Del Monte Chapman Warehouse and now 2100 Clement. Speaker 3: Bring issues. Speaker 0: That haven't been seen been on. Speaker 3: Our forefront since the 1960s. Speaker 8: High density townhome developments. Speaker 3: Places a lot. Speaker 0: Of families and their vehicles. Speaker 8: Into a much. Speaker 2: Smaller area than. Speaker 8: Single family. Speaker 2: Homes. Speaker 0: Zone development developments. Speaker 2: Along the northern waterfront will bring many more. Speaker 0: Townhome developments. Speaker 8: To. Speaker 2: Our neighborhood. Speaker 0: Parking is. Speaker 8: Already limited because. Speaker 0: Many of the homes in our neighborhood are actually multi-family. Speaker 2: Units and most. Speaker 0: Do not have off street parking for all the. Speaker 2: Cars. Speaker 3: Owned. Speaker 8: By their residents. Speaker 0: Even people who travel by bike, public transit and walk will. Speaker 2: Own cars and. Speaker 8: Have visitors to their homes. Speaker 0: Our research shows restrictions requiring the use of garages for parking vehicles is the standard part of CCAR restrictions, including townhomes here in Alameda. There is not enough room on Alameda Alameda City. Speaker 8: Streets. Speaker 2: To park. Speaker 0: All the vehicles from the coming high density developments. Speaker 2: Including 2100 clement. Speaker 0: For townhomes. Alameda needs to have. Speaker 8: CCR rules CC and. Speaker 3: Our rules requiring the use of garages. Speaker 0: For the part for parking. Speaker 2: Their cars. Speaker 0: Our neighborhood already has problems with parking. The two parking spaces provided for each unit at. Speaker 2: 2100 Clement are. Speaker 8: Meant to give the. Speaker 0: Residents parking so they don't have to compete with. Speaker 8: The existing neighborhood residents for. Speaker 0: Street parking. I am requesting. Speaker 3: The council approved. Speaker 0: The CC in our statement presented by staff that requires use of garages that the use of garages be for parking of vehicles. Speaker 8: Thank you very. Speaker 3: Much. Speaker 9: Good evening. My name is Joe Woodard. I live on Eagle a block from this develop this proposed development. Speaker 4: I've spoken with all of the council members about this issue. So we're hoping that you will approve the the language that require people in this new development to use their garages to park their cars. And it's necessary because of the collision between this new kind of development, this town owned development, and the older houses on Eagle and Willow, which were subdivided, many of them during World War two, to make room for the work force. Speaker 6: That built the Pacific. Speaker 9: Fleet. And those houses didn't make accommodations then for parking. Speaker 4: A lot of them don't have garages, several of them don't have driveways. They got to be on the street. So any argument about creating two classes of people is moot because there are already two classes of people, those who live in the older houses, those who will live in these new townhouses. We've got to make a plan for how to get these people to work along with each other and live in harmony. Now, the developers has been very good. Speaker 9: At working with us to. Speaker 4: Do this. We want to make sure that we include the CC in ours for the homeowners association to enforce something that's legal in in state law and a common thing done in many town developments in Alameda so that we can get along and we think it'll work. Help us. Speaker 6: Morning Board. I am Andrew Warner with Citi Ventures. I would be remiss, first of all, if I didn't also mention that Dorothy Freeman has spent an inordinate amount of time and effort on this project. Working with me and with her neighbors and with Andrew Thomas. And her input has been invaluable. And I agree with what the neighbors have said and what Andrew said, that the project is in a much better place right now than it was when we first brought it forward. This has been a great experience for us. I think one of the things that Dorothy mentioned as well is that we've been able to find a way to integrate this new community into an established historic community. Alameda. I understand councilmember de sox concern about that specifically, but I think that the neighbors have shown we've been able to achieve some of those goals. I don't want to rehash the whole project, but I will say that we as the applicant are completely fine with the condition that staff has provided you for the parking restriction requiring our homeowners to use their garages for parking and not for storage, not changing the use and happy to answer any other questions you may have about the project. Speaker 7: Yeah, I do have a question. So, you know, the density bonus there is very. Different kinds of triggers for the density bonus. And the trigger that you pulled is the 5%, dedicating 5% to very low income, which then allows you to get 20%. Is there. Any reason why we're not doing the 10% trigger for moderate income? Speaker 6: Yeah. So the main reason is when we looked at this project and we looked at this site, we did a presentation at the planning board. When we look at project like these, we like to put a half mile radius on the project. We consider that a good walking distance for people to see what kind of services they can get to. And you may have seen it in the package itself, but what that shows is that this is a great place for density. Right. You're less than half a mile from Park Street and all of the local stores and Park Street. And so you want to get some more houses there. We've talked to the Purchasing Business Association quite a bit, Chamber of Commerce and different business groups. They like the idea of having more housing density around Parker Street. There's also great transportation opportunities. A lot of the great busses travel right along Park Street. The Fruitvale BART Station is only about a mile and a half away. So these are the areas of where Alameda should be thinking about adding more density. So when we looked at the density bonus, we wanted to get the most density that we could. We will point out to for people concerned about density and traffic. I mean, we understand that we have reduced the overall number of units from 58 to 52. And the housing element predicted, I think 53 homes for this site in particular. So there's kind of lots of reasons why we ended up with that number. Speaker 0: I have a question. When you normally do a project like this with 52 homes and how many of actually the breakdown, how many how many bedrooms total are in this project? Speaker 6: Well, it's a good question. We've got four homes that are two bedrooms each. And the rest of them are a mix of 3 to 4 bedrooms. Um, no. Call it three and a half per. Don't make me do that math. I had during if the 160 ish bedroom's total. Speaker 0: Okay. So these are actually large larger homes. And then I think we normally look at the average number of bedrooms is three and a half. And so when you have three and a half bedrooms, then we're talking about we're talking two parking spaces for three and a half bedrooms. And currently, a phenomenon we having in town is homeowners renting out rooms, extra rooms that then require additional parking. And as was already shared by speakers, that there is not additional that there you have homes that don't have any parking that are completely dependent upon the street parking and hear, hear and maybe discuss the staff when you're looking at projects that where the average home is three and a half bedrooms and two to me only requiring two parking spaces for that and. I think that's unrealistic. And I, I mean, based upon where I live and what I see, if you have three and a half bedrooms, you could very well have more than two cars per unit. And the majority of these units of the 5248 are our 3 to 4 bedrooms, which is actually very large for an Alameda home. Many of our homes are two bedrooms, one bath. Speaker 4: Yeah. Speaker 11: So just to clarify. Speaker 8: Andrew. Speaker 11: Speaker eight of the 52. Have between three and four bedrooms. All the rest have three bedrooms and four of them have two bedrooms. So. The vast majority of these are three bedroom homes and. I mean. That's this has been our code for a very long time. It's this is not a code we came up with for this project in particular. There was no exceptions made for this application. I mean, this is this is the same code that we require for whether it's a two or three or four bedroom home here in Alameda. As I said, when we when a home gets over 3000 square feet in Alameda, then we require three. The largest size home here is 2300 square feet. So you're right, that's a big home. But so I guess I guess I'm mumbling here. Speaker 0: No, no, I'm so I appreciate that. So, again, I'm going to have a concern about the number of spaces and then the guest parking. There's six spaces total and. So is there a formula for six spaces for 52 homes? Speaker 6: If I if I can if I can address I think you bring up a good point, which is that the new community is going to have more parking for the homeowners than the surrounding community is in general. Right. And I think it's one of the things that our neighbors mentioned is that they have a lot of overflow parking to the street because a lot of their homes have been split up into multiple units and they don't have garages because they weren't they weren't designed that way. So this while it is adding new housing to the neighborhood, it is certainly mitigating the parking concern because fewer of those cars are going to end up being on the street because these homes will have garages in them. You know, the the guest parking spaces, the city of Alameda doesn't have a specific requirement for guest parking spaces. We started this back in March with I think we had 20 parking spaces at that point. It came down, it went back up and it was all over the place. Again, working with the neighbors. We landed on a balance of the number of homes that were going to be in the community, how much guest parking we were going to be able to provide and how much open space we were going to be able to provide. So I think you don't want to miss the idea that there's 15,000 square feet of public park that's being created. And the final tradeoff that was made and that was decided upon with the neighbors and staff and the planning board, was this decision between how much guest parking do we want and how much do we want to have this nice public park where the new residents are going to be able to interact with the existing neighborhood? That's how the decision kind of was. Speaker 0: Thank you. Member Ashcraft, how. Speaker 8: Many square feet was the public. Speaker 6: Park? It's about 15,000. Speaker 8: Okay. And then, Mr. Werner, will there also be opportunities to park on the Clement Street frontage? Speaker 6: Yeah, so that's a good point. The south side of Clement does currently have public parking, which is not utilized very much right now because it's a truck route and it's mostly commercial along that frontage. So we would expect that some of the overflow parking would end up on Clement Street. Speaker 0: All right. Any other member, Odie? Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam Chair. I also want to thank the neighbors for all of their hard work on that. And I did meet with with Jenny and Dorothy, and they had a couple of other things that I just wanted to make sure we covered. So I think one thing they were concerned about, which I'm concerned about also, is that we keep as many trees as we can along below and eagle. I'm not sure what the plan is, but you know, that would be my preference. Yeah. And then I think they also talked about, you know, the bike path. Maybe this is more for staff, but, you know, the the mulberry thing where it goes and turns off know if we can keep that bike bike path going all the way to Clement. You're not you don't own that that building that the school district does. But yeah, that'd be something we want to keep keep in the future. Speaker 11: The the planning board conditions of approval. They still have to come back to the planning board on some of the architecture. You're not approving the architecture tonight and you're not approving the final Street plan tonight. The neighbors concerns about this and this. We're talking about the city street plan. This is they're replanting all three sides of this block with city street trees. So the planning board is going to approve at a future meeting the final street tree plan, which, of course, will be reviewed by the public works department. And if that includes a removal of trees that are currently on this and it's a real strange mix of trees right now. And of course, under our public notice and requirements for street tree removal. So there's a whole process which is yet to come with the neighbors and a public hearing before the planning board on the street trees. And then the other thing that we're going to continue, we've just begun sort of having preliminary conversations with the school district about their little piece. Okay, this project going to get that that bike path through and that public has through for about two thirds of the block. Right. We, the city of Alameda, are going to then take the lead with the school district to see if we can work something out, the school district, so we can get access all through. And then the project is offered. If we can get access from the school district, then do some of the physical improvements, you know, to the front right away. It going to be a nice pass through. Speaker 5: And just, you know, on the trees, the more mature trees that are there that, you know, would be okay. Speaker 6: Yeah, we so we, we love having mature trees in our community. So it looks great. It's everybody. Everybody likes them. So as many of them as we can say if we're definitely going to. Speaker 5: And I think there was some issue about the, you know, the picnic area and where it's located. But yeah. Speaker 6: There that's another thing that is Andrew mentioned is coming back to the planning board is the final design of that open space. Speaker 5: Okay. So hopefully the neighbors will have a lot of. Speaker 6: Input and continue to be involved in this process. Speaker 5: So if they don't like it, you don't like it, let me know. Speaker 0: Any other questions for the developer? Oh, before I press. Speaker 8: Mr. Werner, can you tell us where are those affordable units going to be located in the development? Speaker 6: So they're interspersed throughout the community. Um, I don't have the plan in front of me, but I want to say there's 12 different buildings and so they're just kind of in the middle of a building. You may have four market rate units and one affordable unit. They're the same as the market rate homes. Speaker 8: And as I understand it, they'll look just like the market rate homes, too. Speaker 2: Exactly. Speaker 3: Yeah. Speaker 8: Thank you. Speaker 6: Thank you very much. Speaker 0: All right, next speaker Jennie Meier, then Helen Soares and then Stephanie Butler. And then our last speaker on this item is Karen Bay. If you'd like to speak on this item, please turn on your slips. Speaker 3: I'm so tired. How can you be here so late? I'm not even going to read this and I work so hard on it. But you know what? It's okay. It's all right. No. No point. I think you got the point. You read this five page missile that you wrote about the S.S. And I think the biggest issue I think that really needs to be underscored here is that whatever wording is used, it's really important that cars fit in the garage. I know that a CCAR that restricts parking will be of no use unless there's some kind of enforcement policy at the front end of this thing that says you're signing this knowing that you're going to abide by these restrictions, the HRA is going to enforce it and there must be some kind of policy set in place and itemized all kinds of ways in which that can be done. I'm sure you can imagine what those are, but certainly it might involve fines first, fines second fine toll the car or I read places where the the the actual garages were considered as common area and they found some legal way to enforce it in this way. But there are ways that it can be done. But if we don't put any teeth in this at the outset. Whatever wording you put in, the restriction is going to be somewhat useless. So I encourage you to add something to whatever you vote on that would put some teeth in it for us. And I respectfully kind of acknowledge your comment about the restrictions being onerous, but I sat about that for some time and said, yes, it's equally onerous for most of us living in the neighborhood that have driveways and are not allowed to put a parking garage at the end of my driveway, even if I have a pad at the end of it. I mean, there are all kinds of rules on our old houses that make those restrictions much worse than what they're going to endure. In point of fact, I have garage envy. I would love to have a garage at the end of my driveway so that the sun doesn't utterly destroy my car. So I can give you other restrictions that are on my house. But I won't bore you with those details. There are a lot of them. So actually, I think that the two tiered neighborhood exists by virtue of the ages of our houses and. I just think that having these restrictions will somewhat equalize the situation. I even have pictures if you want to see how bad the parking is. But just envision Mulberry Eagle Willow and wrapped around Clement 7 a.m. in the morning, you might find one parking space. That's about what it is. And. It's not like that all day, but it is like that. At 7 a.m. in the morning, because people come home at all different times of day and night. Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker Helena Soares. Speaker 3: I echo the good morning. I am Helen Source. I represent the Alameda Home Team tonight, and I'm speaking in favor of this Clement development. From a broader city view. This developer, Andrew Warner, has really carried out an exceptional community outreach, not just a routine gesture, but you've seen the results of him really listening, really hearing what was being said and cooperated with modifying plans for these 52 precious units. That'll help serve a few people that really badly need homes in Alameda. And the added delight that he has scattered different incomes in different locations. Building the same unit for the same. Market is a very, very great accomplishment for us. The architecture also hasn't been talked about a lot tonight other than the disparities in how you manage pre-World War Two housing and current ones. But the architecture, this infill housing has been really carefully designed to fit in with the adjacent stately homes, and it will be a credit to the city as it is developed. It's also been designed carefully to take advantage of local nearby transit opportunities and even better, this development of open space for various activities in an area that badly needs that type of relief from density. This attractive infill development meets the ideals we advocate for in the positive additions to our community, our special community. These affordable homes are a small number. There's been a shocking week for us in the last few months. The Alameda Housing Authority recently received 336,000 36,000 applications for its housing choice. Vouchers. 36,000. In just five days. If it had been open longer, there'd been more. These 52 units will help. So I hope you'll please add your seal of approval and send this. Speaker 2: Development on its way to being a reality. Speaker 3: Thank you. Speaker 0: Stephanie Butler and then Karen B. Karen Baye. And she's our last speaker unless anyone else wants to slap. Speaker 3: Good evening, Mayor Spencer. Members of the city council. So tonight we had a room packed with people. Who need affordable housing. To me, it's very clear that we have a housing crisis in Alameda that we need to address. The new residents that are wishing to move to Alameda are now competing with the current the residents that are currently living here. To me, that says that we need more housing, not less housing. The project at 2100 Clement Avenue at both market rate units and affordable units. This developer has done a great job and outreach. He's given us an exciting project to add to comment. So I urge you tonight to approve this project and really give it some serious thought. Do we? Do we really? And face of what's happened here tonight, do we really want to to slow down development and not approve housing? I mean. Speaker 9: We have a serious. Speaker 3: Housing crisis tonight. It blew up in my face tonight. I sat next to a woman and listened to her story and. Speaker 9: We really need to roll up our sleeves and work hard to solve this problem. Speaker 3: And adding more housing to Alameda, bringing more housing to Alameda is. Speaker 9: Is a very, very. Speaker 3: Important part of the solution. So thank you. Speaker 0: All right, council members, member Ashcraft. Speaker 8: Thank you. Mary Spencer Yeah, good morning, everyone. First, I do want to acknowledge both the neighbors and the developer's developer. I met with Dorothy Freeman, Joe Woodward and Ginny Dormir last week. And they well and I have worked with Dorothy and Joe for quite a few years since I was on the planning board way back when. And I know them to be conscientious. They do their homework, they study an issue, and they're persistent. And they also told me and displeased me that the developer, Andrew Warner, was wonderful to work with. And then when I talked with him, he told me that the neighbors and EU3 in particular have helped make this a better project . And I that just pleases me to know and to hear that because it's too easy in some cases for neighbors to just, you know, resist a project and saying, not in my backyard, not in my neighborhood. Dorothy and Joe and Ginny don't do that. They say, well, you know, now this isn't going to fly, but let us show you what will. And there was a lot of back and forth, give and take, and that's a great model. What I also like about this project, and it's been brought out, is that out of the 52 units, seven of them are affordable to very low income families. We need this kind of housing in Alameda and this is the way we provide it with developer money. This project is also going to improve the neighborhood because on on Sunday I did take a bike ride I guess stories happens that I do my site visits on bike well because you can see so much and so I wrote down streets I see where you live. And then the gate to the warehouse property was open because they were having that pink elephant sale. Mom and me, I don't know how they're ever going to take care of that space habitat, someone else's problem. But I was able to just ride in between and around the different warehouses. People. It's going to be good to get those out of your neighborhood and to get green space instead. And so anyway, I applaud the effort that's gone into this, the work of the planning board, because I know it went through several iterations there. So I am certainly prepared to support this project tonight and I heard this morning and I hope my colleagues will as well. Thank you. Speaker 6: And. Speaker 0: Vice Mayor. Speaker 6: I'd like to make sure that this language as written is included in our in the conditions of approval of this tentative map. I'm glad the newly appointed planning board member is still here, because I think what the neighborhood drove here within the constraints of what entitlements that the developer has is a model for Alameda of in working with again what. Entitlement. What rights the developer has. But making the open space, making the parking and making the appearance match the neighborhood. And I think that's a very good lesson. So I'd I'd like my colleagues to agree that this language is written, should be placed as part of the conditions of approval tonight. And I'm ready to vote for that approval myself. Speaker 8: It was only the hour that made me forget what happened. Thank you. Speaker 0: And member Odie. Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'll just be brief. I agree with everything the Vice Mayor just said. And also I believe we should. Put this language in there and thank you for all the hard work for the neighbors. And if there's something that doesn't work with the next process, you know, I'll do I'll pull the appeal for you , so just let me know. Speaker 3: You have come? Speaker 7: Yes. Thank you. I'm not ready to support the project before us. I think we need to do more hard work in terms of doing what we can to limit the number of units there when that possibility is there. And I think I think we're missing out on a chance now, and I'm not prepared to support. Speaker 0: And I have questions in regards to it's my understanding these parking the garages, there's been discussion of requiring a window so that you can monitor if the spaces are being used, the spaces are for storage. Is that being considered at this point? Speaker 11: Final design of the homes have not been approved yet. So that would be part of the design review on the homes. If that's something you're interested in, we can certainly integrate that into the planning process, which has to first go to the planning board and then of course, if you don't like the Planning Board's final design, you get all that for a review. Speaker 0: I'm not going to do that again. This is something personally, I think it must have windows in the garages. That makes it very easy to determine whether the spaces are being used for storage or not. Speaker 6: It's totally fine to have windows in the garages and for people who may feel like this is going to be some kind of police state where the archway is like peering into windows, it's very common to have windows and garage doors, and that's essentially what we would be doing. There would be windows in the garage doors. It would simply present the opportunity for people to for the HRA to check periodically that people weren't storing things in their garage and were more than happy to. Speaker 0: Use the windows be required to not have a covering on them. So that's actually visible. So you can walk by and you can look in and you can see if this is being used for parking or available for parking versus storage, that's fine. So that's a concern of mine. I want to make it easy to enforce this. Another concern is a question is the language here is shall include prohibitions and a monitoring process to ensure that residents who own vehicles park their vehicles in their garages. I would prefer language that is that the parking spaces are available for parking, and I'm not sure about unless the owner proves that they do not. Speaker 2: Own a car. Speaker 0: Because if the owner has people visiting, they're going to have cars. We have a referral coming up on this Airbnb and if they, for instance that they rent out their home, they're going to have cars. And at the end of the day, there are only six parking spaces being allocated for visitor parking. Which. Which is going to be. It's going to be insufficient for 52 units. So there will be impact on the surrounding neighborhood. So in regards to so those are concerns I have. I don't know if any other council members have any of those concerns. But I don't want this project to impact the neighborhood. So this language I don't I don't think this language is specific enough. Speaker 5: An American. I just think the windows and people peeking in other people's homes is a little creepy. But yeah. Speaker 6: I was trying to make it clear it's actually not. Speaker 5: We'll see if we can figure out a way to enforce it. Speaker 8: And I'm just going to throw in there on the guest parking. I mean, in the neighborhood, we the neighborhoods we all live in, I mean, how many guest parking spaces are provided in our neighborhoods? They're not. It's called the public street. But I think that the fact that there are six is it six plus one handicapped. Speaker 3: Or no. Speaker 5: One's handicapped. Speaker 8: Six plus one disabled parking spot? I you know, I think that's gone a long way. Guests can also park on a mat. And I think the mayor raised a good point. I think it's what you were trying to say is that say you only own one car and you have someone visiting you. They could park in your garage. Speaker 3: Right? Speaker 0: Right. That's so that goes to my concern, I. I would rather have the spaces allocated for parking as opposed to storage or any of these other things that are on here living quarters or whatnot. Speaker 8: So I think the scenarios that the neighbor, the neighbors have spent a long time on this, they came up with these scenarios. They ran and passed Andrew to make sure that they were they pass muster. And so with that, I'm going to make a motion that we, the planning board. Speaker 3: Approve or. Speaker 8: Is it. Speaker 3: Approved? Speaker 8: That's okay that the planning board approved the vesting tentative map and density bonus application to permit construction of 52 units on a 2.78 acre parcel located at 2100 Clement Avenue. And adoption of resolution approving vesting. Tentative Map ten 305 and density bonus application for the development of 52 homes and 2.7 acres of land at 2100 Clement Avenue . The proposal is categorically exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act, known as Sequoia, pursuant to Secret Guidelines Section 1533 to infill development projects. With the stipulation that the CCAR is that we know well, it is that with the condition of approval for 2100 Clement also including these canards, which stands for covenants, conditions and restrictions that were distributed to us this evening. Speaker 6: Our second. Speaker 0: So if I'm hearing this correctly, by suggested changes are not being included. Speaker 3: Correct? Correct. All right. Speaker 0: Of that, I'm going to call the question all those in favor. Speaker 3: I. Speaker 0: Suppose. Speaker 7: I or whatever. Speaker 0: It's a motion passes 3 to 2. All right. Now. Speaker 8: I'm just wondering, given that it's 10 minutes after one in the morning. Speaker 0: Can I hold off on the referrals? I would appreciate that if we could hold off on the referrals. Speaker 8: Read more. You read my mind that? Okay, they're really good, but I just feel like we won't do them justice at one in the morning. Speaker 2: Well. Speaker 5: You know, one's taken five years anyway. And the other one, I think, requires a charter change, so I'm fine with that. Speaker 0: City Manager Communications. Speaker 2: Very quickly, I just wanted to let folks know that our SLA hermit tracking system, which is a perfect tracking system we have in our building department now, has what has been linked to Zillow. So if you know what Zillow.com is, so this is.

Regular Agenda Item

Public Hearing to Consider (1) the Planning Board’s Recommendation to Approve a Vesting Tentative Map and Density Bonus Application to Permit Construction of 52 Units on a 2.78 Acre Parcel Located at 2100 Clement Avenue, and (2) Adoption of Resolution Approving Vesting Tentative Map 10305 and Density Bonus Application for the Development of 52 Homes on 2.78 Acres of Land at 2100 Clement Avenue. The Proposal is Categorically Exempt from Review Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 Infill Development Projects. (Community Development 481001)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_07212015_2015-1853

Speaker 1: A informational report on the Federal Emergency Management Agency proposed revisions to flood plain maps, which could impact Alameda property owners. Good evening, Madam Mayor. Can in my in the microphone for good? Speaker 0: Yes. Okay. If I lean in. If you can. It doesn't always pick up. Speaker 1: All right. Good evening, Madam Mayor. Honorable Vice Mayor, members of city council. I'm Aaron Smith from the Public Works Department. And presenting before you tonight an informational report only there's no action or decision required of council on this matter at this point in time. The Federal Emergency Management Agency, commonly spoken of as FEMA, is the agency within the United States Department of Homeland Security that manages the National Flood Insurance Program. This program allows property owners in participating communities to purchase insurance protection from the government against losses from flooding. Property owners and Nonparticipating communities are not eligible for federally subsidized flood insurance, federally backed mortgages, federal grants or federal disaster relief. In 1978, the city joined the National Flood Insurance Program and in 2009 amended the Floodplain Management Chapter of our Municipal Code to adopt flood insurance rates rate maps which are issued by FEMA. It is these maps that identify the special flood hazard areas within the city where specific standards of construction, which are specified in the code would apply. FEMA periodically updates the flood insurance rate maps based on new information and science. And this is what brings us here this evening. FEMA will be issuing preliminary maps that expand the special flood hazard areas in the city of Alameda. Eric Simmons from FEMA will present this evening on the specifics of those preliminary maps and the public process that FEMA is required to move the maps through before their final issuance. Although not required of the city, we've hired an independent hydrologist to review the new maps. And although our hydrologists confirmed FEMA's conclusion based on existing conditions, additional study can be done to potentially reduce the impacts of flooding on Bay Farm Island with modifications to the dike system. The Port of Oakland has also hired their own hydrology consultant to investigate the modeling used by FEMA at the Oakland Airport in Bay Farm Island. The city supports the port of Oakland's efforts, and we await the conclusions which we understand will be presented during the formal appeal period for the preliminary maps. So, Eric, when you come on up, when Eric's done with this presentation, I'll return just briefly to speak a little bit more to the extra outreach efforts the city will be taken, given the potential number of newly affected property owners. Speaker 8: Good evening and thank you for the opportunity to talk about flood hazard mapping. My name is Eric Simmons. I'm an engineer with FEMA, and we have a regional office right across the estuary in Oakland. Speaker 3: And in April. Speaker 8: We released preliminary flood insurance rate maps. And Aaron was able to do a really good job of giving some of the the background and history there. So what I wanted to focus on was some maps that show the differences between what's currently mapped by FEMA and what's proposed to be mapped by FEMA. And the basis for FEMA flood mapping is the 1% annual chance flood. It has a 1% or greater chance of occurring each and every year. Some may hear it as a 100 year flood, but over the long term average, over a 30 year period, it has a 26% chance of occurring. So on this slide, in the next couple slides that the blue zone is that 1% annual chance floodplain. And on the graphic, on the left is the current flood insurance rate map. It's based on a study from the mid eighties and with FEMA is embarked on a new coastal mapping for the entire United States that includes the Pacific Ocean and the San Francisco Bay. And we're issued these draft preliminary maps for the Bay Area counties, including Alameda County here, the Main Street area. You can show you can see how the blue zone that 1% chance flood plain is is widening. And this new map also shows a moderate hazard area. It's the 0.2% chance floodplain or often commonly called the 500 year floodplain. Looking in another area here, Webster Street. You can see again the proposed changes. And in general, the flood zone or the city of Alameda is being widened. Here on the east end of the Alameda Island, where in general the current flood insurance rate map shows the mapped high hazard area right along the shoreline. We have numerous houses in that high risk floodplain and even more in the moderate hazard area, that 500 year flood plain. And one thing to highlight this is based on sea levels, conditions today. These are flood insurance rate maps that are used to rate the. Flood insurance, and therefore it's based on existing conditions. The last slide here probably shows the greatest change here on the western part of Bay from Island. You can can look along the lagoons on the golf course area and other areas showing what I'd call a major change in in that mapped 1% annual chance floodplain. So I'm going to hand it back to Aaron to cover kind of the next steps and the process. Speaker 1: Thanks, Eric. So these are preliminary maps which FEMA, we are pending FEMA's announcement in the Federal Register when they put it in the Federal Register. FEMA will also due to notifications in local newspapers, which officially starts this 90 day appeal period. The appeals are not between the property owners and the city, but between the property owners and FEMA. So I want to also just speak to a little bit of the additional work the city is going to be doing to ensure that our property owners are well informed. So immediately following FEMA's announcements in the Federal Register, the city will send out a targeted mailing to all affected property owners. We'll post the announcement and information on the city of Alameda Web site and hold a public information meeting where questions can be answered. The intent of these extra actions are to ensure that people are aware of the change. They understand the requirements once the maps are final, and that they understand their right to appeal to FEMA, although appeals and protest are collected by the city. I don't want that to be confused with the fact that we are just passing them on to FEMA. Once FEMA resolves the appeals and protests, they do issue a letter of final determination for the new flood insurance rate maps in order for the city to continue participation in the National Flood Insurance Program and allow property owners the benefits of federally backed mortgages. Federal disaster relief, among other benefits. Council is required to adopt the new flood insurance rate maps into Chapter ten, which is our floodplain management section of our municipal code. So with that, the informational report is complete. Myself, Eric and Lori Koza check from Public Works, who's the lead staff member on here, can certainly answer any questions you have. Speaker 0: Vice mayor. Speaker 3: Is it fair to say, or if you can explain the reason why these zones are expanding? Is that there's projected sea level rise. Speaker 1: I'm going to let Eric from FEMA answer that one. Speaker 8: So the the proposed flood zones are based on today's condition and not on a future sea level rise condition. There are there are a couple of reasons why the proposed flood zone is is wider than the current flood zone. One is we have much better information on the elevation of the ground using new technology. We have more accurate and precise information that shows these flood prone areas. FEMA also developed a bay wide model. It has information at over 8000 locations along the bay that we have modeled the past over 55 years of of conditions, whether it's surge to the Golden Gate or, you know, during El Nino conditions where higher water levels are as long as as well as tides, wind conditions that can affect. Water levels. And so we just have better information on on the hazard that is today. Speaker 3: So it's more accurate. And there's a larger body of data, as I interpreted you saying. Correct. Thank you. Speaker 0: Any other council comments? Speaker 9: I have a question. Speaker 0: And. Speaker 9: In the presentation on page four of ten, on the third bullet point, it says properties proposed to be mapped in the 100 year flood plain equals 1800. So right now, what's the number of properties that are in the current floodplain? Is it this 40 or. Or is this the number of people who have flood insurance? Speaker 8: That's the number of people that are currently mapped in that high hazard zone. Speaker 9: Oh. So the increases. 1760. Yes. Okay. And. Of the 1760, then basically it's complete. Do we know how many of the 1800 already have some form of flood insurance? Speaker 8: We can provide a summary of the flood insurance coverage in the city. I don't have that exact number with me. Speaker 9: Okay. Because. Right now within the map area, within the current map, there are 40 properties subject to the current 100 year flood plain. But when you compare it because that's the next bullet points. Now when you compare it to the actual number of people who have taken out flood insurance, there's more. There's 134. Right. Which suggests that within the envelope that will contain 1800. There might be a number of homeowners already with flood insurance. Right. I think what I'm getting at and I think we'll do that and we've got plenty of time. But is this just getting the accurate data as to the current conditions, existing conditions? Because. You know, it's altogether possible that you can read this and you can have one incredible, huge sticker shock of, you know, suddenly 760 homeowners affected, which might be not or might not be. So we just need to make sure to get that. Speaker 1: One other day. So I will definitely follow up. We have a which those parcels are okay. Make sure that we get that information from FEMA and we can provide that to you rather quickly. Speaker 9: All right. And one last thing is if we can also get the. The incremental change, if there is any, between those? Well, will there be any incremental change in the flood insurance amount right now? And the bullet point on page four of ten. It says on average, people are paying 511. I don't know if. Speaker 8: Yeah. So one thing we try to emphasize is, is those homeowners or business owners that are impacted by this flood zone change. FEMA has adopted a policy that allows them to purchase the least expensive type of flood insurance as long as they purchase it, you know, sooner rather than later. So they can save money in the long term by purchasing flood insurance sooner. And again, because the city participates in the National Flood Insurance Program. Any homeowner or business owner or renter is eligible to buy flood insurance. It doesn't matter what flood zone they live in. Speaker 3: Or where where they work. Speaker 8: All all those people are eligible to buy flood insurance through the National Flood Insurance Program. Speaker 9: We thank you. Speaker 0: Mayor Brody. And we do have one speaker. Speaker 4: Thank you. Just a couple of quick questions. So there's the four areas outline here, the the Main Street, Webster, Starkville, East End and Bay Farm. So the areas that are not mapped, are they just not in the floodplain or did you not map them or. Speaker 8: You know, FEMA's. New study studied flood hazards throughout the bay so all of the city of Alameda currently for example Alameda point is not mapped with high or low flood hazards. But our new study did study. Speaker 9: That. Speaker 3: And. Speaker 8: Proposing maps. We didn't rate graphics. Speaker 3: For every area of the island. Speaker 4: It said, okay, because that was my question. You know, we just signed off on a housing project on Alameda Point. Are are those houses going to be in the floodplain that requires them to get flood insurance? And the same thing with the Del Monte and all of the other projects along the northern waterfront. I mean, people will be buying those. Speaker 8: Right. And I'm happy to say we've had coordination ongoing and so that the the FEMA study is being used to build much safer in that area. You know, above the 1% chance flat elevations and then also considering future conditions. Speaker 4: Okay. So but this is just the highlights of your map. This isn't the entire map that we have. Speaker 3: Right. Speaker 4: Thank you. Speaker 0: All right. I'm going to go ahead, Kristen. All right. Speaker 5: Thank you, Miss Smith. I didn't get everything down that you said earlier that the city council is required to adopt these regulations into. Is it chapter ten? Speaker 1: It's actually the map. So we already have our Chapter ten, which can references the existing maps that Eric had shown on there. So that identifies the special hazard zones now. So what will be required to do is adopt the new maps once FEMA finishes their public process and they issue a letter of final determination. And we have a six month period of time to adopt those new rate insurance maps into our municipal code. Speaker 5: Okay. And then I understand the six month window of time. Give us the time frame from about when to when will the start? Speaker 1: The cities poised to act. We're waiting on FEMA to post in the Federal Register so that once they do that, then there's the 90 day appeal period. And then the question is, is after the end of the appeal period, how quickly FEMA issues the letter of final determination? Speaker 8: So that that timeline depends on what kind of comments we we have, and then we resolve them in coordination with the impacted cities. This map change does not impact just the city of Alameda, but other cities, certainly. So there's a coordination process. But typically, the new flood insurance rate maps go in effect about a year and a half after this preliminary issuance. Speaker 5: Okay. But our residents should expect to start receiving letters in the mail in the next. Speaker 1: Do you have an estimated date of when you'll be posting in the Federal Register? Speaker 8: A little bit outside of FEMA's control. But I just checked off work in the. Speaker 2: Past. Speaker 8: Four weeks or so. Speaker 5: In the next 3 to 4 weeks. Speaker 1: We have our letter ready to go and we're checking the Federal Register daily. Speaker 5: Okay. And so what I would just ask of city staff, you know, I think we all agree that more information is better than less. So if you could all do your best efforts to get word of this out into the public, through our newspapers, and not just the legal notice that I know is going to be posted . But I heard you say it'll be on the city's website. Not everybody goes to the city's website. So let's be as proactive and communicative as possible. Mr. Hahn is making motion. I didn't quite understand. Speaker 3: We're actually going to send a letter to every affected homeowner. So we will put them on notice through a letter from the city as a service to our citizens. You don't need to do that. But we're doing we're being proactive and reaching out. Speaker 5: And I appreciate letters and sometimes people don't, you know, pay attention to everything they get. And I again, more information is better than less. It wouldn't hurt to layer on some of their. Speaker 0: During our comments. Speaker 5: I was just finishing my sentence to Mr.. Speaker 0: Flynn on that later. Yes. I'd like to take once. Speaker 5: Blake, you, Mr. Hunter, I. Speaker 0: Appreciate I'm going to go ahead and call her up. Carrie Johnson. Speaker 5: It wasn't. And if you want to say. Speaker 2: Good evening, everyone, I am Kerry Thompson. I am here as a homeowner in the new flood zone. Thank you very much. What a nasty little shock that was today. I frankly am opposed to it. Initially, when I did purchase my home in 1987. It was in a flood zone. We were aware of that. We had to go through the whole process and thank heavens after a while it was determined it was not in a flood zone. So we've not been able to you know, we've not been required to have flood insurance as part of our our loan. And frankly, that's just another impediment to homeowners existing and future in that area, because now everyone has to disclose that that that will become effective in, what is it, 12 to 18 months, they just said. So I'm really disappointed because frankly, it doesn't seem like anyone had an opportunity to weigh in. There really isn't an opportunity to opt out. It sounds like it's a done deal. So I'm kind of concerned that this whole thing was pointless. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. Member comments. So I would agree with member Ashcraft that if the city could actually put something in the newspaper in addition to the letters, to make sure that all the homeowners do receive, do our best to make sure that they received notice. And also, if we could have the whole maps like in our planning department, people could go and see the whole map and double check it for whatever reason they need to talk to someone about is my home within that area. If we could have the full maps available in the planning department and then the public could come and double check with a person and speak to it if they have a problem or question anything that we could do to help facilitate that. And and I appreciate my understanding the staff we are hiring someone to also check this. Speaker 1: When we already have and they've they've already concluded confirmed FEMA's conclusions pending additional study on modifying the dike system in Bay Farm Island. So they've confirmed FEMA's conclusions based upon existing conditions. Speaker 0: So I appreciate that staff that took that extra effort to try to confirm because as the Speaker noted this, our speakers know this will be challenging for many of our homeowners member, Ashcroft. Speaker 5: And so just to follow up on the speaker's comments, Mr. Smith. This isn't exactly something that we can opt out of or the city could opt out of recognizing our floodplains. But at considerable cost as as in. Speaker 1: Opting out would mean. Are you suggesting not participating in the National Flood Insurance Program. Speaker 5: When when homeowners say and understandably, I mean, we all see our, you know, costs of insurance and property ownership costs go up every year. But I just you know, I'm not sure that the public understands quite the ramifications to all of us, not just individually, but the city, if for some reason we weren't to comply. Sure. Speaker 1: Well, I'd like to just. First start with that. This is not a done deal. This we haven't started a 90 day appeal period. So we are at the cusp of a 90 day period for public input that, you know, can still dialog can still occur between the public and FEMA. Also, I'd like to have Eric speak to once the maps are issued, there are options for individual property owners to do what's called a survey certificate. And if you could briefly explain what that is. Speaker 5: And if I could also ask you, if you're able to just talk about what would an appeal look like? What are criteria for appeal? Speaker 2: Okay. Thank you. Speaker 8: Let me first touch upon the the issue of of after these maps are updated in and the opportunity to revise or amend them is always there. Theme every year processes thousands of letters of map amendment and letters of map revision where either a homeowner or a community provides better data to FEMA to show that they're at or above this flood elevation. Or maybe there's new construction and the development involved fill, and they put that fill to elevate the new development again above the flood elevation. So the maps, even though they get revised through a big revision that we're talking about now, can get amended and revised at any time in the future. And then. What Aaron referred to as an elevation certificate is a form that documents the surveys that substantiate those changes and the newer information. And your question referring to what kind of appeal or other data FEMA may receive during this 90 day period. In that we're open to any technical or scientific data. One, I wouldn't say common, but situation that does occur is perhaps a homeowner has one of these elevation certificates. They're being mapped very close to the line of that special flood hazard area. And that elevation certificate shows that they're, in fact, at or above the flood elevation. And we can clarify that situation through a letter or, if necessary, make that small modification on the map. That's probably the most common kind of scientific or technical information we receive. Speaker 5: Thank you both. Speaker 0: Member OTI. Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam Chair. So on that that's survey that elevation certificate. So you have to do a survey to get that if you don't already have it. Speaker 8: Yes. Typically, the homeowner or another party hires a licensed land surveyor or professional engineer to fill out that form the elevation certificate. Speaker 4: So that that kind of was my question then, you know, hire. What's the average cost of one of these surveys? You know, it. Speaker 8: It depends on where you are. And it also depends. Sometimes homeowners get together, you know, if ten homeowners get together and their costs maybe, you know, $300. Speaker 3: Or. Speaker 8: Or a lot less. But if if one homeowner hires a surveyor or that professional engineer, it could be over $1,000, depending on where you are. Speaker 4: I mean, it just, you know, seems to me, you know, you're kind of. In a bad way. Either way, you know, you either have to shell out the money to buy to get a survey, or you're stuck with buying insurance. And the homeowner really has no recourse except to pay one of those. And it just seems unfortunate. So just one more question on the this appeal. So you said we had a staff and analyze that. They agreed with with the FEMA maps. Speaker 1: And the independent hydrologist that we hired on public works. Correct. They they agreed they confirmed FEMA's conclusions based on existing conditions. Speaker 4: So I guess I'm concerned based on that, that if we do have homeowners that do appeal this, that that the city and the staff will be supportive of those appeals. It seems to me that there's a belief that, you know, the FEMA maps are valid. Speaker 1: Again, the city's kind of a pass through body in terms of the actual appeal. That's for FEMA to consider. Speaker 4: Okay. Again, I think it's unfortunate that, you know, homeowners have to shell out money regardless. And it's just. Just one of those things, I guess. Speaker 9: Member Data Two sets of questions. The first set of question is when the independent hydrologist or whomever did their analysis, did they do analysis on the ground or do they use some kind of GIS system? And based upon that. Speaker 1: I'm going to have Lori speak to that. She was our staff member that worked directly with the hydrologists. Speaker 6: Madam Mayor and council members. The hydrologist was ballance hydrologists and they took a look at the data that the that FEMA had used and pretty much looked through their method of calculating the base elevation of the floodplain and how that was. The question was whether. That Stillwater elevation could have time to go inland during just the high tide or just the storm event, and they calculated that it would have time to do that. Speaker 9: And the inputs into their calculation was based upon numbers that's already in some kind of system, and they just had to review the system and make some updates. Speaker 6: I believe the light hour or the elevation data came from the county. Is that okay? Did you use the county elevation or do your own? Okay. So they were partially using survey data that came from the county and so they were kind of checking FEMA's calculations, using that. They did not go out and do an independent, complete survey. Speaker 9: Just really like of a metadata findings based upon a metadata analysis. Yeah. So it's not completely. So it's altogether possible that people could still. Do their analysis. And it's completely possible that some parts of Alameda are higher than what's in the what's in the database. So I wouldn't at their own at their own. And that's something that we need to discuss. The second set of question in our maps, the the the 1800 or so that will be subject to the new boundaries, although. Thank you very much. Appreciate your assistance. These are the these homeowners, these resident properties are in the blue area, is that correct? Correct. So this is not the brown areas in the map? Speaker 1: No, the brown areas where the lower the 500 year flood. So yes, aren't those are more for planning or advisory purposes. Speaker 9: So I just want to clarify. So there's is there any effect in having the number of units, residential or otherwise, that are in the brown areas they're not going to suddenly get thrown with. Some kind of new bill is a correct. They're just for whatever reason, they're just categorized as being in this moderate flood plain zone. Speaker 1: That's my understanding, right? Yeah. Speaker 9: Okay. Yes. You know, I mean, going back to Councilmember Otis point of view point is that a lot of these brown areas are also near the blue areas. So I wouldn't completely ixnay the idea of, you know, doing one's own analysis. That's a very technical term, by the way. Yeah. So but, you know, figuring out how to help the residents is something that we need to do in the coming weeks and months. Speaker 1: I'd also like to just just add this survey certificate that we're talking about is not yet these analysis is are done at a certain level, granular level. So you could have any one particular parcel on a block that has something. And so it's not just because our hydrologist confirmed FEMA's conclusion that shouldn't in any way discourage a property owner from pursuing that, if that's what they feel they'd like to do. Speaker 0: Like member Ashcraft. Speaker 5: And Miss Smith. You mentioned earlier, and I just wanted a little more information that FEMA will allow homeowners to purchase a lower cost flood insurance if they do so quickly. Is the procedure for doing this going to be contained in the letter that's going out to these homeowners? How will they how will they find out about it is my question. Speaker 1: That's a really good question. We allude to it, and we also invite property owners to a public meeting that will be holding to answer any questions. If I can work with Eric in advance of the letter and be as specific to that policy and reference it, I will certainly integrate that into the letter. Yeah. Speaker 5: Without sounding like a broken record, more information is better than less. And if we know that some of these homeowners are almost certainly going to have to bear the cost of flood insurance, I'd like to see us at least give them the information about how they could lower that bill. So if that could go, if you've got the ability to get that into the letter that's going out, I think that would be great. Speaker 1: It's not a problem. We will do. Speaker 5: Thank you very much. Speaker 0: And do you have the date of the meeting that you've referenced again? Speaker 1: So we're poised kind of for the Federal Register notice and then all our actions come subsequent to that. Speaker 0: Right member day. So. Speaker 9: You know, and I think this is where council member Odie might have been going the direction, but it's something that we can mull over in the coming weeks, months. It's completely possible that the city of Alameda ground truths the blue areas. Something to think about. So. Speaker 1: I just also keep in mind, Port of Oakland is is also pursuing their own independent study that impacts Bay Pharm Island, which is our largest impacted area. And so we are cooperating and await the conclusions of that study as well. Speaker 0: Thank you. Iran. Speaker 3: As. Just to remind one last thing. If you do not have a federally insured mortgage, you're not required to have flood insurance. Okay. So if you don't have a FEMA or Fannie Mae mortgage, then you're not required to have flood insurance. You're going to be in a flood zone. So that's up to you. But you're not required to do that. Okay. It's only required for federally insured mortgages. Speaker 4: Ethan. Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. They no other comments on 60. Thank you very much. And now we're going to go to six. B I'm sorry, six B That was 63. Speaker 1: Introduction of ordinances amending the Alameda Municipal Code by adding Section two, Dash 23, Article two concerning creation of a rent review advisory committee and an ordinance adding Article 14 to Chapter six concerning the review of rent increases.

Regular Agenda Item

Informational Report on the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Proposed Revisions to Floodplain Maps Which Could Impact Alameda Property Owners. (Public Works 4205)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_07212015_2015-1861

Speaker 1: Introduction of ordinances amending the Alameda Municipal Code by adding Section two, Dash 23, Article two concerning creation of a rent review advisory committee and an ordinance adding Article 14 to Chapter six concerning the review of rent increases. Speaker 2: Good evening. I'm Debbie Potter, the city's community development director. On May 5th, staff presented two alternative ordinances governing rent review procedures in the city. City Council gave staff direction to move forward with the ordinance that does not require a minimum rent increase to access the rent review process. Council also requested that staff analyze the proposed ordinance to ensure it does not that it is not in conflict with state law, specifically the Costa Hawkins Act, which precludes certain types of local rent control. Legal staff has concluded that the proposed ordinance is consistent with state law. Additionally, council requested several minor revisions to the ordinance, including grammatical changes, the addition of a severability clause and modifying language regarding alleged violations of the ordinance so that the alleged violation would be evidence and not a complete defense in any court proceedings. These changes are highlighted in Exhibit One of the staff report. Staff has also made a few changes to the ordinance, including adding the definition of a housing unit and breaking the ordinance into two ordinances so that the rent review process is addressed in one ordinance. And the inclusion of the rack in the municipal code to better outline the specific duties and responsibilities is in a second ordinance. Lastly, you will note that a revised staff report was posted today to fix some minor typos, including clarifying that an alleged violation of the ordinance will be evidence and not a complete defense. This change was made in two subsections of the ordinance, but overlooked in subsection three. Based on the legal analysis that concluded that the proposed ordinance is consistent with state law, staff is recommending that two ordinances, one governing the rent review process and one codifying the RAC, be introduced this evening on first reading. And with that brief staff report, I am happy to answer any questions. Speaker 4: Member Thank you, madam. Thank you. Ms.. Potter Just a couple quick questions. So there's this definition of housing unit. Room or group of rooms. So this ordinance only applies to housing units as defined in this in this ordinance. Speaker 2: Yes. And this was really meant to clarify that if you are renting out an individual room in your house, that that would not that room rental would not be covered by the ordinance, that this is really to cover standalone. Speaker 4: So that Mrs. Murphy exception in the old term in property law. But if you do that so like for example the Toni's yes councilmember de Suggs so his his tenant has no recourse if he jacks up the rent. If he doubles the rent. That's basically what we're saying. Speaker 2: That's under this ordinance. That's correct. Speaker 4: Then one other quick question on on the Housing Authority Housing Authority property, are they subject to this? Because I did receive some complaints from this. Speaker 2: The ordinance has drafted would exempt the housing authority because the housing authority is governed by federal law so that that process is completely different than than state law and then local law. Speaker 4: So all the folks at Independence Plaza, when they get a rate increase. Speaker 2: They have there's a whole separate process that's established for for appealing that via the federal law. Speaker 4: Okay. Those are my clarifying questions. Speaker 0: Thank you. Member de SAG. Speaker 9: Has to follow up on the issue raised by Councilmember Ody. I didn't say, oh, no, no, I'm not feeling defensive whatsoever. I think it's a valid point. I think it's important because I am of the opinion that I hate to use the word landlords, but landlords in the situation that I'm in ought to be subject. But so that begs the question, so why is there a legal reason as to why a person who lives in her or his own home and rents out an available room is not subject. Is there a reason why with. Speaker 2: The precluded is the the logic that staff applied to this was that we we thought for consistency it would be better to line up the definition of a housing unit with our zoning with the city zoning code and to really kind of keep internal consistency within our municipal code. Speaker 9: I was just curious. Speaker 2: Yeah, that was the primary reason. Speaker 0: Member. Speaker 5: Ashcroft Thank you. So, Mr. Potter, in this staff report, there is mention of the. The study that is going to be done to study a study to analyze the impacts of rising rents on Alameda residents. And I'm delighted to read that it's you've retained an economics group and the work commences on. Did it commence July one? Speaker 2: We actually we had a kickoff meeting today, earlier today. And they've been working. Yes. Speaker 5: Okay. And so will that study look at renters who rent individual rooms or. No, because it's not a part of this ordinance. Speaker 2: So the charge really is to understand the impacts of rising rents on Alameda residents. And so I believe the focus really is going to be on. You're a renter in a full park, full freestanding unit. Yes. Speaker 5: Okay. And then just a point of clarification, because I know this was in the the May staff report, there was reference to both the Fremont ordinance and the San Leandro ordinance that have provisions that are similar, if not identical to the ones that are in our proposed ordinance. And so I checked with Michael Rausch, the assistant city attorney, who did our legal research on this, and found out that the Fremont ordinance was adopted in 1990 and the San Leandro ordinance was adopted in 2001. So those ordinances have been around and functioning for that many years, decades. Thank you. Speaker 0: So I have a question. If someone is running a room and they go to Iraq right now, could they file a complaint with an rent advisory committee if they have a rent increase that they want to challenge? Speaker 2: I'm sorry I missed the very first part of your. Speaker 0: If someone is renting a room today and they had an issue with a rent increase, could they go to Iraq for relief? Would RAC review that? Or do they have to actually be renting what's being described here as a room with a kitchen and whatnot? But if they're just renting a room here in Alameda and they had a rent increase that they wanted to challenge, could they take advantage of our rack? Could they file a complaint? Speaker 2: Yeah. Yes, I would say that's probably the case because we have not we have not had a formal ordinance on our rent review process where we have set forward definitions. But I am not aware that we've ever had an actual situation where someone who is renting a room has filed a renting company's rent increase complaint form. Speaker 0: You know where I'm going with it, right? Speaker 4: All right. Speaker 0: So so is there a reason why this could not be broadened to include those that rent a room? Because I actually would submit that we do have a significant number of renters that rent a room. And if, in fact, today they could go to rack to file a claim, is there a reason why we would not staff want to be able to? Why would we want to preclude that. Speaker 4: Taking away a right that. Speaker 0: We can. You might go ahead. Speaker 4: Seems like we're taking away a right that they have today to just to continue on the mayor's point. Speaker 2: If the council wants to make that change. I don't I don't think that there is a big downside. We were really looking just to define it to end, like I said, consistency with the zoning code. Speaker 0: All right. Speaker 5: QUESTION So, Ms.. POTTER and Counsel, I think what I would rather see because I do like I do like data based actions, we are commissioning this study. I would like it to include looking at people who are renting rooms who may have felt that they had egregious rent increases. I'm not sure that we need to add this to the ordinance before we know if indeed it's a problem. So. Speaker 4: Yes. We can discuss that. Speaker 0: We can discuss that during discussion. Yeah. Speaker 5: Yeah. So I'm just saying, before we jump to say, okay. Speaker 4: We may have different opinions. Speaker 5: Okay. Speaker 0: All right. So we have approximately. Speaker 2: Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Speaker 9: Thank you. Speaker 0: And we have probably ten speakers, if you could try to keep your comments to 3 minutes and I'm going to call them three at a time. And if you do want to speak on this item, feel free to turn in your slip. Beth, Charlie, Catherine Polley and then Barbara Duncan. You may speak. Says, Beth, are you Beth? Speaker 5: You called three? Speaker 0: Yes. Beth first. Is Beth here? Then Katherine and then Barbara. How do we not have this? All right. We can call her back later if she does. Maybe she's the that the next Katherine falling, then Barbara Duncan. Speaker 2: Hello, Mayor. Mr. Mayor. Council. I'm actually here on the part of Angela Hawk about. She's out of town with her family, and she asks that I read her letter to you and to record. Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council members. I'm writing today to encourage you to approve the rent review ordinance at this Tuesday's city council meeting. The Rent Review Advisory Committee needs to be strengthened now. The housing crisis has only worsened since we first spoke in January, and renters have few tools to address the rent increases that keep coming their way. You might recall Council Member De Saugus report on the census during the January 20th City Council meeting. It showed that homeowners incomes increased between 2011 and 2013, while renters decreased during the same time. Renters were not prepared for these rent increases and are struggling to hang on to their homes. Should say our homes. I understand that the council will be on break in August, which means that this ordinance will not be finalized until September. Renters have already waited months for the council to address this housing crisis. And while many renters applaud the upcoming new housing units coming to the market through the approval of sidewalk, those improvements are years away. Renters need help now. We hope for the swift approval of the rent review ordinance tonight and reviewing the supporting documents for the rent review ordinance. I appreciate that the council and the legal department have gone the extra mile to ensure the enforceability and legality of this ordinance. We hope that you will approve the rent review ordinance as a starting point to build more community stabilization in the city of Alameda. Much more needs to be done to protect the citizen renters of Alameda. Here are a few of my ideas. One. Make any application to the rock trigger an inspection by the Planning Department to ensure that any unit in question is up to code. We feel that RAK applicants often come to the rock with concerns about the quality of their rental units and that the only way to truly know the status of a unit is to inspect it. We believe that many of these rent increases would be reconsidered if the true scope of deferred maintenance on a given rental into a rental unit was understood to institute a moratorium on rent increases in the city of Alameda. This is the only way that some families will be able to remain here in our city. Three required landlords to give tenants 30 and 60 day notices to vacate to provide moving assistance, for example, or reimbursement for moving costs. And the full replacement of the security deposit. This will ensure a displaced renter can find new housing. In this housing crisis, the renters of Alameda are looking to the Council for Leadership on this matter. Thank you for taking the time to review the issue. I hope we can continue to find new solutions to address this very urgent crisis. And thank you for the extra 30 seconds. Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Barbara Duncan. And then you. And then Annette Zelinski. You may proceed. Okay. Speaker 6: My name is Barbara. Speaker 0: Duncan, and I'm for rent. Speaker 2: Control. Speaker 0: I came in tonight and gave Marilyn Ashcroft. Speaker 2: Something for the mayor. And it's about the Berlin. Speaker 0: Rent control and how. Speaker 2: It's worked. Speaker 0: And right now we have Richmond. Speaker 2: Online. Speaker 0: And we have San Francisco online. Okay. They both want rent control. The way it's going now. Speaker 2: You want the. Speaker 6: Council. Speaker 0: You were put up there by us, by the people. Now we feel you should act. Speaker 2: For the people. Speaker 0: One way or another, if you please, would sit down and think about the. Speaker 2: People. Speaker 0: That cannot afford this rent increase, because Richmond has already found out that people are going in there buying their housing up and raising the rents. Alameda was known as a diamond in the rough. I don't know. Speaker 6: Who said that, but that's what it was called. Speaker 0: And it will not be. Speaker 6: I mean, I drove down the street yesterday. Speaker 0: And couldn't get from one point to another. Speaker 6: Without stopping, so. That's it. Speaker 0: I have no more to say. Thank you. And we will provide copies of your hand out to all council members. Thank you very much. U u t u t. Speaker 5: E Boota. Speaker 0: V to. Etta. And then Annette and then Bill Smith. Speaker 2: Good evening. First, let me applaud. Speaker 10: The mayor and the city council for going ahead with such a. I believe that's very important because there's plenty of people in Alameda right outside a it would have to move someplace else because they cannot afford to live here. And I hope this is a new beginning for the city of Alameda, because this is a very serious issue. I speak to quite a few people and everyone says the same thing. My my rent went up. I can't stay here anymore. My kids have to go to a different school. My husband has to travel 5050 miles. Speaker 2: To go to work. Speaker 10: So it's disrupting lives. And I'm hoping. It is a new beginning and the mayor and the city council will move forward to more affordable housing. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 2: Hi. I'm Annette Zielinski, and some of you have heard me tell my story before, so I'll try to keep it really short. But basically, about a year ago, well, August of last year, my rent went up 20%. And I went through the rack process and I felt that a 10% increase was fair and was willing to pay a rack, supported that decision. And my landlord, when the ten days was up to supply me with a new lease to honor the recommendation of the rack committee, decided to call me and evict me over the phone. And said that he'd be following up with writing in the notice in writing shortly. So in that time I had called eco housing and renewed hope and got some help. And it took a couple of months, but after a couple of months they were willing to give me a new one year lease, but for the full 20% amount that they originally proposed. In that time, I had gone to look for housing and couldn't believe that in the two and a half years that I lived there, what had happened to rents in Alameda? And I got really scared because I was recruited to work here. I was living on the East Coast at the time and was recruited to work here by the North Face, which is like a fairly prominent business on the island. And for what they were willing to pay me at that time, I could afford a one bedroom apartment. Now I can't. Like I am at the max of what I can afford. I made my company aware of my situation and they, you know, instead of my annual 3% raise, I got a 4% raise, which really doesn't compensate for a 20% rent increase. I guess I really want to I don't know all the details of what's in this new ordinance, but I would like to see the committee have some enforcement authority. You know, I mean, they can make a recommendation, but if the landlord doesn't want to follow it, where does that leave people like me? I mean, I had to suck it up with that 20%. And to be honest with you, I've given up on looking for another place to live that's in this state. Like, I'm trying to head to Oregon, and that really bums me out because my livelihood is very specific to the footwear industry, which is what I'm doing here in Alameda. And it's I've been actively job hunting since January to no avail. So I'm really scared and I kind of lose sleep about this all the time because in that process, my landlord got a little heated with me and said that he he thinks he should be getting 2450 for my apartment. When I rented it four and a half years ago, my rent was 1500. It's now 1800. So come October, when my lease is up, I'm looking at nearly $1,000 rent increase in less than five years. So I'm scared, I'm desperate, I lose sleep. And I just beg you guys to, like, consider some enforcement authority for the rack. So thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Bill Smith and then Pamela Tozer. And then. And Mike Harrigan. Speaker 3: Mayor Spencer and council members and staff. I'm Bill Smith speaking on behalf of renewed hope. And as we've heard from the last speaker to thrive or community service workers who wait tables, who design shoes, who work in retail and clean our schools and stores. Rents, though, are rising faster than wages paid to the providers of these services. They threaten the fabric of our community. As was just heard in very elegant testimony. Rents are rising because many of us are thriving in the tech business and the tech businesses are expanding. There's money available. It will take time, though, for this money. The fortunes of the tech world to trickle down to retailers, restaurants, government, north face workers, allow them to pay wages to cover the increased rents will take time to build new housing to satisfy the increased demand. It takes almost no time for rents to rise and evict the service workers. The service workers need to suffer have buried a disproportionate share of the cost of accommodating the new workers and the success of the region. To thrive in our communities, governments, retailers, restaurants and other businesses to raise wages of service workers while housing providers moderate rent increases until those wages rise. I. I thank the city for leading the way by raising the wages of service workers at the Davis Street Transfer Station earlier this year. I urge the city to continue to assist our most vulnerable citizens by passing this ordinance. Speaker 2: Greetings, Mayor. Council and staff. My name is Pamela Tozer. I shared a brief version of my story in support of site. You may recall that my 12 year old daughter and I share a room and a bed in an apartment that, due to rent increases is now. The rent is now more than half my income, half my monthly income. I also have a 20 year, 26 year old son who, through economic displacement in Alameda, found it necessary to move out of state and is awaiting the return of affordable housing. If my rent were to increase any further, I fear my fate would be the same for my daughter and myself. As a resident for over ten years, that would devastate my daughter. We moved here when she was two. You have seen her. You've seen her in The Nutcracker on the stage at Kaufman. You've seen her play soccer at Lincoln. At Lincoln Park, T-ball at Riddler Park and softball like Russi. You've also seen her sailing in the bay and in the estuary. We want nothing more than to remain in our home while we await the construction of affordable rental housing. I am not alone in my desires or concerns. Elderly, disabled and other single parents. We feel exposed and vulnerable and without protection and care. I believe strengthening the RAC is a great first step in establishing community stabilization. Personal Security. I encourage you to look at all innovative solutions to help Alameda renters. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. After and we'll be Barbara Price than John Spangler and then Garfield can cross. Speaker 2: Good evening. Good evening, Madam Mayor. Council and staff and just, you know, Barbara did have to leave, so she will she won't be here to speak. I'm here this evening to encourage you to support these ordinances in strengthening the rack. The work they have done in the past has been beneficial to many, and I think the strengthening of the verbiage will help it, especially in the fact that it helps level the playing field requiring the landlord to attend. So often in the past that has been part of the problem is, is that the other side just didn't need to come and never did. And so I think that that's a valuable part. I also think that it's very important to accept as written in the sense that there is no specific percentage noted because markets do change and what may seem reasonable today may be extremely unreasonable in the past. In the future, I mean, we've had times where any kind of an increase may not be reasonable. So I think this allows the rack to be able to react to the to react to the market as it is at that point in time. I also want to thank member Ashcraft for asking to look into the the issue of borders in the sense of somebody who's living in your house renting a room. What? I'm not an attorney, but my understanding is those laws are quite different than those covering renters. So it may be that actually the act does not even cover those at this point in time. And I think it's really important that that that's that we are. Speaker 10: Again ensuring that whatever ordinance we are writing, it is not in conflict a law that is already on the books. Thank you. Speaker 0: John Spangler. And then Garfield came across and then Karen Bay. Speaker 3: Thank you very much. Mr. Spencer, members of the council staff and fellow renters. It broke my heart to hear Annette's 3 minutes of comments here a minute ago. We will be losing a wonderful person from this community. If she is forced out of here and she unfortunately is not alone. My wife and I had been feeling the same pressure for the last five years because we are now renters instead of homeowners. The imbalance of power is really obvious when you change that one from one side of the fence to the other. And it's really disturbing. This ordinance even weakened as it is in the last 60 days and relatively. Ineffective to start with because it does not include rent control is still going to help a little bit and we'll take it. I encourage you to pass it tonight. But there's still no way to legally stop egregious rent increases and robber baron behavior on the part of people who happen to own property. And it just stinks. The United Nations holds that decent housing is a human right. And that's a little different than the free market seems to be able to accommodate. With the referral back to staff. The original implementation date of this ordinance will be six months later than it would have been. That's six more months of stories like Annette's. And journalists and unfortunately, a lot of nameless people who have just given up and left. I want to close by reiterating the points that Angela Hawk about who I wish was here tonight. Stated in her email. One. Make an application to the rack. Trigger an inspection by the Planning Department, the building department, to ensure that any unit in question is up to code. To institute a moratorium on rent increases in the city of Alameda. Three require landlords who give tenants 30 and 60 day notices to vacate to provide moving assistance. That's reimbursement for moving costs and the full replacement of the security deposit. Those are not rent control, particularly either, and they're not enough either. But those should be considered and adopted as soon as possible. We are far from done. Thank you very much. Speaker 0: Thank you. Mr. Ken Cross. Speaker 3: Hello. Good evening, mayor. And City Council members, I. Recently applied to the RAC and. Mayor. You saw the turnout for that. We received some recompense through the through the rec committee. However, you know, the landlord has no binding agreement, you know, or an obligation from the city to participate. We we had a difficult time getting his presence to be here. And I spoke to the other owner. You know, they had lots of people come out to the health department after I complained for four years to this landlord in writing about three different times over the over the past two years. Termites in the they they rendered our balconies unsafe. So due to the balcony collapse that that took place recently in the news they were ready to do this in in a you know, expeditious manner, which, you know, I'm glad they did that. But but they were very reluctant and even sort of laughed off the idea of a city mediation body like the RAC. And I still feel the pressure because there is no binding agreement for, you know, that that allows these laissez faire Ayn Rand types to, you know, use the market as, you know, as as their as their . You know, it seems like they're using it as a weapon on the middle class. You know, and I'm just I'm just tired of that. It shouldn't happen in the United States. You know, it's like it's like a leveraged overthrow of of democracy. You know, and this is serious to me. I've studied these aspects of of history quite deeply and. And I'm just appalled at that type of thing happening throughout the country. I'm an advocate for some more regulation. You know, there's deregulation taking place overall over the last several years in the banking sector, the financial sector. The tech sector is is at the helm of appointing, you know, people in big governments to do things in India like Narendra modi, bring it back, child labor or, you know, it's just and these things that are happening are just overwhelming to tell you in 2 minutes or 3 minutes. But I feel I feel the effects of this. It's like a war on the weak, you know, it's like what happened in Weimar Germany to a certain extent. Thank you very much. Speaker 0: Thank you. Erin Bay and then Susan, Laura and then Laura Thomas. If you want to speak on this item, please turn in your slip. Speaker 6: Good evening, Mr. Spencer. Members of the City Council staff. My name is Karen Bass, and I'm a landlord. In this city, I've been a tenant as well. And I'm here tonight to urge you to approve the two ordinances before you and then move swiftly to form some kind of a taskforce to discuss the next steps. The city of Oakland and the city of San Francisco did a joint conference a few months ago to discuss the housing crisis, and in that conference, they shared some of their shared ideas on some of the other tools that can be used to address the housing conference I'm sorry, the housing shortage crisis. And then they each went back to their respective cities and began to implement some of those. One of the ideas. It's a note. Examiner Today, San Francisco Examiner on page four, new strategies to address the housing crisis. And I know this might be a little controversial, but it's actually a great idea. But what they're proposing to do is to approve some of the sort of granny units that have been deemed illegal for some reason and give those housing providers an opportunity to make them legal and provide affordable housing. And they would go into a housing affordable pool. Now, this is not city wide. They're doing it. They just selected certain districts. But that's just one of the tools. And they they they they believe that this could create thousands of housing units immediately. And so these are the kind of tools that we need to look at. There are a lot of possibilities. I have some great ideas myself, and I would like to be part of that task force. But I think people need to see us working together to solve this problem. And I do believe that there are a lot of great ideas out there and I would love to discuss more. But please, tonight I approve the two ordinances. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Susan. Speaker 2: Good evening. We are definitely the bottom of the barrel at this particular point because we are landlords. I was born and raised in this town, as were my parents, and I love this place more than any place else I've ever been and always come home. So the one question that I have for the proposed study is that going to include the owners who have worked and have. Gone in and you know. Gone into hock to buy a place in the last 15 years, especially before 2008, and then still hung on. Are they are they going to be and are we going to be included in this so that we get our point of view across, too? I'm not saying that rack and this ordinance, both of the ordinances, I think they're a wonderful idea. And I think on a case by case basis that rap could do some wonderful things, but it needs to be a case by case basis. 20% increase from $1,000 or doing a 400% increase over the course of, you know, five years or whatever. It's ridiculous. No owner should be doing that. But they also have to be able to do what they do. They're there. We're in it for business. We're not. We're in it to make money to support our families, to help them out, too. This isn't just a one way street that we're coming in and doing this. Going in with a full replacement of security deposits is unfair. A full replacement of a security deposit because you've asked somebody to leave because they damage the property would be totally unfair to the owners. I mean, you know what? If they're just really bad neighbors, would you want them in your house? Because I'll be happy to move my bad neighbors right into your house. I'll even help them pack. But if they're in there and they've knocked holes in my walls, ripped up my carpet because they didn't like the color and laid down something they did. No. I deserve to get those damage deposits taken care of and done properly through the state of California rules that we have. So to to take it out on all owners isn't correct. But we definitely need to do something to cover everybody, including the owners. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Laura Thomas. And then Carrie Thompson. And then she's our last speaker. Speaker 10: Good evening, Madam Mayor and members of the Council. I'm Laura Thomas. Renewed Hope Housing Advocates. Of course we support this small boost to the powers of the Rent Review Advisory Commission. It's the result of a lot of work and goodwill on the part of both renters and the conscientious landlords in Alameda. And it ought to be approved tonight. I feel like I'm a kind of a broken record on this issue. But I thought I'd come one more time and say that renters in this town deserve more respect and they need a lot more protection than this minor change to the powers of the Rent Review Advisory to what the Rent Review Advisory Commission can now provide even with this. I think if we don't. Deal with this crisis than we're going to be in the same situation as Healdsburg is in at some point. And if you read the page one of the Sunday Chronicle, you would read about Healdsburg and how the hollowing out of that community from a rapid shift to wealthy people, some of whom mostly bought second homes there. I mean, they 42% of the population of Healdsburg has been there less than 14 years. And they may contribute to the tax base with what they spend on wining and dining over the weekend. But the city is a mere playground for them and they don't really contribute time. They don't even seem to be contributing their money and to community organizations. And the public school enrollment is dropping because obviously their children aren't going to school there. And I think when school enrollment starts to go down, then, you know, your your community is dying. And we're losing a lot of children through this rent crisis. What happened to them rapidly could happen to Alameda, perhaps more slowly. And we don't want a shell of attractive community. We want a real one. And I think it's crucial to stabilize the rents in this town and provide more power to one half of our residents or will become like Healdsburg historical lovely old homes redone for magazine features, but with no real people and no real place to live . Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Carrie Thompson is our last speaker on this item. Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam Mayor. I Kerry Thompson. I am the immediate past president of the Almeida Chamber of Commerce, and I do support staff recommendation to pass these ordinances to help Alameda renters and to help landlords understand some of the burden that is on renters. Believe me, I have been a landlord. I've also been a renter. I am a homeowner. I've experienced all of those hats. And I feel like right now that frankly, landlords are being vilified. And that is not exactly a fair representation of all landlords. Yes, there are nasty landlords out there. There always have been. There always will be. But I believe that the RAC will help that situation and correct that situation. I really appreciate the fact in there. Councilmember O'Day and I were talking earlier today that, in fact, if the landlord does not show up to the hearing, nothing can happen for a year. No increases can happen. So I think that is a big step for the renters there. It also encourages the landlords to be more involved in what is going on with their tenants. I think some of the things that were requested are a little beyond the scope of rec and should be beyond the scope of rack because there is you can't control what people do with their rental property, just like you cannot control what they're doing with their own home. So to put some of those restrictions on those as far as requiring them to pay for somebody to move for an inspection, that it unless there are health reasons or something, I think you're kind of would be stepping outside the boundaries there. But I do encourage you to pass this ordinance because it is long past time for the renters here. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. All right, counsel. Russian comments. Speaker 3: Right. Speaker 0: And vice mayor. Speaker 3: Yes. I'd like to resolve this point that was brought up about the housing unit, because really, this is a the way I read this, this is a ordinance that protects the rights by rent review advisory commission between a tenant and a landlord. And in some respect, the definition of housing unit is not material to that. If you. Read The definition of tenant. Because it does say any person having legal responsibility for the payment of rent or residential property. So that could mean a room that could be in a housing unit. So as long as that's resolved. And I'd like. The attorney and the staff to make sure that there is no unintended consequence of the definition of. Housing unit that precludes that resolution of of an issue between the landlord and tenant. Otherwise, I'm ready to vote for the first reading of this ordinance. Speaker 2: So if there is a consensus on that council that you would like to cover, as has been the procedure to date rooms as well as for units, I have a suggested modification to the ordinance that if that if you're interested in hearing that, I'm I can share that with you. Speaker 5: Well, and before Miss Potter gives us that suggested modification. I agree with the vice mayor that I would like to know from the city attorney's office, is there any legal reason that we couldn't do that? Speaker 2: Not that we're aware of. Speaker 3: And that was my my request was because this is truly the relationship between a landlord and tenant, not the relationship of whether there's a kitchen associated with the room or not. So, again, I think the the definition of housing is immaterial. However. I want to make sure that there's no exclusion because someone doesn't live in the housing unit as we defined it. So if they're paying rent under a contract with to a landlord. There should be protections and vice versa. Speaker 2: So the suggested change, which I have worked on with our assistant city attorney, is as follows. So what we what we would recommend is that the definition of housing unit B be deleted. Speaker 0: From page three. Speaker 2: Yes, on page three. And that the definition under residential property, which is further down. So it would read that residential property means any housing unit, including a room or group of rooms designed and intended for occupancy by one or more persons or a mobile home. And so that would then capture. That would all be captured under the definition of a residential property, and we would delete the definition of a housing unit. And so that so that has been vetted with with the. Speaker 0: Thank you very much. I would agree with that proposal. Any member would. Speaker 4: Agree with that, too, because I could see. I understand the vice mayor's point, but as an attorney, I could argue that, you know, housing unit, because it was added, you know, we took the special time to figure out what a housing unit was. And even though we defined tenant, we further defined housing unit and we specifically excluded these these rooms from housing units. So therefore, we intended not to include them. Plus we had a discussion about it. So, you know, I could see where an attorney that's worth his or her salt can, you know, can. Can argue that we didn't include intent to include those. So I supportive of that amendment. Speaker 0: All right. So do we have any other comments before we have a motion? A member? Odie. Speaker 4: I'm sorry. I just have a couple of comments. Miss Potter, can you kind of explain again in December what this council is going to be receiving as far as data and a report? Speaker 2: Yes. So the direction that was given to staff previously was to undertake a study that will be looking. It's a quantitative study that will be looking at the impacts of rising rents in Alameda, on Alameda renters, and that that is the analysis that is being looked at right now so that we're the consultant will be looking at impacts by tenure, by gender, by age, by race, ethnicity. And we'll be looking there was a number of points that the council asked us to study regarding the impact on rising rents. And then the council also directed us to look at some next steps in terms of policy recommendations based on that quantitative data so that our analysis will include some some next steps recommendations. Speaker 4: And if we find that there is widespread rent increases that are outside the range of affordability for a tremendous amount of our tenants, can can that report include the analysis of this moratorium, this Berlin type rent freeze that that some of the people have brought forward today? Speaker 2: Yes, we can include an analysis of that idea. Speaker 4: And other ideas that have been put forth, because rent control is not the end all, be all in solving the issue of rising rents. And, you know, I would contend that it probably doesn't work in places where it's intended to, but we still have the issue whether or not we have it rent control or not. So I'd like to see a wide range of policy options that we have as a council to try and address this issue. If it turns out, as most people in the audience are telling us, that it is a widespread issue. Speaker 2: Yes, we can do that as part of the report. And I would just also like to remind the council that the ordinance requires staff to come back and report annually on on the implementation of the ordinance. So we will also have those data points 12 in 12 months. Speaker 0: Member Ashcraft. Speaker 4: And one. Speaker 2: Other member Sorry. Speaker 4: And then I apologize. So on the the ordinance for the Iraq as far as the. The selection of the the members now that we're giving this body a little more teeth and it actually has, you know, some enforcement authority as to instead of just, you know, a simple well, you may participate. You may not participate. You know, I wonder if it makes sense that the council and the community have a little more input in selection because we're already. Pigeonholing certain seats for, you know, landlords, some for tenants, you know, some for for the other category. You know, if if we could have some, you know, public application process where, you know, we vet we have public applications for this and Berkeley these are elected. I mean it's a rent board are granted they have rent control and a lot more authority. But you know, I think the public would be better served in this council would be better served if for this particular board that it's a more public where we have applications, you know, perhaps we have interview public interview with the council asking the potential member because, you know, these individuals are going to have an impact on potentially 51% of our population. So that that's my my suggestion on the selection. I mean, no offense to anybody's ability, past or future in selecting these people, but I just think it's something we should have a little more public input in. Speaker 0: Remember Ashcroft. Speaker 5: So in addition to the comments I was about to make, I would wholehearted, wholeheartedly endorse the suggestion that Councilmember Odie just made. I, I actually have been thinking that that is a process and it's a process followed in other cities, choosing their representatives to boards and commissions that it isn't the way we do it in Alameda, where the mayor appoints and the council basically rubber stamps. But all of the applications come to all the council members. The interviews are actually held in public so the community can see and hear, too, and then the whole council votes on it. And I do think now that we're putting some well-needed teeth into the RTC and the governing ordinance, that we should give serious thought to that. So I don't know, is that a council referral coming back in the fall member Odie, or you'll think about it over a break. Speaker 3: Well, you know. Speaker 4: I was just specifically talking about this particular commission, the. Speaker 3: Iraq. Speaker 5: Right, and we should stay on topic now. So let me go to the comments I was going to make and I know I said this last time this came up before us in May that I had then recently heard a forum on NPR. And I think I sent some of staff the the link. But the mayor, Libby Schaaf of Oakland was speaking and I've actually met with the director and assistant director of the Housing Authority, and we started to explore it's a state law and it allows a landlord who is willing to commit to having his or her building. And it might not even have to be the whole building, but a certain percentage of it rented to low income. As that is, that term is defined in state law. Residents for 35 years would enjoy certain tax breaks. So when we're looking at possible ways to address rights. Speaker 2: So you had brought that up at the last meeting and we have incorporated those proposals into the work scope for the consultant to analyze and come back to us. Speaker 5: Glad to hear that. Thank you. And and I would just say that I was poised and ready to support this last time around, as I am today. But I do want to just touch on a couple of comments that were made that we don't mean to vilify one half of our population or the other. Well, landlords are exactly half of the population, but renters are a little more than half. We will only find good, workable solutions if we all work collaboratively and avoid accusatory kinds of language and actions. And I do think, as has was we've seen in the past, a few bad apples will spoil the barrel. And that's why I really applaud the proposal to require to actually put teeth into requiring the landlord. I know there's another name, property owner or whatever it is, or someone who has authority to actually act to be at those hearings. So once that happens, I think, you know, you'll you'll see some improvement. And then with the statistical data that you're collecting, I think we'll have an even fuller picture of what's going on. But I do I, I appreciate the anecdotal evidence that comes before us, but I think, you know, we all need to remember that there are some very decent landlords out there. They've actually been working hard with their fellow landlords who aren't so decent to try to bring them around. And anyway, I applaud everything staff is doing and I hope the council is prepared to move this forward tonight. Thank you. Speaker 0: I spare. Speaker 3: Time for a motion. Speaker 5: Or. Speaker 9: I'll just make a quick comment if it's okay. Speaker 0: Yeah. And you can make a comment after emotion. Speaker 3: Do you want to make a move? I'd like to move that. We approve the first reading of this ordinance with modifications as stated by Ms.. Potter, that is, to remove the definition of the housing unit and the modified definition of residential property to include a room that is rented for habitation. Speaker 9: I'll second second as well. Speaker 0: Comment Member de sa. Speaker 9: Thank you. Well, thank you very much for the members of the public, particularly those who are very involved in this process that has gone on for several months now. This doesn't solve everything, but from what I can see is a pretty well measured, calibrated approach to the rental housing crisis, with the caveat that there is going to be more work that needs to be done and the sooner rather than later. But it's a good start. So I certainly would like to join council members in supporting the the ordinance that's before us this evening. Speaker 0: I also want to thank Jeff Canberra. There are many, many meetings along with the public members that participated to arrive at this. I also want to thank staff. It was important for staff to spend time reviewing it. There's a lot of work put into this, as well as trying to make it as legally sound as possible with that. Speaker 4: Kind of information. Speaker 0: Yes. Speaker 4: That is okay. This is just the first. Speaker 3: Rent review ordinance. Speaker 0: All right, all those in favor. I oppose motion carries unanimously. Thank you. Speaker 2: The staff is also requesting that the Council introduce on first reading the ordinance, codifying the rec in the municipal code. Speaker 0: And remember, Ashcroft. Speaker 5: I was going to move. But our second. Speaker 0: Discussion. I want to thank staff for doing this work. This is something that many of us thought had been done years ago. And we learn by going through this process that had not been codified. So thank you, staff, for bringing this forward with that. All those in favor I. Speaker 5: He's the landlord. Mr. De SA recused himself because he is a landlord. Speaker 0: Motion carries unanimously. Thank you. Speaker 2: Thank you. Speaker 0: And now we have 60. We're going to see 61st and we're go back to six. See for those of you that weren't here earlier. Speaker 2: Yeah. Speaker 1: Several actions for the master plan for the Del Monte Warehouse Project, which was approved in December 2014, including subdividing the property, authorizing an agreement to transfer certain city owned land to the housing authority, and outlining the required rent to develop affordable housing unit by adopting two resolutions and introduction of an ordinance.

Regular Agenda Item

Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding Section 2-23 to Article II Concerning the Creation of a Rent Review Advisory Committee; and Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding Article XIV to Chapter VI Concerning the Review of Rent Increases. (Community Development 481005) REVISED AS OF JULY 21, 2015

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_07212015_2015-1864

Speaker 1: Recommendation to provide input to Avery and Associates regarding the recruitment brochure for the city manager. Recruitment. Hello, Madam Mayor. Members of the City Council. Speaker 2: My name is Robin Young. I'm a senior analyst with the Human Resources Department. As you are aware, you have engaged to Avery and Associates, a consulting firm, to head up your city manager recruitment. I have with me here Paul Chmura, who is leading this effort and who would like to review the brochure for yourself without further delay . Oh. Speaker 3: You. Very much. Good evening. Speaker 0: Good evening. Speaker 3: Mayor. Council members. Speaker 0: Thank you for allowing us to take the other item ahead of yours. Appreciate that. Speaker 8: Oh, absolutely. Speaker 3: Real important, as well as interesting discussions about challenges where all all the communities are facing on housing. But, you know, thank you very much. I wanted to just return to you after having had a chance to individually meet or speak with each of you to solicit your input on the ideal candidate profile for your city manager. So incorporating. Speaker 8: All of the. Speaker 3: Central themes we I put together a preliminary draft of the job announcement. Staff was kind enough to work with me and ensure that the most of the facts were accurate. Speaker 8: And tonight. Speaker 3: I wanted to check with you to see your thoughts on the job announcement. And if there were any changes or edits that you would like to see. And then thereafter, to open up the recruitment so that we can try and find you a new city manager by year's end. Speaker 0: Right. Comments from council or as I know, we don't have any speaker tips on this one. Correct. All right. Comments from Council. Speaker 5: I liked it. I thought. I thought it did a good job of talking about our historical character. Reputation? I like the friendly and sophisticated island community, but, you know, talking about our attributes, great schools, family friendly beaches, successful historic movie theater, retail stores, ample recreational opportunities and abundant parks and playgrounds. But also the very next paragraph talks about the development that we're embarking on in Alameda Point and the characteristics we would like to see in a city manager to lead us through that, that process. And I like the photographs. It's I think there's a lot to choose from in Alameda when you're looking at photographs, but I think it was a nice representative sample. Speaker 0: The other member comments. All right. So I have a few. When you describe our city as the second paragraph. Okay. In the middle of city of Alameda, best places to live. It has a high median family income. My understanding our median income is 75,000. So I'm not sure what that's based on. In regards to high, I really don't even know what that means. But I think very I would say that we are a socio economically diverse community. Well educated populace. Again, I don't know what that's based upon, but I think we I would like to describe the diversity as socio in the diversity of our community I think should be represented. And we can go over that language later. But I don't think this captures our diverse community. And with that, of course, comes. I would be hoping that we have we end up selecting a manager that recognizes the diversity of our community and supports the diversity of our community and wants to work with us to provide a higher quality of life and a be aware of quality of life for our the the diverse needs of the community members. So that's why that connects to. The the application then attributes. Speaker 3: Mm hmm. Absolutely. Speaker 0: All right. Any other comments? And this was just for feedback. It's my understanding. We don't need to take a vote on this. Just a question. Yes. Speaker 3: When is it actually going to start? The recruitment was intended to start after you approved the brochure. You're not. Speaker 8: Meeting, apparently, next. Speaker 3: Month. So we were hoping we might be able to get approval this evening, initiate the recruitment, have a filing period close in early September, and have candidates presented to you by early October. Speaker 5: I'm all for moving forward expeditiously. But can you just maybe do a read back of how you would incorporate the mayors? I mean, she's right. We are an ethnically diverse community. The. You know, we could debate about high median family income, but maybe there's a way to kind of. Speaker 6: Right. Speaker 5: Incorporate all of that. Speaker 3: There is room and we can certainly speak to the diversity of the community. We can take out the comment about the high family, high median income. Speaker 8: And I think. Speaker 3: The what I would emphasize is that. Speaker 8: Because. Speaker 3: This is more of a marketing brochure as opposed to an all encompassing description of what exactly each of you might want. You know, I tried to. Under communicate. Rather than overcommunicate just to it to ensure that we we did make it more of a brief statement and try and attract the. Speaker 8: Diversity of candidates that you would all look for. I think the other change I would. Speaker 3: Try and make, given the mayor's input, is under the ideal candidate profile. Perhaps the next the last paragraph we can talk about someone who recognizes and appreciates a diverse community and can add, you know, positive benefits for the. Speaker 2: Betterment party unity. Speaker 0: Unfortunately, because that may not we might we might not be a good fit for certain candidates. We are I think, you know, we are a we are a diverse community. We are different from a lot of communities in the United States. Sure. So I think it is important to put that there. You know, initially so personally, I'm concerned about the comments that I think make it appear that, you know, the median income and then the well-educated populace, I don't think that really speaks to us. We are diverse in regards to education as well as income. But really, I think what we are is socioeconomically racially, racially. Sexual orientation, however you want to come up with that, really describes the diversity. And I think that's our richness as opposed to the attributes that are focused on here. However you want to describe that. Speaker 5: I'm going to jump in and say, remember, we are casting our net wide. I think the we will be best served as a council making this very significant decision for our city if we have as wide a candidate pool to select from as possible. There is nothing wrong with saying we are a well-educated populace. We are, you know, right next to UC Berkeley. I think, you know, some of us up here on the dais have degrees from the University of California. So there's I mean, there's nothing to be ashamed of in our our capabilities. I and I don't think it's an either or proposition. So, yes, the cultural diversity and I you know, we should remember, too, we're in the San Francisco Bay area. I mean, some of that almost goes without saying, but nothing wrong with speaking to our rich cultural diversity. But I don't think we need to be ashamed of a have a good education. After all, we tout one of our selling points. I mean, any realtor will tell you is that we have a good school system in our students go on to good colleges, which. Speaker 0: Is another point which is there. The next paragraph. Speaker 5: Speaks We don't need to take. Speaker 0: Your family first. Speaker 5: We don't need to take out well educated populace. I'm okay. Speaker 0: With that. I don't think it's based on fact, but I mean, it's up to you. That's my opinion. I don't know where the rest of you stand. We have people at cross. Speaker 3: I'd like to see the process get going as quickly as possible. I don't think I don't think people are going to read this. So I think it's going to go out. I really don't. I think people are going to understand there's a city manager job opening in Alameda. They're going to Google it. They're going to look. They're going to talk to you. And you're going to go to your contacts because you have a we hired you because you have a lot of contacts. I don't want to spend any more time tonight on this. Go ahead and put in the diversity comment. Go ahead and put in that. We are in the San Francisco Bay area. It's cutting edge or whatever it is and get the recruiting going. That's my opinion. Speaker 4: I second that. Speaker 0: So we do. Speaker 5: Have the. Speaker 0: We do have a speaker. Speaker 2: But you do? Speaker 0: Yes. Sorry. So it's 1030. So to consider the remaining items six e ordinance of part time sick leave, six F Ordinance of sunshine and any nominations. Ten A We would require a motion with four votes to pass. Three Have a motion. All right. All right. Well, we do not have a motion. Speaker 6: So. Speaker 3: So move a second. Speaker 0: All right. All those in favor. I know. All those opposed? No. Oppose. So, yes, the motion. Speaker 2: To. Speaker 0: The motion fails. Two in favor, three opposed. So we will just finish up this item. Thank you. And then we have speakers. Kara Goldstein. Yes. Speaker 2: I'm sorry. I'm sorry, man. A man. That happened a little quickly. We have an ordinance that is actually fairly urgent because it's a requirement from state law. That's six, which you haven't heard yet. That is an item that we need that we need to we need to decide tonight. Speaker 5: I wish we'd known about that being a change. Speaker 0: Then we do. Six. Do we have a motion to entertain? Six. Speaker 4: Only I'll make that motion. Speaker 3: I'll second that. Speaker 0: All those in favor. Speaker 2: I think you opposed none. Speaker 0: Okay. So we'll be hearing six after this item. Carol, you may proceed. Thank you. Speaker 2: Hi, Carol Gladstone, resident. I just. Speaker 6: Wanted to. Speaker 3: Back up the. Speaker 1: Mayor a little. Speaker 2: Bit on the earnings. I just happened to have the summary for Alameda 2013 earnings. According to Transparent California, our total population of 74,818 people. The median earnings for full time year round employed residents. Speaker 3: Is. Speaker 2: $61,378. That I wouldn't say is high income. And and I agree, we're not Piedmont. Speaker 3: And I. Speaker 2: Don't think we should be made. Speaker 3: To look like we are. Speaker 0: Thank you. Any other comments. Speaker 9: On. Speaker 0: Amor de SAC? Speaker 9: A Thank you. I actually like the brochure as it is. For example, you know, when you look like I showed before, when you look at the median income of homeowners and in the city and remember, homeowners are half the households. It's $113,000, man. That's not chump change. The median income for renters is $51,700. You know, that's certainly low. So I like the the the inclusion of the education because to me, what all of these speak to is a need to get the prospects, to send them a clear message as to what kind of city they're coming to . They're coming to a city with high expectations because they themselves have high expectations for themselves and because they are high. The residents here are well-educated. When you look at the data and I've looked at the data, so I like the way I like it the way it is. I'm not you know, I'm not going to get into a wordsmithing battle, but I just want to say, great. Speaker 0: So do you have a are opposed to adding information about being. Diverse, somehow speaking to the diversity of our community. Speaker 9: Well, I don't. But what I would suggest is perhaps somewhere that we should make data available so that the people clearly understand the parameters of diversity, whether it's along the income score or any other. So. I can give you the data, too. It's not a big deal. Speaker 5: I'm not a mayor. Speaker 9: Okay, so. So somehow if you can, you know, make sure that people can reference basic census data so that they can make conclusions for themselves. I think diversity is a fine catchall, but I don't want to send the wrong message that, you know, we're as diverse as, say, the city of Gustin in Merced County. You know, so, you know, diversity and whatever topics that we use, there has to be some semblance of the parameters. I'm fine with that, and I think somehow we can still convey that the details. Speaker 0: Any other comments? Member Ashcraft. Speaker 5: Oh, I was just going to say I agree with Councilmember de SAC and the vice mayor. And I also think Mr. Chmura has shown himself to be quite a bit of wordsmith. If you could throw in the cultural diversity somewhere. I have confidence that he can do that. But otherwise, yeah. Let's just get this train out of the station. Speaker 0: Any other comments? Thank you. All right, then we can move on to the motion. Speaker 5: This is just reckless with. Speaker 0: This information being shared. Speaker 5: Okay. Speaker 0: Thank you. So now we can move on to six E. Thank you. Speaker 1: Introduction of ordinance amending the Alameda Municipal Code by deleting Section 20 5-2.4 concerning the accrual of sick leave by certain part time employees.

Regular Agenda Item

Recommendation to Provide Input to Avery & Associates Regarding the Recruitment Brochure for the City Manager Recruitment. (Human Resources 2510)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_07162015_2015-1862

Speaker 3: Here we go. 2014, some highlights. Speaker 4: You might want to raise your might. Speaker 3: Yeah. Some highlights. If you've been out to the par three, you'll notice a much different par three than what was there before, which was just a dead fat, flat piece of. You know, turf with nine flags sticking in various intervals. And now we have a golf course that's really, really spectacular. We imported a lot of dirt and and created some elevation and change and irrigation and drainage, brand new irrigation and drainage. And we've we have two big retention ponds on the on the on the on the myth. And we've already tested it. We had some heavy rains in December and the drains beautifully. On the par three i when it first opened, I thought that it would be slammed and I was mistaken. Oh, we're starting to see some some good activity out there. You'll see that average monthly round in 2014 was close to 1900 rounds. And that's by a, you know, nearly 900 rounds on. More per month than any month in the last any year in the last five years. And the revenue per round is up considerably and it continues that way on Sunday. My daughter and her boyfriend were here and I said, when you go out and play the mission called me, said, Dad, I can't get slammed. So that's good anyway. Speaker 4: Does it help to know the right. Excuse me? Doesn't it help to know the right people to get on? What's your daughter? Couldn't get on. Speaker 3: It? No, she couldn't get on. No. Anyway, other improvements at we did a complete renovation of the driving range and it's it's much improved and much more esthetically pleasing. You know, they had that old synthetic turf grass. It was tearing up at the edges and what have you. And now we've replaced it with new irrigation, drainage and, you know, natural grass. And then at the back end of the driving range, we and we imported quite a bit of dirt and created a nice, really nice grass area. And we have a range membership back there for people that are a little more serious about about their game and hitting balls off of of real turf. The South course project. You've been out to the golf course. You'll see that there's a lot of activity out there. We started to see we started in. When did we start? Last spring. Last fall? Believe in September. And it's moving rather slowly because the key to the project is the importation of the. Of the topsoil in the dirt. Because as you all know, this is a landfill. And in order to get proper drainage and and natural features on a golf course, we were elevating the entire site between three and and eight feet. And so we're basically going to be building a brand new golf course. And when I. I know a little bit about golf architecture and design, and I truly believe it's going to be one of the top. I tell people top 50 public courses in America. Certainly it's going to be a top 100 course in America. Public course, it's phenomenal. General course conditions. There were some we have some issues because of the drought. High salts, fairways and greens. And some people were complaining, at course, caused a turf thinning and and bare spots on the golf course. Then in December, we got a significant amount of rain and it flushed the salt. And I would say since then, conditions are much improved on the on the north course. One of the things that we have learned the the slews that are out there. Previously, they have been used as, you know, as drainage and as being filled with reclaimed water and what have you to act as a water hazard. And we we've learned and discovered from dealing with the Regional Water Quality Control Board that that is illegal, and it's really meant only for stormwater runoff. So we're not allowed to augment those slews in any way. And so you might have some complaints about the ponds and the slews that were they were they were dry and they were, you know, they had an odor. Hopefully, that's not going to be a problem anymore. We're anticipating some heavy rains as coming winter, so that will solve that problem. Um. I already mentioned the storm in 2014. 13 inches of rain and we lost a lot of trees. And so we were busy with that. Greenway Golf. We believe that we're in the entertainment business and we have a program called Fun Starts Now, and we try and do things that, you know, make the game fun. And so periodically on the driving range, we'll have we have music, we'll have, you know, shaved ice truck for kids . We have skill challenge games. We we're just constantly trying to do things to, you know, to encourage people to come out and to have a good time. This is a recap of 2014. North Core 62,000. Round South course 34,000 rounds. That was a partial year because we were close from September through December of last year and then the Miss had 13,000 rounds. That was also a partial year because we were closed from January two to May when it opened last year. Total revenue was three point almost 3.4 million. I mentioned earlier the conditions on the north course were not up to par what we wanted and we had some bare spots. And what we did, we have a special machine that we imported from Australia was called an over planer and so we took some sod off of the south course when we closed. We took some Kikuyu sod and we basically over planted into the fairways on the north course. And it's I was out there this afternoon and it's really amazing how successful it's been on the fairways are much improved out there. And again the greens are much better because of the you know able to were able to flush the salts due to some some rain rainfall. Again, the course improvements, the the South course, basically, it's really going to be a brand new golf course. You're not going to recognize the first hole is starts with the first hole, which is going to be a combination of the old first hole and the second hole. And it's going to be a long dogleg right par five and we're going to reverse ten and 18. So the 10th tee in the first tee will be side by side. And and and right the old south course. You may remember, if you're coming up 18 and your politician are your second shot you could hit people on the 10th tee was kind of dangerous so we reversals holes and by doing that we're able to to to do some things at the 11th hole for example is going to now be about a 235 or 240 yard par three. So it's going to be a much improved golf course. Reece Jones is our architect. We're working with my partner. Mark Logan is an Australian and we're we're building a golf course, designing a golf course. It has an influence from Melbourne. That's the what we call the sand belt influence and design is going to play very fast and firm, big landscapes, big fairways, beautiful bunkering. And of course, Reece Jones is a world renowned architect. And and we're working very closely with him and he's very excited about the project. He'll be out here next month on August 13th. These are some projections for this coming year because of the construction and all that. You remember that we were at 3.4 million last year. In this year, going to be 2.7. We're doing a good job at controlling expenses. One of the things was actually in the San Francisco Chronicle tomorrow I think we're going to be featured, but Ron Korczak doing a big article on our company and we went, It's going to be on the drought. But I think he's he started interviewing us and he was really intrigued and he came out to the to the golf course with with a photographer. And to give you an example, we spent $550,000 last year on water, and this year we're going to spend about 50,000. So, you know, we're doing a really good job of of controlling our expenses in water consumption. We're we just released today a facilities survey. So if you're on our email list, you will have seen the survey net that this went out today and the par three in the range we we got some summer leagues we got music as I mentioned earlier, player development programs. We've got free golf schools for for juniors on Saturday mornings. We're doing we're doing a lot in the way of player development. One of the things we like to do when we get a little closer to opening and if all goes well, we plan on opening the South course probably in the fall of next year. And one of the things we want to do is, is look at the branding and, you know, refresh the whole image out there. And we will do some things to the clubhouse, to, you know, stonework and on the facade and some other things and create them a much nicer image than what currently exists. This is another exciting thing. I was just out today and laid it out with Mike winking. Footgolf has become very popular. It's basically you can integrate soccer, foot golf into nine holes. You're going to 18 hole soccer course in nine holes. And you can actually once you've you've determined how it's flowing, you can actually integrate the soccer players and the golfers in the same nine holes. It's pretty it's pretty interesting. It's very successful around the country. Speaker 4: Yes. And when I read about that and saw the pictures, my only question was. And that doesn't harm the turf. Speaker 3: No, no, no. They're not wearing cleats. And and you can see that the cup is in the same relative proportion, size wise to a golf ball and a golf cup. And it's really I haven't played it, so I can't speak from experience, but I know a lot of courses are are have introduced it very successfully. And and, you know, it's for people that, you know, quite honestly don't play golf. And up in Sacramento at Hagan Oaks, 70% of the people they come out and play foot golf at SAC and Hagan Oaks have never, ever been on a golf course before. Kind of interesting. So we'll reach out to local soccer clubs and and soccer coaches and what have you and try and really promote this. I mean, this year will probably be very slow, but hopefully next year we can really get it going. Speaker 5: Member I actually have played that. I actually have played golf. Speaker 3: Oh, you have at. Speaker 5: The Hanging. Speaker 6: Oaks in Sacramento and it's a. Speaker 3: Blast. It's really. Speaker 5: Fun. Yeah. Speaker 3: It's I think it's become immensely successful at a lot of golf courses around the country. And like I said, it can it can add it, you know, incremental up to 10,000 rounds. And you charge, you know, I mean, we haven't figured out what we're going to charge yet. But I mean, you know, we probably commiserate to a nine hole rate. It's a good group. Speaker 5: Activity with a cart and some. Speaker 6: Refreshments. Speaker 3: And I'm remiss for not reaching out to each of you individually to maybe see if we can, you know, meet and have a cup of coffee or lunch. I know that. Councilmember Ashcraft. We have that. You're the only one. I believe that we you know that I've met personally. And I look forward to meeting you all because I'm looking forward to a long and prosperous relationship with the city of Alameda. Speaker 0: Thank you. Counsel comments, questions number Ashcroft. Speaker 4: Well, I just want to say that a very impressive report, very impressive what you're doing. When I went out to see the new MIFF when they opened it. I mean, I couldn't believe my eyes. And so I expect nothing less spectacular than the South course and probably twice as spectacular. Twice as many halls. Right. Speaker 3: So we continue to raise the bar and I think it's really going to pay off in the long run. And I think it's going to be fantastic. I really do. I'm really excited about it so well. Speaker 4: And I commend you for all your resourceful, imaginative ideas about how to bring even more people out to the the course. Thanks for all you're doing. Speaker 3: You're welcome. Any other questions or remember Daisuke? Speaker 6: Just a quick comment. I just want to say thank you very much for turning around the Korea golf complex. I mean, this is clearly one of those local assets that we can leverage to bring even more persons from outside of the community to help bolster our local economy. So in that regard, not just a recreational tool, but I think it's a key driver in our economic development. Thank you. Speaker 3: You're welcome. You're welcome. Speaker 0: Okay. So I'd like to add I've been participating in the Gulf Commission meetings and Mr. Logan just attended our most recent one. So I have been able to meet him and we are making progress there. At the last Commission meeting, the Commission unanimously voted to support gyms, coffee shops, conceptual design and and it works very closely with what you're doing out there. Mr. Logan and Tom were there, right, speaking about it. So it really looks good and we're making progress out there. So thank you very much. Speaker 3: Amy has been great in helping us kind of broker the relationship. And I think we've got a good understanding with with Tom. And I think it's he's going to make some really nice improvements that are going to be in on par with what we're doing out there. So this will be great. Speaker 0: So thank you very much. Speaker 3: You're welcome. Thank you. Speaker 0: Three B. Speaker 2: Alameda Museum. 2015 Annual Report.

Proclamation/Special Order

Greenway Golf 2015 Annual Report on the Chuck Corica Golf Complex. (Recreation and Parks)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_07162015_2015-1803

Speaker 0: We have Chief O'Leary here. Speaker 3: Madam Mayor, council members. Paul Larry, chief of police. I brought up with me my escort for the evening as make sure he's the vice president of sales at Taser International. And I brought him because the last time I was before you, when we talked about the purchase of the cameras, some of you had some technical questions about the data security and storage. And I thought just in the event that there were any unanswered questions, it would be nice to have a representative from Taser here. You all saw the staff report that that I wrote. It was very brief and intentionally so. It was really just to introduce the policy, because we had discussed many of the issues with the cameras relative to the purchase of the cameras. As I mentioned in the staff report, we did do some research before drafting our policy. We looked at the ACP, the International Association of Chiefs of Police. They had a model policy that they put out. The Police Executive Research Forum had also set forth some recommendations that we took a look at. And then from our own area, we looked at the Fremont and the San Leandro Police Department policies, and the combination of all of those things led us to the draft that I put before you tonight. And I'm here to answer any questions or just any concerns you might have. Speaker 0: So before we do that, can staff clarify what our role is in regards to this policy? I can try to do that. So the policy, the internal operational policies of the police department are the jurisdiction of the chief of police. Speaker 1: The City Council. Speaker 0: Has the ability to provide comments to the Chief of Police. He's asked. Speaker 1: And solicited those. Speaker 7: Comments, but it is really. Speaker 0: The chief of. Speaker 1: Police. Speaker 7: Who has to. Speaker 0: Adopt the. Speaker 1: Policy. So he is here before you to get your input. Speaker 0: So we will not be voting, accept or approve. We just get feedback. So I wanted to clarify that so that the public understands what our role is. Ultimately, what this policy is is up to the police department. All right, Councilor comments. Speaker 3: And a mayor. Speaker 0: Vice Mayor. Speaker 3: I appreciate, chief, for Larry's answering questions, particularly on the access. The public access to is the record, the electronic record that is gathered by the body cam. And my understanding in the responses and I like the city attorney also to affirm this, is that the access to that by the public will comply with all state and federal laws that are in place just as it does for any other. Records request, the Alameda Police Department, is that correct? Yes. Speaker 0: That is correct. Vice Mayor Matter. Speaker 3: SC And it goes through the same channels as any other records requests to the police department? Yes. And then the second is more of a comment that I'd like you to consider is in the section on request for deletion for accidental recording. In. In certain. And certain regulations that deal with electronic records. Particularly in the Code of federal relations. At the federal level, there is a and a an assumption that you use a validated system, and that validated system does not preclude deletions. You can have deletions there mistakes. I mean, you can have mistakes, but they're preserved. And you do preserve the record as it's gathered and you delete it when the regular regulatory requirement says that you can dispense with with the document. My preference is that. Whether it's an accidental recording or not, it stays there until the document is deleted by its natural expert, its mandated expiration date by law, so that we don't get into an issue of someone accident deleting something that should not have been deleted. By a second mistake. Okay. You know, I just I struggle with that one a little bit. I on one level, I don't have any problem with what you're suggesting and keeping it until it hits its natural donation point. On the other hand, and I know this from. Talking to some other police officers and other agencies that literally sometimes is they've actually accidentally recorded a conversation that's prohibited in another section of the policy. I might have a conversation with one of you in the hallway and have my camera on. And if I if I accidentally record that, I would like to be able to say, you know, that was a mistake and delete it. As opposed to having that be out there for 90 days or six months or three years. And then I've also had officers tell me I left it and I was in the restroom, I was in the locker room changing. And I don't think we want that footage out there any longer than it needs to be. So that's that's kind of what I struggle with when I'm processing that. And I hope you understand. I do, yeah. Speaker 4: And England, too. Just to follow up on the vice mayor's comments is I understand. The deletion. Can you remind me what section it is zero 57 for? Okay. It's for five over 7.4. Right. Okay. It's not. So the employee still doesn't get to make the decision of whether or not the accidental recording is deleted. That goes to this services division commander who reviews the file and either approves or denies the request. So. Is. I mean, does that not at least begin to address the. It could be accidentally deleted twice or. Speaker 3: Well, to me, it's not an independent party or a disinterested party looking at it. Basically what we're looking at is two layers of review. If if if we leave the policy the way that it's written right now, the officer would request in writing that the recording be deleted and list the reason why the division commander would take a look at that. And if they approved it, it would go up to my second in command, a captain who would make the ultimate decision as to whether or not that that footage should be deleted. And I'm guess I'm looking at this just like I'm looking at all of the records. Do you ever destroy records that were mistakes? Probably not. Do you ever destroy? I guess the voice recording would probably be the nearest comparable to this. But if you made a mistake on a on a paper record or there was a mistake, an entry in a report that was written either on the computer or by hand, you don't destroy that original, you know? So what would happen if a mistake was made in a report and it was during the review process? The report's not final, so it's just like a draft. So a supervisor can return the report now electronically back. Back in the old days, when we when we handwrote them, you'd return it to the officer and say, you know, for a punctuation error or a grammar error or a factual error, you know, somebody you got a name wrong or location wrong. You need to you need to change that. Once the report becomes final and it's over at our shop, we call it frozen. That's it, then. Now, now you can only clean up a mistake by a supplemental report. So that can that same rule be? I guess you could say this applies. That's it. It won't be final until there's a review of it saying that it's this is the final record and we're going to send it to the store to to the server. Right. I mean, the difference is you can't modify the video. The video is what it is. A report that has an error can be corrected. The video is always whatever you've captured, you've captured. So you can't you can't really go back and modify it. You can't go you wouldn't want us to be able to modify the video, right? It would defeat the purpose. So either the video is allowed to exist, mistake or not, or or we go through this three layered process of getting reviews and final approval to delete a recording that two people removed from the recording agree is unnecessary . A locker room scene, a private conversation, things of that nature. I personally as the chief, I'm comfortable with that, with the because I've got to two layers of review removed from the actual recording. And I'm you know, I'm hoping that that you're all comfortable with that, too. I'm willing I'm willing to take a look at it. I'm just saying that that was the thought process that we I, I understand. That's my comment. Speaker 0: Amber Ashcraft, thank. Speaker 4: You and thank you for the information you've provided us with Chief Hilary. And I also e-mailed you earlier with some questions. So I want to raise two items that I think I actually raised before when you came to us for the authorization to purchase this equipment. And the first one is on from page one of the draft policy. And it is has to do this would be Section four or 50.4 system administrator responsibilities. And the fourth responsibility listed is policy and procedure review and evaluation. And you will recall not too long ago, we in the last administration, we approved the purchase and use of license plate readers, but the Council also requested that the policy be reviewed and evaluated just to see, you know, first year out, what could we do better? And I mean, I think every year there should be a review. So what I would like to see added to the language in this section, that policy and procedure review and evaluation take place no less than once every calendar year. And I think it's just the sort of thing again, council doesn't vote on this, but it's the sort of thing that on an annual basis you would come back before the council and just give us an overview of, you know, what your experience has been. So I'd appreciate your consideration of that. And then my second concern and again, I raised this before and it's something that the ACLU, the American Civil Liberties Union in their white paper, had talked about and the Fremont Police Department policy that you provided us also, I thought articulated it very well. And what this is, is in situations where you could have a victim of rape or domestic abuse or some other sensitive crime who doesn't want to be recorded. And, you know, this person has already been victimized. We don't want to to further that. And so my my concern was, you know, do officers could they have some sort of discretion? And I'm just reading the the language. So I feel like two things. The city attorney doesn't like us using our phones at the desk, but this is really just reading. The Fremont policy says that officers may cease recording when encountering or interviewing a victim who is in a vulnerable position or who asked not to be video recorded. And and there's also other language in that same section of the Fremont policy and procedure for their body worn cameras that talks about sometimes you have someone who is a witness who's giving you information, who doesn't necessarily want to be seen on camera cooperating with the police and giving information. And if there wasn't that option to say, hey, I'll talk to you, but not if you're recording me, then you might not have that information to help you solve a crime. So what could you what could you tell us about that? Speaker 3: So, first of all, I'm completely comfortable with adding the exact language in the Fremont policy regarding encountering or interviewing a victim who's in a vulnerable position. That's that's honestly, to me, that's an easy one. We've given the officers in in our policy a lot of discretion to record or to not record. And what what we were trying to avoid was to do to list so many specific incidents that it just became too much for them in that, you know, as their the sort of the dynamics of, you know, when you show up for a case and you've got people talking to you and different that they would, you know , I'm recording you but I'm not recording you and. We put it, we thought we might put them. Make it too confusing for them. Too much for them to have to process. But but to me, this is I mean, this is an easy one. And I'm confident that they would see that anyway and and exercise their discretion to not record it or to maybe just do an audio recording versus a video recording, which we still have the ability to do. So, yeah, I'll tell you right now that when we go back, I'll I'll add that to the policy. Speaker 4: I appreciate that. Sure. Speaker 3: I'm sorry. Speaker 4: What was the other one was for? For a witness who might be hesitant to. Let's see. Speaker 3: Yeah, same. Same issue. We. We actually, I think, uh, and forgive me for not having the whole thing memorized yet, but we have in for 50.8 prohibited use. We have conversation. I'm sorry. Encounters with undercover officers or confidential informants. Not every not every witness is a confidential informant. Speaker 4: That was my point. That that I thought it was just a little bit broader, that if you have I mean, I don't know that we have so much of a problem here, but in a neighboring jurisdiction, there's a big problem with getting people to cooperate with the police. And I don't think it's because they're all wearing body worn cameras. But we we don't want to do anything that would make someone hesitant to come for. I don't think we do it right. No, no, you do your job. But no. Speaker 3: We absolutely don't. Speaker 4: So I just you know, those were the two. And again, I thought the Fremont policy, which I know you referred to and attached for us to to look at to it, I thought it it laid it out quite succinctly in in that same section that talks about victims in vulnerable position. Speaker 3: Sure. Yeah. Those are happening to me. Yeah. Those are easy ones to add. Speaker 4: I appreciate your consideration. Thank you. Speaker 3: Sure. Speaker 0: Hey Member de sa. Speaker 6: Thank you. Thank you, Chief. Hilary, thank you very much. Appreciate all the information that you shared. I think the comment I really have to make is simply that, you know, with Black Lives Matter as a backdrop, to me, it seems fitting that a middle of the road city like Alameda is adopting one of the key agenda items of Black Lives Matter. On having local law enforcement wear body cameras. So on behalf of our residents. We, the city council, have made a significant commitment of $425,000 in this. And I hope our community is proud of us having done so. Speaker 5: Yeah. I saw someone come in. The chief are putting this policy together. I mean, I think I mentioned this when we had the discussion over the expenditure that, you know, policymakers are struggling with how to craft an effective policy, one that really respects the civil rights of our citizens, you know, but at the same time, you know , does not interfere unduly and is overly prescriptive to officers doing their job. And I think you were able to find on that right balance. And I appreciate it. Speaker 3: Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate that. Speaker 0: All right. So, first of all, I also want to commend you for bringing this forward. And my recollection is that we unanimously voted for the body cameras and looked forward to you bringing back your draft policy. And and for the audience and for people that don't know, there has been, in addition to the agenda item, the staff submittal where it has the policies of San Leandro as well as what was the other one, Fremont. Fremont. So that members of the community, you can go back and you can look at this now and you can see what other communities are doing and then compare it with ours. You can always communicate with the chief with your suggestions. There will be in the future, changes to the policy. It will always. The goal is to have it be responsive to our community's needs. And I and I do want to commend you for bringing this forward, adding the additional documents to help educate our community. I want to follow up in regards to if there were a California request under the California Public Records Act or the video for a recording, how would that be treated? Speaker 3: Um, I would. My general my general not exclusive, but general thought is going to be that I'm going to deny those requests as exempt under disclosure because they're investigative records. And as I mentioned to all of you in the email that I sent you, I attached a recent opinion from May of this year from the California Second Circuit Court of Appeals. It was a lawsuit that had to do with license plate reader records, not body camera. But the issues are the same. And the court in that case found that that those records were all investigative in nature and therefore exempt from disclosure under the act. And that's that's where my position comes from and that's where it's going to stay until that changes. Having said that, I acknowledge in the end, my policy does allow for me to release videos to the media of my discretion if I feel that, you know, it's worthy to do so, where the where the information would be more beneficial for the public to know than to keep to myself. And so I. I don't intend to always say no. But what I what I want to protect the public from is this sort of voyeuristic element that enters into this, where someone sees the police enter their neighbor's home for God knows what kind of a call. And then they think, Well, I would like to see what happened inside that house. So I'm going to make a Public Records Act request because we're paying for those cameras and those police officers. And I have a right to see what happened in their home. I'm going to respectfully disagree and say that that's a that's a police investigation and it's not for you. On the other hand, if there's an incident, God forbid, where somebody you know, where. We're looking at a potential civil unrest because of an incident that happened. And the release of that video, as we saw in Boston recently, quells that concern. Then I'll be the first person at the front steps of the police department giving out that video to the media. Speaker 0: So thank you. And I think it's important to acknowledge I have found every time I ask you a question that you come back with a reasonable explanation. And I would encourage anyone from the community that has questions to feel free to ask Chief O'Leary for for his reasoning in creating this policy. And then I wanted to add also on page 28 of the additional documents that were attached is where you'll find that case, the ACLU case is attached or the community as part of this agenda item to review so everyone can review that themselves. So thank you for providing that. Also, if you could explain activation when when the cameras would be activated that that part of the policy. Speaker 3: Okay. So one of the things that we did not want to do when we wrote the policy was put the officers in a position where basically if they forgot or because of the circumstances didn't activate the camera, that they were now going to be subject to some sort of discipline because they didn't hit the button as they got into a middle of a fight or or worse. What we've done is we've told them. That there are many incidents and we identify them in the policy where they should or where we want them to. But we're not making it mandatory. And again, I want to give them discretion to turn these things on. Some some incidents can start out very, very calm, not confrontational and not anything that an officer would think worthy of recording and then on a dime can can turn into something that does need to be recorded. So in saying that, I'll remind you that the cameras that we're buying have a 32nd buffer so that it can't the camera's constantly recording whether the officer turns it on or not. But it can go back 30 seconds. So if the officer suddenly is in a situation where they say, Oh, I need to record this, they can hit the button and it goes back 30 seconds. And I think that's going to alleviate a lot of that a lot of the problems that we would have if we didn't have that feature in the camera. And that was one of the reasons why we went with the Taser camera was because of that feature. You know, and I want to just throw this out here since we're talking about it. And and for the public, there's going to be a time period here when when we when I distribute these cameras to the officers, we have them. They're sitting in boxes over at the police department. But I promise you, I wouldn't put them out until we had this discussion. These are these are new pieces of equipment for them. And I don't have my full belt on, but we're talking about ammunition, handguns, pepper spray, handcuffs, radio flashlight. There's a lot of stuff on the belt. It's going to take them some time. They're going to have to go through some training. It's going to take them some time to get used to the fact, just like you can remember, when we all had to remember to put our seatbelts on. It takes a little while. Once it was required to remember. Get in the car. Open the door. Put your seatbelt on. Right. This is going to happen with police officers. We've seen this in other jurisdictions. They're going to especially in the beginning, it's not going to come to them second nature. It's going to take some time to develop the muscle memory of I've got to record this. We also know this because we've had audio recorders for nine years, and when we first got them, we found that people were missing things. Now. They record them all the time, but it's on a different location on their belt. So I just would ask for a little patience and understanding from the public and from all of you that, you know, there could be some times early on where doesn't it doesn't go on because they're just frankly not used to having them Speaker 0: . Any other questions? Comments. Thank you very much. Speaker 3: Thank you. Should it? Speaker 2: Six be received a report from the Public Utilities Board on Alameda Municipal Power's five year Strategic Plan, Capital Improvements and Financial Status. Speaker 1: Or. I pushed her. Speaker 7: Good evening. I'm Madeleine Dean, and I'm a commissioner on the Public Utility Board and also currently serving as president. And what we'd like to do is really bring you up to date on some of the things going on with the public utility board, some of our projections for the future. Starting with some current issues. A big one for us is distributed generation and this is something a few of you have already asked us questions about rooftop solar, how we're handling it, what's going on with it. So we thought we'd give you just a little bit of update of where we're heading in the future. We still don't have direct answers on some of these, but we have some main issues. One is rooftop solar, and that's something that right now we have rebates on. We also have a NIMH program where people are get in net energy metering funds. And as we look at that, the mandated portion of it is going to expire soon, not before the end of the year probably, but we need to have a policy in place going forward. We also are looking at the fact that we may need to treat residential customers different than we do commercial customers in that area and also our municipal customers. So that's another thing that we have to develop policy around and it's going to take some time and some working with the community. We've already started some of those conversations, but it's going to be ongoing for a while. Community Solar is something we're interested in. As all of you know, we have rec funds that we receive for selling off some of our renewable credits and also selling off for a period of time some of our renewable energy, those funds we can use in different ways, but it needs to be really applied to energy efficiency or renewable power in some way. One of the things we're looking at is the potential of community solar, whether it be a standalone project, a partnership with a business, one of the developers, a partnership with the schools, whatever that might be in the future, we don't know yet. We're still looking into what other communities are doing with it, what are the potentials, what are some of the pitfalls and hazards of doing it and trying to figure out where we want to go with that? The net energy meter in the NEM, as I mentioned, that's something that is a true of at the end of a cycle or end of the year where money is refunded to customers. The feed in tariff is a method that's been used in a number of areas and this is one that as the energy is fed into the grid, if you want to think big term as as it's fed in from a customer who has an excess, that's

Regular Agenda Item

Recommendation to Accept the Police Department’s Draft Policy for the Taser AXON Flex Body Cameras Prior to Deployment by the Police Department. (Police 3121)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_07162015_2015-1823

Speaker 7: cycle or end of the year where money is refunded to customers. The feed in tariff is a method that's been used in a number of areas and this is one that as the energy is fed into the grid, if you want to think big term as as it's fed in from a customer who has an excess, that's where it is kind of justified. And there is credit given and funds applied to it. And as we look at all of these, there is different things that we need to think about. One is in the future, we're not going to have the luxury that we have right now of having rec dollars. So we have to come up with a plan that is going to return the funds to us that we need in order to maintain all our lines, everything not just provide sort of a backup when somebody has solar energy and it's a foggy day and we need to provide that energy, somebody still has to cover the equipment and everything else. So these are things we're thinking about. Speaker 4: Yes, Mr.. I if I could just ask you two. I did go to that wonderful town hall that the amp put on a few weeks ago, but could you just for those who might not have been there, tell us what the rec is referring to, the renewable energy credits. Speaker 7: Okay. One of the things I think we're very proud of is we've always been a very green, very renewable, energy focused organization. And as we started with the state mandates around renewable energy and the 33% that we need to get to by 2020, we were way ahead in terms of the environmental mandates, both on our renewables and overall. We have some large hydro, which California doesn't recognize, but it also reduces carbon. So when we look at that, we were able to take. Under the cap and trade regulations. There were so many recs that were allotted to us and we were able to use some of those and sell them to others for use for them to come up to their incremental allotments that they had to come up to. So we took advantage of the fact that previous boards were very smart. We had nearly 80% renewable. Of that, we were close to 60% and which was California eligible. So our board determined that we would not go under 40%, that we would. In some way create a commodity out of what we had in the. Space in between. And so we were able to sell that to others. One was water district bought from us so that they could be compliant. Palo Alto wanted to be 100% green, so they brought bought from us, you know, for a short period of time until they have other resources. So those are the kinds of things that, you know, when we talk about recs and renewables, the dollars that came in from those sales are restricted funds and they're restricted to be used for energy efficiency or for other renewable sources. The board created policy to restrict them to that. So we made a commitment to the community when we said we were going to do it. The policy is in place. So right now we have money to do things. Our other part of the policy is we will not spend it till we actually have it. So even though they're so the money doesn't come in because it's a multi-year. Process that we've sold them for a two year period. And so the money doesn't come in all at the beginning, so we're not allocating it until we actually have it. Does that help? Speaker 4: Very much so. Thank you for that. Excellent. Okay. Thank you. She's very knowledgeable, as you can tell. Speaker 0: A member, Odie. Speaker 5: Thank you, Ben. Just a quick question. Talking to continue the discussion about the recs, I think you made a comment that, you know that we're going to lose some of that funding. Can you kind of explain, you know, why that's going to come about? Speaker 7: Okay. As the money comes in, it comes in over a period of time. And so we will not allocate it till we actually have it. And once we allocate it, there's a period before it's actually spent. So we do have money accumulating now. So some of the things that we have allocated it to and spent it on are some of the streetlight projects that's taken a big chunk of it. We've also put in the EV Chargers at AMP. We have two that are being put in now that will have the higher level of charging. Those we will charge a fee for. But the whole infrastructure, putting them in a manner that funds some of the electric cars we've purchased for amps use so that we're converting some of our fleet to electric so that we can add to the energy efficiency and. Me. Is there something I missed? Oh. Part of our Army project moving to our army, our interactive meters. Part of that project has been the pilot part has been funded out of that money, I think. Okay. Speaker 5: Thank you. Speaker 7: Thank you for asking the questions. I think it's important for us to make sure that you know what we're doing with the money. Speaker 5: And the community gets to hear it as well. Speaker 7: The other thing we're looking at is how we can accommodate some of the L.A., the unified school districts projects in terms. We've supported them in terms of energy efficiency, doing audits, encouraging light replacement, some of those kinds of things. But we're also looking at are there other ways we can help them with community solar or something else? Is there some way we can partner? So that that is something that's still on the table. Other current issues. The next underground utility district reconstruction area needs to be identified. And as you know, that's come to you with the process of how we're doing that. In December, we expect to have a report back and some recommendations that would be ready to start playing into process next year. But even though it starts in the beginning of the year, that process has a lot of community interaction, a lot of touch with the community, so it doesn't get shovel ready for quite a few months into the year. So there will be a lot on that next year. Moving forward to city related expenses and transfers of money. This is something that I wanted to put together on one sheet, and I think it's important that we consistently remind not just you, but everybody in the community that as an enterprise department, we constantly return to the city. And as you will notice here, it's a pretty sizable chunk that our general fund transfer is 2.8 million. Our pilot for 2016 is estimated to be 1.5. The city cost allocation is what is allocated to us for each our services accounting, you know, all of those types of backroom processes that have to go on in any business. Speaker 5: Legal. Speaker 7: Legal is actually a city direct cost. So you have a line all to your own. Speaker 4: You're not back room. Speaker 7: We're in a back room. You've got a line all by yourself there. So that's about 136,000 rent and warehouse space is 189.8. And then we have one that has been new this last year and moving into this year. And that's when we took over the streetlights and not only providing the energy to them, but the maintenance of them. So you can see for 2015, we were at 380,000 and we're bumping up to 450. That's as are replacing more as we're doing more work on and we're maintaining a larger fleet of lights, if you want to call it that. So that number is bumped up a little bit and then garage fees and sewer is 96,900. So in transfers and the costs that we pay to the city, that's almost $6 million. And if you think about that in terms of percent of your general fund, that's probably getting close to 9% right in that area . So it's a good chunk of it. The other way to look at this and I think this is important for the community is that on top of that, when we look at the. Addition of dollars that we put into the community's pockets by having rates that are 15 to 20% lower than PGE and EAS or other utilities . We are putting that money back into the local economy and also we're putting in sponsorship money for a lot of schools to activities, parades, festivals, whatever. So if you look at it all together, we've calculated that it's about $10 million. It's going back into the local economy. So that's a sizable chunk. Yes. Speaker 4: And when you mentioned the the rates that are 10 to 15% lower than other jurisdictions, I think that's also helped us in selling Alameda to new businesses to to locate here. So it's it comes back to the city in many different ways. Speaker 7: That's a good point to make. It can be used as a developmental tool for new business. Any other questions on that one? One other thing, just to note that in addition to this, in fiscal year 2016, we're repaying the $2.2 million loan that we had received earlier on. And so that is being repaid. So you'll notice that that that will also be included. Now the cost of doing business because our businesses energy, most of our costs are energy. And one of the things for us that's always a challenge is predicting what our energy is going to be. And when you look out, as you can see, our perform goes out to 2034 here, trying to calculate where we will be and using a lot of different statistics and things. The red line going across the top shows our load, how much energy we need and how it's going. We're expecting it to grow over the next 1518 years. If you look at that little gridded area up in the corner, just to point out, that's the only area that isn't covered right now by the contracts that we have. Very energy. So that's the area that we buy essentially with term purchases, short term purchases starting at the very bottom. I'm going to work you up from the bottom of this chart at the very bottom, the black line that. Actually is the bottom of the graph is the combined turbines number one into. Those are the two that are out in that area. That's kind of between cardinal point in the back of Rosenbloom. There's two of them out there. They belong to in CPA, the Northern California Power Agency, which we are a member of. So we co-own them with the other members of the group. Those are only used a few times a year. They're mainly if the power peaks very high and they need to turn them on for a short time. Other than that, they're turned on to make sure they continue to work. But because they use natural gas, they are not running. All the time. They're not considered renewables. These are just essentially for those peaks when additional power is needed to be fed into the grid. And another little side note, the Northern California Power Agency is the one who schedules our power. So on a essentially minute to minute basis, they schedule what our needs are and work with our local dispatchers to keep that in sync so that we don't have brownouts or lose power completely or have too much power going into the system. Right above that. The blue area is from Calaveras Hydro. So that large amount is hydro and you see that pretty flat all the way across. That's a pretty consistent resource for us. So we don't have to worry about it going up and down and fading out. We do have a little bit of a drop off in drought years, but not a lot. You know, even our worst case scenarios when, you know, we plan three scenarios, we plan best case, worst case and a medium one. Middle of the road. And now, right now, we're looking between the middle of the road and the drought scenario. And that's what we're working on. And so that's staying pretty constant. We also have Western, which is hydro. And above that there is a small area of it's great ego. I drew. And then we have the geothermal. Then we have landfill gases. And we have wind at the very top. If you notice, the wind in the landfill are dropping off. I think if I do that. Yeah. Okay. Now, the reason for that is, is that particularly in the landfill, the gases in any set landfill only lasts so long. There's no way of really at this point beefing up. Now, who knows what the future is going to bring? So what it means is creating another landfill situation. And so that's something that we look for, is where else can we buy into another contract on the landfill? The wind is the turbines, the windmills, basically. There's a lot of older equipment out there and that has a certain life to it and it fades off. So as you can see, there's purchases that we have to make in the future that were covered for quite a period of time with pretty stable resources, and we use other contracts in between and all the time we're looking for other renewables that we can purchase or other opportunities, and particularly with the Northern California Power Agency, those come up on a pretty regular basis where we can partner on different things. And one of the things like the geothermal was tapering off, but now they've pumped more recycled water into it. And so you can keep it going longer. Any questions on that? So a lot of information. Speaker 6: So when I look at this chart, is this telling me that the white area is basically a gap between what our what our estimated or projected demand for load a demand for energy relative to the. Sources of energy that's available. So. Speaker 7: Right. Usually our contracts run out or depending upon what it is, a lot of our contracts are ten year contracts. Some go out further. So what it's showing you is that within the next four years, we have to purchase similar, more long term contracts. Speaker 6: Mm hmm. Speaker 7: To fill that in. And so it's kind of a rolling process. We have a department that's constantly looking at that. They're looking to see what there is available on the market and then in CPA is helping us to be aware of what our opportunities for projects. So that's one of the things that we get into with funding issues when we have to get involved in a project and we either have to be involved in part of a bond issue or come up with funds if we have them. So those are things. Knowing that probably getting out past, you know, 20, 20 and beyond, we're going to be involved in some more big projects at some point. Speaker 6: Okay. So I guess the key thing then is that this is. Point in time picture of our projected demand relative to our already in place sources of energy. Correct. So that while there is significant white gaps, white areas in the far right side. That's not to say that the far white area will continue to be as white as that, because in the coming years we will. Look for different sources of of energy, particularly to replace the the landfill gas and the wind. Okay. Speaker 7: Right. If you want to think about it's a rolling pitch here that everything keeps moving across and as it moves across, that gap moves along with it. So we'll always have a small gap and a bigger one at the end as you go further and further out. Speaker 0: And can you clarify again the top left of the chart, the red grid? What does that. Speaker 7: That red grid is is essentially energy that we've purchased off the market. Speaker 0: All right. So it's. Speaker 7: Market price. So it's term purchases are very short purchases. Speaker 0: Okay. So that's something I think that could be included as part of the key in the future. So when you're looking at this. That's Erica nose at the bottom. Speaker 1: No, she said, just. Speaker 7: To have it as a caption. If we use. Speaker 0: This, you know, at the bottom. Speaker 7: Legend and legend on the bottom. Speaker 6: In other words. Speaker 4: Be sure to speak into the microphone so we can capture what you're saying. Speaker 6: I'll fill in real quickly, because I'm sure that big white gap is creating some problems. I can see that we we do what we call an integrated resource plan, which we're about to introduce to the to the board, probably in October of this year. And what that does is that projects out how to fill that that white gap. And we already know at this point pretty much what we have to do. And we're already in negotiations with with others that will supply mostly renewables, because keep in mind, we want to continue to add renewables. That little hatch market that you're asking about, yeah, that's market stuff. And we always go into the market a little bit because you're never quite sure where that load line is really going to be. So you don't want to over purchase, so you want to be able to buy on the market to kind of bounce you off Speaker 0: . But in the future. Speaker 1: And when we buy and so. Speaker 0: Stiger and I don't think he understood what my comment was. I want to clarify real quick on the legend at the bottom of this chart. You don't have a description for that, so we don't added in the future. Yes. Appreciate it. Thank you. All right. Now in regards to The Gap. Speaker 1: Right. Speaker 0: There has been quite a bit of interest, if you will, in adding solar to homes here and here in our town. And also, for instance, when they're built to add solar, could that not fill some of this gap? I mean, why can we not look at solar generated here in our town? Speaker 7: We can we can look at solar generated here in our town. What we can't rely on is that distributed generation on rooftops is going to be adequately maintained at a particular volume. You know, we're a particular amount of energy. People's energy use goes up and down their rooftop production alters with the climate changes. So cloudy, stormy weather does not produce solar energy in the evenings and nights when it's dark. We don't have solar energy production until we get to a point where we have reasonable storage for that energy, which right now it's not cost effective for us. We can't use it to fill that gap per say. What it contributes to filling some of is the little tiny bit of grid area that we'll always have. It may fill some of that at some times. Our major problem is that with solar, the production is mainly peaking midday and late afternoon. I mean, in Alameda, our production is those hours are high usage. There is some high usage mid-day but not like other areas because we don't have the industrial use that other cities in the area have. So we don't have a really high load midday. It goes up a little bit, but our peak goes up in the evening. So particularly during the winter, our peak is, you know, 5 to 10 p.m.. In that range. And so that's a time where solar is not going to fill it. And when you look at the top of the line, that's the peak we're talking about, you know, those top areas. So it does help. But we can't count on it to fill in all that white space. So the other thing with solar is that in order to fill a chunk of it right now, you notice solar doesn't even show up on there. And even though, you know, we have solar around town, you see it on the rooftops, it's not a high enough percent to really show up in. What's being fed back into the lines or into the grid is a very small percentage of what's being generated. And when we look at that white area, that's what we have to fill is with what's going into the grid, not what's being generated. So if I put solar on my rooftop and I use it all in my house. And nothing goes back in. So for the general chart like this, it doesn't even show up. Speaker 0: But in regards to the what's necessary, your red line. If we had more homes with solar, could we not see that red line coming down in the future as opposed to actually escalating regards to how we could if we. Speaker 7: Weren't capturing the usage with when we move to the interactive higher level meters, we'll be able to capture more of the information about what would really be available. You know, right now we can't, so we don't know how much that would really bring it up. Speaker 0: So this the red line, those based upon. Can you tell me what that red line is based on? Speaker 7: It's based upon the amount of power that we have to purchase and have available for people to use. Even if we were to have a huge influx of solar. We would still have to have a peak that's fairly close to this to account for the peak usage during the times when solar is not available. Speaker 0: However. So this line goes out to 2034. So if during that time there is a better way to either have more efficient solar panels or better storage of the energy that's created, then we could see a downshift of this red line next. Speaker 7: What we could see is if there were storage, it would still show up as the red line as it is, it's going up, but the energy would be fed in from that storage as opposed to purchasing it from someplace else. So when we're paying them to the customer for what they don't use, we're paying the feed in tariff. How that works out is whatever the calculation is, if we're buying back energy from them, if we had storage, we'd be able to add it. Speaker 0: Or if they're. Creating your own energy that they're using. So then there would be less demand on the grid. Speaker 7: If they were totally off the grid and providing all their own power and did not need any backup. Speaker 0: Power or a significant amount. Speaker 7: Is what you can't predict is how many days a month, what days of the week where they're going to produce enough solar for their needs. So, I mean, there's a lot of variables and I'm kind of oversimplifying it, but there are a lot of variables, and I think that solar is something we would really like to be involved in. One thing to also consider is the state of California right now is not counting rooftop solar as part of our renewable energy that we're mandated to have. So it will not count in our percentages for California. Speaker 0: Okay. And who makes that decision that. Speaker 7: Ah, that's a legislator parents. Speaker 0: That's, that's not right. Maybe that's something that can really change. Maybe that's something that could be considered. Speaker 7: But that, that's something that we've asked about. Currently, their legislation is being looked at and I was just up in Sacramento along with some of our staff when about two weeks ago, I guess. And that was one of the issues. And our general manager also has been involved in meetings trying to create amendments to the proposals as they stand now. But their concern is that distributed generation on rooftop is not something that we capture all the information about. We don't know how much they're using. We don't know where it's being used. So we can't capture energy efficiency numbers on it. We can't actually capture the total amount that's being used. And so therefore we can't count any of the rooftop solar as part of our renewable portfolio according to the state, although it is renewable energy. Speaker 0: And then I want to add real quick is that this gap is based upon then current technology, current usage, and over the next 20 years we may and this is why your job is so hard, honestly, why it's so difficult. Try to anticipate what technology will be available then. So we may or may not actually have that gap at that time future that. Speaker 7: That's correct. And going forward it just may get pushed out further. So as we add, contracts will fill in and the white space will be pushed out. They'll probably always be white space. Some place is you always have to renew contracts or buy new ones. Speaker 0: And as we have improvements in efficiency usage from technology and then whatever alternative energy sources. In the next 20 years, there will be changes. Speaker 7: This feature is changing all the time, so if we take a snapshot two months from now, it's going to look a little bit different again. So it really is a snapshot in time, if that helps. Speaker 6: But it's a good conservative snapshot in time, making no no projections as to what kind of efficiency will be generated in 10 to 15 years. So I think it's a. Speaker 7: Right we know that there probably will be storage of some sort. We don't know what a cost effective. We know that there's a lot of work going on with interactions with the electric vehicles, conveying energy back into the system off ours, storing it and then putting it back in. So there's a lot that could be done right now because we don't have it in hand. We can't project it into this. If that helps. Speaker 0: No, I remember Nebraska. Speaker 4: And I'll just hearken back to the great workshop that was town hall that was presented. And I think the the PowerPoint presentation from that is up on the AMP website, is that correct? Speaker 7: Yes, it is. Speaker 4: And but one of the themes that did keep coming up and I will say there we have really smart residents in Alameda and they stay up with the latest changes in technology. And there is, as the mayor indicated, a lot of interest in adding solar. But the there will be improvements in the technology and exactly what you said there is, you know, capturing the amount of generation, storing that generation. And I know there was some talk about some battery storage that is being developed maybe by Elon Musk of Tesla. And so what I think the five of us up here can do while we're in office is to make sure that when we have these new building projects coming online, new businesses coming into our city, that they are they're being built. New buildings are being built in an energy efficient manner that we give, you know, every opportunity for people to use less energy. I know that cuts down your revenues. But in the in the in the long run, in the greater scheme of things, we want to be as energy efficient as possible. So it does start with making good decisions before shovels ever get to the ground. But I'm really excited that we're working with such a progressive municipal utility, so thank you for all your good work. Speaker 7: Hey, lots more information for you. I know you have a long evening already, but I want to share a little bit about the cost factor that goes with this, because that's another important side of the picture. And if you look at the next chart that we have up here, you'll notice that the two things that grow consistently all the way across are on the bottom, the power costs and the transmission costs. Those we have projections are that they're going to continue to go up. We know that the power will continue to increase in price. We know that the transmission costs, with all of the various regulatory agencies, the new lines that are switching lines that are expected in the future in order to bring in more renewables to the Bay Area from outer areas are going to cost money and those things we're going to have to pay a portion of and we don't have a choice in that is we have to use the transmission lines. So those are going to be sort of a steady uphill. If you notice, most of the others are pretty flat as we go on up our debt service, our contribution to the city are labor costs are staying. They go up just very slightly as we go across. You know, it's a very slight increase with the raises and things that go on on a regular basis, keeping our size of our workforce pretty consistent. The material and services also go up slightly, but where you'll see a bump and I think this is important to note for you is in 2017, 2018, you'll notice that the capital and equipment costs go up tremendously, at least in reference to the other capital and equipment cost areas. The reason for that is, is that we are putting in the new infrastructure, the advanced metering infrastructure is being put in. We have a pilot going on now. We hope to have it pretty much across Alameda. That is very costly to put in. And it's not only putting in the infrastructure on the metering side of it, it's also putting in all of the electronics on the other side so that we can use the data. So that is a big investment for us. And some of that money we can use from our rec and our renewable funds. So we can use a little bit from that. But there is part of that that we may have to finance along with. We're looking at the infrastructure for all of the new development going on in Alameda that when we look at those infrastructure costs, that's a big chunk, particularly as we get into 2017 and 18. We've put it on here. That doesn't mean it's budgeted for. So we still have to figure out how to budget for it and how we're going to cover those costs because they're not going to be recovered with our normal fees. And you know, that just can't be recovered in that short a time period. And one of the things that I kind of mentioned on that, I think it's important to be on your minds. Is this on ours as you look at infrastructure, money, dollars that are collected from developers? Normally we do a 60 40% split with a developer. That's kind of our normal standard. When we put in infrastructure to a new development, we split the cost as the infrastructure is going in at at the point. There is some money coming from developer. And one of the things we'll need to know in the future is what percent of that, what's going to be the percent split of what money we can expect to get back and how much we need to finance. So that's just kind of putting that out there to think about for the future. Speaker 0: Every day. Speaker 6: A just a question on the capital equipment bump up that you're looking at in 2017 and 2018, particularly what you referenced is there have other municipal electric entities adopted something similar to that that we can look at as as a model to to to duplicate if not improve on. Speaker 7: There are a number of who have already started to put the that type of metering in Santa Clara. I think. Do they have the largest. Speaker 6: Okay. Speaker 4: And perhaps Mr. Steiger would like to come up so that people watching at home are missing this. And there will be a video, too. So. Speaker 6: Yeah. Santa Clara has started. They're the largest municipal in northern California that's doing that. Smut is completely operable. And where I was previous to here in Southern California, Glendale has been operable since 2011 and is actually far ahead with technology. So the good news is that because we waited a little bit, technology has advanced and costs have come down. So. Yes, and also we. We don't really necessarily want to be the first one so that we can learn from the lessons of others. And we are not the first one know. Speaker 7: And that's that's been a part of our board consideration. And we don't want to be the first mover, we usually are the second mover and use everybody else's mistakes so we don't make them. The other thing moving into the next slide goes into that. Oh yeah. Oh I'm sorry. Question on the. Speaker 4: Question, I was just I'm noting that you said there's usually a 6040 split when you're working with a developer on putting in new infrastructure. Did I understand you correctly to say that you don't know what that split will be yet for the new development at Alameda Point? Speaker 7: That's correct. We know you know, we know engineers have worked at the cost and we have the costs numbers. Speaker 4: Oh, yeah. But, but. Speaker 7: The actual splits of how the infrastructure funds that are being collected, how those are going to be split and what it's going to do to our usual, you know, and we understand that at times that has to change when we're trying to support something, but you can't fund it. Speaker 4: And yeah. So what, what needs to happen before you have your answer? Speaker 7: I think it's a factor of the planning that's going on with the point development that they need to figure out. Because as the infrastructure goes in, it's going into areas that we're sharing the space with other utilities. Speaker 4: Right. Speaker 7: So they have to figure out what that split is. And okay, you know, so that for us, it's unknown right now because we're going to be voting, you know, early next year to try and put our budgets together and decide what kinds of money we need and whether we need to use bond money or what we need to do. It's going to be urgent, you know, by the end of the year. We have some real firm numbers to work with. So that's just one thing. You know, we talked about concerns that's on our concern list. Speaker 4: Thank you. Speaker 7: Okay. Are there other things that are going into the infrastructure besides the advanced metering? And just a little aside to the advanced metering? That's the only way we can do time of use pricing is to have those meters in place. And time of use pricing is probably the most fair, efficient way of pricing energy because you're paying for what it cost at that particular time. And so that way high users during peak periods pay more if you switch. You used to use it during a low period. You pay less. Speaker 4: And doesn't that system also allow feedback to users so they can see, you know, you're you're using an awful lot of energy at this particular time of the day or on this particular usage. Speaker 7: Exactly. Speaker 4: There's the smart part. Right. Speaker 7: The other thing it does is that it allows us to see problems in the system faster. So I mean, all the way around, there's there's a benefit from it. We're also upgrading the automated distribution system, which is our system. And that was our what we used to call dispatch. But it's the staff that we have 24 seven that are involved in the distribution system. And the reliability tied to the Coast Guard island will be finished by the end of 2016. So we're currently doing that, the underground utility district. Those are funds that are already set aside for that. But it does come under capital, and we're hoping that by the end of next year we will have some actual work underway. And the relay replacement genny substation is already something that we're starting on. The mobile technology is what I was talking in the back end of. What we need for those meters is that this system, in order to gather the information, process it and make it usable, the electric vehicle charging stations and the electric vehicle purchases go into that. And then our street light program continuing the LED conversions until we have all led. You know, which is still we're working on it. Any questions in that area? Hey, the other area that we want to just make you aware of, you received a bound version of our strategic plan, and I don't know if you had time to look at it. What I want to do is very quickly, I'm just going to do a high level sort of blueprint of how it's put together so that you know what to look for in it. One of the things with this plan, it was a very inclusive plan process. It took place over a period of time, working with frontline staff, working with experts in various areas, working with our management staff. It was a very. Internal process on one hand, but using an external consultant who brought in all kinds of other information. Also getting information from all of our stakeholders. So really looking at who uses the services, what are they looking for? What do they need to have back from us? Those types of things. And as we looked at all of that, we came up with the fact that we must achieve excellence and we have to have a plan that's based on forward looking priorities. So we're always looking way out into the future. So we came up with key result areas. And I have to say our staff did a fantastic job in working on this and really coming up with very definitive things for us that we could work with that they could be accountable for. So we have goals that are measured. They're owned. We actually, in the plan have an individual named as the owner of each one. So there's somebody who is held accountable and there's a schedule. It tells you what quarter, that there's either milestones to be reached that kick off or an end date for it. And the initiatives are the define tactics over time. So as we look at these, these are the key result areas, customer programs and experience the workforce system. Resiliency, technology, energy resources. Financial and organizational stability. So on the next page it shows you how we break them out. So looking at the customer program and experience area under that, you'll notice that there are a list of goals that are highlighted in yellow, and each of those goals underneath them has the various initiatives. And going across you'll see right next to the goal there's a measure, overall measure for it. The next box has the responsible individual. So as a single individual, whether they're a department head or a lead on a project, and then you'll notice we go out about not quite two years, but about two years to show status. So when do we expect them to be kicked off if they're not already going? And then when are they completed? Some of the tactics will be just kick off. Tactics have it started. Some will be finished. Tactics. You know what we're doing at the end. Some will be monitoring after it's done. So you'll see those all lined up all the way across. That means workforce also has the same thing. System resiliency. This is one that I just want to point out to you that the bottom go there, 3.4 is complete. The infrastructure for LME 2.0 and that's what I was alluding to. It's on our goals. We certainly want to see it happen. We need to be able to budget for it. That happened on schedule. Each of these has the same type of thing. So you'll notice on the bottom of this one, the last one has to do with cybersecurity. So that's a whole area that we have very specific goals in and that's an area that hopefully you are. Very aware of and and you want to make sure that we do meet certain standards. Speaker 4: Yes, I did have a question of that about that. The fact that it is the last school on the list doesn't doesn't is not a reflection of its importance to the system, because I think that is it's something that, you know, not just our city but our nation needs to needs to address is cybersecurity threat to our various utilities. Speaker 7: It has absolutely no relationship to the priority. They're all equally as important. You know, they are not listed in any particular order. Speaker 6: Yeah. And as it is, I mean, you've got two things that are. Initiatives that are going to be delivered, I guess, in the fourth quarter or fourth quarter of of of this fiscal year 2015. Oh, you got some things that are coming up on that. Oh. Speaker 7: So you'll notice that they really are spread out. Some of them are going way out into the future, some are closer and we're looking towards end dates on them. So. If you want to look in terms of importance, is what are we doing right away? It's probably, you know, the way to look at it. Speaker 0: So on that chart, though, when you look at your cyber security, you do have two things I just want to reiterate, but number day, I was saying so cyber security is a high priority. You do have two things coming up this year. Speaker 7: Okay. What we already have in place in cyber security is we have a cybersecurity consultant who's working with us who is doing periodic audits of our system. And so we get real time information and works with us immediately if there's any kind of a problem. We also have our policies in place that are consistent with the policies required by our regulatory agencies. So this is over and above that. What else are we doing? Okay. Speaker 6: I have a quick question and I don't need a quantitative answer, but going back to the air load, the projected demand sheet, that's the red line over the is the Coast Guard boats and also the the marriage ships. Does that have a significant effect on the red line or is it just is it marginal? Speaker 7: Yes, they are. Some of our bigger customers. Yeah. You know, when we look at commercial customers, they are some of our biggest commercial customers. So when we look at the the fleet boats that are out there, those take a huge load. And then also Coast Guard base does, too. Speaker 6: So and to be sure, I'm not saying we don't want them as customers. I'm just saying if you adjusted the red line to account for that with the red lines suddenly be a little the new orange is. Speaker 7: I don't know what percent. Speaker 1: You know. Speaker 6: I don't know. I don't need a quantitative. It's just something that crossed my mind. Speaker 7: I just know if we look at our bigger customers, they're up there. Speaker 6: Yeah. Yeah, they represent two of our very largest customers. Yeah. And so, yes, it's. It's a fairly substantial percentage. It's. It's less than ten, but more than five. Okay. Okay. And I have to be careful in terms of what we actually exactly say in public. But but it would make a difference. It's it's it's good solid load for us. So we like to have it there. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Speaker 7: One of the things too, when you're dealing with loads like that, if we have predictable solid load and you can, that's easy to plan for and also helps us in the planning for the rest of it. Speaker 6: Well, there's a good story behind that, too, because in the late 1980s, the Navy had asked the city of Alameda Bureau of Electricity to make significant investments, which they which we did. And then now with the expectation that we know we're going to need to have contracts to have a ready source of energy supply. Well well, you know what happened? We entered into those contracts. We have the base closed. Speaker 7: Yeah, we lost a big chunk of our load, and now we're growing it back. Yeah, essentially. Speaker 6: Thank you. Speaker 7: Yeah. Okay. Energy resources. This is some of what we've talked about before. This goes into how we're handling all the things and looking into the storage and the electric vehicles and the generation, the local generation and all of those things are assigned to specific individuals who will be coming back to us with reports and plans and things over the next two years. And then financial and organizational stability. This is a big item for us. You know, we have to plan to have the cash on hand. And because of having to always pay for the power on a regular basis, large amounts of money, we always have to have a certain number of days cash on hand. And that's why part of our policy is that we have 145 days of cash on hand, and it's mainly to pay the power bill and keep things running because we can't just turn off the lights and go home. The other thing we're looking at is a cash neutral budget goals 6.4. We have been for the last several years relying on some of our reserve funds, not large amounts, but we have been taking small amounts out of reserves. We want to be cash neutral so that we're not taking it out of reserves where we can use the rec reserves or things like that or the underground utility reserves. We use those, but not take it out of the regular reserves at this point. When we look at some of the capital improvements, we will have to take some funds out of there. So that will be a separate addition to our budget to do that. But we want to really keep our budget cash neutral at this point. Any questions on that? Okay. Any questions in general? Speaker 6: Well, I'd just like to comment that I found at so many levels this discussion was so fabulous in terms of like, you know, discussing the supply or the demand. And also, you know, you discussing the game plan that you have, the different goals and strategies and initiatives and the timetables. I meant it. It sounds like, you know, you've got a roadmap ahead of and I think because you touch every single one of Alameda residents and businesses, I think they should feel confident that we're we're moving ahead in a conservative, thoughtful manner. Speaker 7: I want to assure you that we have a great general manager, very effective people on our board, and that we have great employees right now and we have some new ones that are up and coming. We're training people, so we're trying to make this a very sustainable organization far into the future. And I'd just like to thank the mayor and the city council for the time to present this and also invite you to any of our workshops you'd like to come to in the spring. We do have a budget workshop and we usually do some planning later in the year. So we'd love to have any participation, anything you'd like to participate in, come and work with us in the workshops. And you know, we can share the most current information with you. Speaker 4: And just remind us. Mr. Eaton when I was at the town hall meeting, you did. I think there are others that are that will be taking place on these different topics. Do we have any dates for those yet? It's okay because if. Speaker 7: There are dates and I can't quote them. Speaker 4: Then well, even when you know, or maybe Mr. Staggered, as we can always we can always help get the word out. Speaker 6: We have two more town hall meetings, one in September, and I believe September 21st. I think it's close. Speaker 4: Plus. Speaker 6: Or minus. And then another one in November. The one in September will focus more on the community solar initiative. And then the one in November will be kind of a a summary plus looking at integrating rates. Speaker 0: And, you know, will those be in the library also anticipate. Speaker 6: At the current time? That's our plan. Yes. Speaker 0: Right. And I do want to add that member Desai and myself were able to attend that meeting also. And there was huge community participation. This is, as we all know, an issue that our meetings are interested in. So I look forward to attending those meetings and your continued efforts to balance all of this. And this was an amazing presentation. Thank you. Speaker 7: Thank you. Speaker 4: Thanks. I met. Speaker 6: You. Speaker 0: All right, next item six SI. Speaker 2: Presentation of Alameda Recreation and Parks Department Fiscal Year 20 1415 Annual Report.

Regular Agenda Item

Receive a Report from the Public Utilities Board on Alameda Municipal Power’s (AMP’s) Five-Year Strategic Plan, Capital Improvements and Financial Status. (AMP)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_07072015_2015-1579

Speaker 2: Public hearing to consider adoption of resolution amending master fee resolution number 121912 Add and revise fees. Speaker 1: Do. Do you have any comments on that? Speaker 3: He. Good evening. I'm Julian Boyer. I am substituting for Elena Adair, your finance director, for the three weeks that she's on vacation. This item comes before you each year to adopt new fees or to improve the fees that have been on the list. And each year, they are increased by either the CPI or the building building index. So I've checked the fees. They comply with that. There are a few new fees, not very many, but there are the fees that are new are in the Community Development Planning section and they are actually for a smaller entity. So a bigger entity had a higher deposit, smaller entity, lower deposit and there are three of them and they appear on pages 33 and 34. Speaker 5: May I just ask for clarification, Ms. BOYER So CPI would be Consumer Price Index? Speaker 3: That's correct. I'm sorry. Yes. It's one of those terms that you just get so used to saying that you forget. And then there was one fee that was removed from the list that's on page four and is in the police department and Alcoholic Beverage Control License approval. And, and it was originally a $50 fee, and it applied only in our case to nonprofit organizations that got a one day license. And the chief of police recommended that we move that fee to zero, since it's a signature only. And what we were charging was removing fundraising efforts from the nonprofit. So that fee has been proposed to be reduced from 50 to 0. Those are the only real major changes. There are some minor wording changes, but not in the fees themselves. The language changes were to be clarify and be more descriptive. And that makes it easier for staff to apply and for the public to understand what the fee is. Staff members who participated in creating this fee resolution are in the audience and would be available to answer questions. Should you have any? Speaker 1: Very good. Are there any questions, comments from council members? Speaker 5: ASHCROFT Thank you. I think there was some clarification that the means for assessing penalties on overdue business license fee. Do you want to explain that? Speaker 3: Well, we didn't include that in this document. The that is actually included in the municipal code. And so Ms.. Adair will be coming back to you at a later date with a recommendation because. Speaker 5: Yeah. For the council's request. Speaker 3: Yes. Speaker 5: Thank you. Speaker 1: Any other questions? Comments from council. Speaker 6: I'd like to move the master fee schedule as presented asecond. Speaker 1: All those in favor. I motion carries unanimously. Thank you very much. You. I will now adjourn the joint meeting of the City Council, the successor agency to the Community Improvement Commission. And now we will continue with our regular city council meeting. Roll Call. Speaker 2: Council members. They said, here, here, here, here, Mayor Spencer here I present.

Joint Agenda Item

Hold a Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of a Resolution Amending Master Fee Resolution No. 12191 to Add and Revise Fees. (Finance 2410)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_07072015_2015-1810

Speaker 2: Final passage of ordinance approving a disposition and development agreement and related documents between the City of Alameda and Alameda Point Partners for a development in only two point. Speaker 1: All right. Ken Petersen is our speaker on that. So did you want to come up and speak on five H. That's the. On site a this is the second. Yes. Yes, it's for the final passage. We voted on it at the last fact. There's two speakers after computers. Then we have Michael McDonagh. If there's anyone else that wants to speak on five, please turn on your slip at this point. Mr. Peterson. Speaker 4: Thanks. By the way, just one little comment on the budget issue. The interim city manager, the city manager had a nice presentation and made some suggestions earlier in the presentation of the budget that would be helpful in conserving finances and helping us prepare for the future. And I think practically none, maybe none of the recommendations were actually taken and the council went and took other spending measures in the case of the of the site, a development. I was very impressed by the presentation that the developer made about six months ago. In some regards, they had some concerns about things that came from the meetings and that is a particularly I raised a number of questions in one of the forums that I think that hasn't been raised before or they're pretty obvious. Some of the issues had to do with such things as the question of what the value of the new housing would be in relieving the pressures upon the businesses and the employees, or housing or upon the housing needs of the city and the general area. After we talked about it, I said I didn't understand how that was going to work when they're going to compete, but people are going to compete for the housing with everybody else in the General Bay area. How that could actually help. And we agreed that it wouldn't really necessarily. Do much. But it was a matter perhaps of a wishful thinking or perhaps, as I recall from one of the senators, famous senators, to borrow this term. Well, we wouldn't fool the. And it won't fool me. We'll just fool the guys behind the tree as to how things work. That's true about a lot of development matters, what we call the enduring myths of development. And I think is sometime perhaps by a council members referral as somewhere we ought to talk about some of these things and put them to rest, get them out and see them, put them in the in the open era and put them to rest things that are not true, things that are repeated over and over again, or at least at best, partial truths and very misleading. Thank you. Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. McDonough. And he's the last speaker on this item. Speaker 4: Good evening, mayor and council members and staff. Michael McDonough, Alameda Chamber President. Just wanted to reiterate the Chamber's support for the project side. Thank you for voting in unanimously at the last meeting for this project. I'm sure based on overwhelming support by the community and based on the infrastructure, the jobs, the fact that we'll be able to attract new businesses. The Chamber, as you know, supports this measure greatly and urge you to continue your yes vote tonight. Speaker 1: Thank you. All right, counsel. Any comments? Speaker 3: One emotion. Emotion of. Speaker 4: Approval. Speaker 5: You're removing approval. Speaker 0: Second. Speaker 5: I did you. Secondly, Jim. Speaker 1: All right. So there's a second. Are there any comments? Nebraska? No. Speaker 5: Did we have a second? Speaker 3: Yes. Yes. Speaker 1: A member already seconded. I'd like to share that. For those of you who I would encourage people to go back and watch the tape of the last meeting where we discussed. The point. And when we took the vote, I think the council, we asked very good questions and this project evolved. It was not the same, but we approved is not what was initially brought to us. There were what I'm going to call concessions and changes made in response to community members comments as well as staff and council members. So the project did evolve and furthermore the project will continue to evolve. There is much work to be done. So I would encourage anyone with any interest in this project to stay involved in the process. There will be many more meetings to come at the planning board level primarily, is my understanding. And so. So please do not think that we're done. And I I'm confident from the comments made by Mr. Joe Ernst that he will continue to work with the community. So please stay involved. Express your concerns and comments as this project moves forward so that we end up with a project that best meets the needs of Alameda . Thank you. And with that all those in favor. I motion passes unanimously. Six, eh? Oh, that's. Sorry. That's the one that was deferred. And until July 21st, that's the Del Monte Affordable Housing six. Speaker 2: B Adoption of Resolutions of putting La Contini as a member of the Public Utilities Board. Daniel Davenport as a member of the Social Service Human Relations Board. And Mark Sorenson as a member of the Social Service Team Early. Jian. Thank you. Speaker 3: Sorry about that. Speaker 1: Do we have a motion?

Consent Calendar Item

Final Passage of Ordinance Approving a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) (and Related Documents) between the City of Alameda and Alameda Point Partners, LLC (APP) for the Site A Development at Alameda Point. [Requires four affirmative votes] (Base Reuse 819099) [NOTE: THE DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT EXHIBITS ARE LENGTHY; HARDCOPY MAY BE VIEWED AT THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AND LIBRARY REFERENCE DESKS]

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_07072015_2015-1814

Speaker 1: Do we have a motion? Speaker 5: So moved. Speaker 3: Second. Speaker 1: In the comments. Welcome aboard. All the favor. My motion passes unanimously. Yes. Thank you very much for stepping up on this. Speaker 3: You have to. Speaker 0: All right. Speaker 5: Mark said he was right. Speaker 1: They should be. Are they? They're meeting actually down the hall. So can someone go get a beer? We'll be swearing in three. And I'll just take a moment to get the other two here who are meeting down the hall. Thank you. Speaker 3: Thank you. Speaker 1: Okay. We're going to take a short recess. Thank you. Speaker 3: We are. Speaker 5: Renmark. Speaker 3: And. Speaker 1: Now let's take a short recess till we get everyone here. Oh. Speaker 3: Look at that. Speaker 5: If we get ahead of the curve. Speaker 3: Thank you. Speaker 1: So we're now going to resume. Speaker 3: Okay. Speaker 1: That was our short, brief recess. Speaker 2: If you all again, do solemnly swear to uphold the of. But enter. Speaker 4: Okay. Speaker 3: And then. Speaker 2: You'll find that that's. Speaker 3: Your. Speaker 5: Yeah, I think. Speaker 3: Yeah. Speaker 1: Okay. I think. Okay. We're going to resume now. Congratulations. Appreciate you all coming out and watching to take it back. Now we're going to be doing six c. Speaker 2: Update and follow up on Harbor SEAL haul out. Memorandum of Understanding between the city of Alameda and the water emergency transportation authority at alameda point.

Regular Agenda Item

Adoption of Resolutions Appointing Laura Giuntini as a Member of the Public Utilities Board; and Appointing Daniel Davenport and Reappointing Mark Sorensen as Members of the Social Service Human Relations Board.

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_07072015_2015-1759

Speaker 2: Update and follow up on Harbor SEAL haul out. Memorandum of Understanding between the city of Alameda and the water emergency transportation authority at alameda point. Speaker 3: Good evening, mayor and city council members. I'm ninette mercado in the community development department. Also the base we use department. I'm going to be making a very brief presentation because you have pretty much the summary of everything that's in the written report. Speaker 1: And I'd actually appreciate you sharing the. Speaker 3: Highlights of it. Speaker 1: For Issue four. Speaker 3: So on March 17th, this city council approved the lease with the Water Emergency Transit Authority on the condition that they enter into and an MLB with us to construct harbor seal haul out to replace the existing dilapidated pier which is being used by the seals right now and spend up to $100,000 to make that happen. Speaker 1: Can you show the diagrams as we're going through this or can someone. Speaker 3: And that. I mean, we've got experts here. And after that, the next day, unmarked on March 18th. And the I submit it to read out the list of the specialists that were given to me and as part of my research on the harbor seals. Oui, oui, oui, oui. Went on that list down to about three candidates. Looking at their background and working with marine mammals. Also, we did some calls to see who was available to work on this project, and then we circulated it within a working group that we established. The working group consists of the members of the community who had expressed an interest in the project. So there's about seven members that we've been working with. The working group all decided and I'm kind of happy about this on our on the number one candidate, which is Dr. Jim Harvey, who is the head of the research at the Moss Landing Marine Mammal Center. And your report says on an April 24th, actually, that's the wrong date. That's the date the meeting was set up. But on May 18th, we met on site with this, members of the working group and Dr. Jim Harvey to talk about it, to look at the existing pier that's being used right now. And actually that day there are about six seals on the pier. So that was really great for him to see them. And we talked about how the best location to relocate the the hull out the community. We walked the site a little bit with Dr. Harvey. The community was okay. The members were okay with this proposed site. They actually had another site in mind which is closer to the De Pave Park area, which is all the way on the other side of the property. So we drove over there with Dr. Harvey and looked at the site and Dr. Harvey felt that that site was less desirable for a hall out. It's super far from the existing place and the water's a little bit more choppy in that area, even though some of the community members have seen SEALs in that area. He thought it would be really difficult for the SEALs to find the new hall out. So we all agreed that this proposed location would be the best location for the future hall layout. So Dr. Harvey put together a paper which I'm going to distribute to you tonight, and also I'll give to the city clerk so you can put it in the written record. And it's a summary of the meeting that we had. And also he includes sort of a drawing of what the hall out could look like. And at the meeting he talked about some strategies to ensure the success of the Harbor SEALs. And he said is that most people when you think about a SEAL, you think of the sea lions that you see at at up here, 39. And those are super social seals, sea lions that harbor seals that we're talking about. He referred to as the cats of the marine mammal world because they are very particular on where they're going to haul out. Their behavior is very difficult to predict. I mean, we could build the Cadillac version of a hollow out and they may never show up to it. So he kind of gave us that caution as well. He did give us some strategies that we will be utilizing, which is putting some floating docks out and and moving it closer to where the proposed site will be so that they can potentially get used to the location. Still, there is no guarantee and we actually own some docks that we might be able to use for that purpose. Now, after the meeting with the community, I brought Dr. Harvey back to look at those docks and he said, That's perfect, if you can put them out there that see if that works. So with that said, and with this paper written by Dr. Harvey, we has submitted the paper to Bccdc on the 30th of June and asked about the next steps. What do we need to do to get our permit in place and start moving along? And then we to has a meeting next week with Bccdc and this is one of the items to discuss. So I anticipate coming back to you when we have another milestone and I wanted you to know that we were moving this forward as fast as we could. We didn't even wait the next day. We were busy trying to move this forward because we do want to be able to have something in place before we have to demolish the existing hall up. And we have. Speaker 5: Go ahead. I was just going to comment and thank Ms.. Mercado for that very comprehensive report. And also just to remark on what a wide variety of projects you cover, because. Speaker 3: This is the. Speaker 5: Woman who is in charge of all our leases at the base. So she's everything major manufacturing and reuse of these buildings and new locations for harbor seals. I you know, that's something to add to the resume and other. Speaker 3: Duties as required. Speaker 1: So we do have a public comment and there's clarifying questions I'd like to call. Ahmed. Speaker 0: Yes. So can you recap who's who's on the the committee? Speaker 3: Who's on the committee? Okay. I don't. Since we'd have contacts, all of the members, I can tell you that it is the six members who came. It's Mark Kline. Richard Bangert. Okay, Leonora. I don't know her last name. There's another woman whose email is Irene. Only Irene Dieter. Okay. Yeah. Speaker 0: And I'm comfortable with those. Speaker 3: Okay. Okay. Speaker 0: Or too. I was looking for you. Said them. Okay. And then. I had a question, but it just escaped me. So if I think of it again, I'll bring it up later. Speaker 1: Any other questions? All right, Richard Banger. He's our only public speaker. If anyone would like to speak on this, please turn in your slip. Speaker 4: Thank you, Mayor. Members of the City Council, city staff. It's always good to spend a little time talking about our other Alameda Point Partners Wildlife. Also known as the other Dub Nation. I'd like to especially thank the Net City staff and Mike from way to who's not here tonight or really putting in a diligent effort on this and especially in securing the services and expertize of Dr. Jim Harvey. He's the right doctor for this very bypass operation. This is this is probably a first on the West Coast of the United States, as you know. That said, they may adapt to it. They may not, but it's going to be. If nothing else, a noble effort that a lot of people are watching, especially the Bay Conservation and Development Commission, who told us that their recent permit hearing for the weight of society that this has never been done before and they're hoping for the best, too. So. Thanks for all the work city staff has done on this. Speaker 0: Counsel or my question. So the status of bccdc. There's a hearing next week to approve the permit. Speaker 3: It's not a hearing. We informally have asked them, what are that? What are they going to require from us? And so it's a follow up meeting from the emails, sending Dr. Harvey's report and asking What are the next steps? Speaker 0: Okay, so are we doing well? Besides that, I guess the technical or are we doing some preliminary support letter or something that says this is important to us? Speaker 3: Well, I think that when this was submitted to the Bccdc, Dr. Harvey's report that the transmittal letter said that this was the work of members of the Alameda community, the city of Alameda and Rita. So they know that we're on board. We also know that, as Mr. Bangert said, that AC DC and they're interested in seeing the success of this project. So we're just, we just, I think because it's not been done before, they're going to have to tell us what the what's the roadmap to get it done. Okay. Speaker 0: But so when do we expect them to like actually give the permit? Speaker 3: And we don't know. We have a little schedule here that we've kind of put together. But if we need a full court press, we will come back to you to ask for letters of support or something like that. We just think that we need them to tell us what they think the process will be. Okay. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 1: And this is an update. We do not vote tonight. Are there any other council comments? So and so. I also want to thank staff for proceeding with this, Dr. Harvey, the the community members that are involved. I'm I too am hopeful that this works. And I in regards to the next update, I don't know. I know you you're you don't really know when you'll be coming back. I would like at least an update. What do you think? Like monthly or quarterly, if there is no other news, just to let us know what's happening? Speaker 3: And would it be all right if we did a written corresponded to the packet from the city manager's office. Speaker 1: And so that we make the announcement. Yes. But then if you can share that to the public. So because. Speaker 3: Until we have a big milestone very. Speaker 1: Important to the public. Speaker 3: Sure. Speaker 1: The public can continue to communicate with staff if they have not been part of this committee, if they are interested in joining or have any questions regarding this. Speaker 3: Absolutely. Speaker 1: Thank you. All right. So no other comments. We're going to move on to six D. Speaker 2: A public hearing to consider adopted a resolution approving the engineer's report, confirming a diagram and assessment and ordering the levee of assessments. Island city landscaping and lighting District 84 to all zones.

Regular Agenda Item

Update and Follow-Up on Harbor Seal Haul Out Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Between the City of Alameda and the Water Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA) at Alameda Point. (Base Reuse 819099)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_07072015_2015-1783

Speaker 2: A public hearing to consider adopted a resolution approving the engineer's report, confirming a diagram and assessment and ordering the levee of assessments. Island city landscaping and lighting District 84 to all zones. Speaker 6: Madam Mayor, I'm going to recuse myself in a homeowner in that area. Speaker 3: Thank you. Speaker 1: So anyone that has property or is a home owner within 500 feet of the property of the item needs to recuse themselves. You will be seen. You just saw two members. Speaker 3: Leave. Speaker 1: The dais. Vice Mayor and member de SAC. So at this point, we will continue with the the item. Thank you. Speaker 8: Good evening, Madam Mayor and members of the city council. I'm Melissa Cord, management analyst for the Public Works Department. The item before you this evening is one of three public hearings you will conduct to levy assessments for the city's special districts in the coming year. Special districts are formed so that property owners within those districts can pay assessments to fund enhanced maintenance within the district, for example, daily sidewalk cleaning. Normally, we would have two routine public hearings this evening, one for the landscape and lighting district and one for the maintenance assessment districts. But this evening is a little bit different. We'll still have those two routine public hearings to approve assessments to continue the status quo. But then comes the excitement. In the third hearing will count the ballots for an assessment increase on Park Street, one of the zones in our landscaping lighting district. Should the Park Street balloting be unsuccessful? Approval of this first item will guarantee that we can levy the existing assessments for the coming year. If that balloting is successful, the increased assessments will be collected instead. So with that, I will continue with the first item. This report report requests that council hold a public hearing and then adopt a resolution approving the engineer's report for the landscape and lighting district, confirming the diagram and assessment and ordering the levy of assessments. This is the last component of a prescribed legal process done annually to charge assessments for the following year in existence since 1984. This assessment district has six zones throughout the city. I'm going to walk you through the zones and the proposed assessments for each of the zones. The first zone is on Lincoln Avenue between Sherman and St Charles, and it funds landscape. Median maintenance staff is proposing assessments remain flat, totaling to just under $5,000 for the whole zone. Zone four is Park Street and funds, graffiti removal and daily litter cleanup, including a public litter can maintenance. As we just talked about, this zone is currently in the last stage of the balloting process to increase assessments as assessments for Park Street have remained flat since the mid 1990s. We will learn the results of the balloting after the public hearing and ballot tallying before council later this evening. If that balloting effort is unsuccessful, this action ensures that the existing assessments are collected for the coming year. Zones. Five and six are the Harbor Bay Business Park and Marina Village commercial area. And for these zones we are recommending consumer price index increases of 2.53%, which are permitted without balloting of the property owners. Zone seven represents several blocks of Bay Street and funds enhanced maintenance of the entries along the streets. We are recommending that assessment stay the same as past years, amounting to about $150 per parcel. Finally, zone eight is Webster Street. Webster Street was formerly Zones two and three of the Landscape and Lighting District, and last year the West Alameda Business Association City conducted a balloting process, a successful balloting process to double assessments over five years . It was during that process process. The zones were combined into one zone, now known as Zone eight. This is the second year of the assessment increase and these assessments primarily fund tree trimming and daily street maintenance in the Webster Zone. In closing, we are requesting that council adopt the resolution approving the engineer's report, confirming the diagram and assessment, and ordering the levy of the landscaping, lighting, district assessments for all zones. My report is complete and I'm available for any questions you may have. Speaker 5: Member Ashcraft Thank you for a nice report. Ms.. Just for clarification on that last zone. Zone eight, Webster Street from Central Avenue to Atlantic Avenue. So the zone is in the second year of its assessment increase that will culminate in double assessments over five years. But at the end of that five year period, the assessments will just. Speaker 8: They'll resume the consumer price index increase year over year. Okay. Speaker 5: Thank you. I'm prepared. Yeah, I'm prepared to. I didn't have a question. I am prepared to move that we approve this resolution. Sorry. Approving the engineer's report, confirming diagram, an assessment and ordering levy of assessments. Island city landscaping and lighting. District eight for dash to all zones. Speaker 1: Do we have any speakers on this item? Speaker 2: We have nothing, because on this item. Speaker 1: We have a second. Speaker 0: Okay. Oh. Speaker 5: My gosh. Speaker 0: I a second. Speaker 1: And then will the record note that we had to recuse themselves? Speaker 3: Oh, yeah. Speaker 1: All right. Any comments? All those in favor. I motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Cause 60. Speaker 5: Yes. And has. Speaker 3: There. Which is right. Got him. Speaker 5: Oh, yeah. Speaker 2: Yeah, I think. Speaker 3: Okay. Speaker 1: Six. Speaker 2: E public came to consider adoption of resolution approving the engineer's report, confirming diagram and assessment and ordering the levy of assessments. Maintenance Assessment District A1. A1. Marina Cove.

Regular Agenda Item

Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of Resolution Approving the Engineer's Report, Confirming Diagram and Assessment, and Ordering the Levy of Assessments, Island City Landscaping and Lighting District 84-2, All Zones. (Public Works 275)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_07072015_2015-1784

Speaker 2: E public came to consider adoption of resolution approving the engineer's report, confirming diagram and assessment and ordering the levy of assessments. Maintenance Assessment District A1. A1. Marina Cove. Speaker 8: Hello again, Madam Mayor, and members of the City Council. I'm Liz Acord, management analyst with the Public Works Department. This item requests that council hold a public hearing and then approve the engineer's report, confirming the diagram and assessment and ordering the levy of assessments for the Marina Cove Maintenance Assessment District. This is the last step in the routine legal process we go through each year to collect assessments for the district. Marina Cove has been an assessment district since its formation in 2002. It is approximately 83 homes in a park, and this assessment district helps fund the maintenance of the city park as well as sidewalk and landscaping maintenance . We recommend the Consumer Price Index increase of 2.53%, as is authorized without a majority vote of the property owners. Request that council adopt the resolution approving the engineer's report, confirming the diagram and assessment, and ordering the levy of assessments for the Marina Cove maintenance assessment districts. My report is complete and I'm available for any questions. Speaker 1: Any questions? Speaker 5: Member Ashcraft to I just look like I have a question in the areas. So I thank you again, Mr. Corey. One of the things I noted that I think is a positive in this one is that in this year there is no allocation from fund reserves to cover expenses above the current year budget. And then in coming years, because with Marina Cove phase two coming online, that will bring in additional assessments. So there is potential for additional reserve collection or reduced assessments, right? Speaker 8: Correct. The Marina Cove two communities facilities district does cover park maintenance with this assessment district. So there is potential for the assessment to decrease or a further allocation to reserves. Speaker 3: Okay. Speaker 5: And just for context, this Marina Cove development is right across Stratus, right across the street from where we just did the groundbreaking recently for the new fire station in emergency operations center. Right. Speaker 3: Right. Right. Speaker 5: Do we have speakers on this one? I don't know if. Speaker 1: Any other comments. We have a motion. Speaker 5: I'll move approval of this resolution, approving the engineer's report and confirming diagram and assessment in ordering levee of assessments. Maintenance Assessment District 01-01 Marina Cove that can. Speaker 1: Any comments? All those in favor. I motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Six f. Speaker 2: This is a public hearing to determine the election results for and against a proposed assessment increase for the island, city, city landscaping and lighting District 84 to Zone four, an adoption of resolution imposing the appropriate assessment of light in the election results.

Regular Agenda Item

Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of Resolution Approving the Engineer's Report, Confirming Diagram and Assessment, and Ordering the Levy of Assessments, Maintenance Assessment District 01-01 (Marina Cove). (Public Works 276)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_07072015_2015-1786

Speaker 1: Right. So this is the time and place for the public hearing related to the modification of. I'm going to continue right of them proposed increases to the levy of assessments within the island city landscaping and lighting maintenance district number eight for dash two zone for Park Street to fund ongoing maintenance and servicing of landscape improvements in the Park Street Business District area. But now ask the City Clerk to report on the notice of this public hearing. Speaker 2: Notice of the public hearing and distribution of the assessment ballots has been completed in the manner and form as required by law. Speaker 1: Before proceeding further with the public hearing, I would like to ask the city attorney to provide both the city council and the audience with a summary of the proceedings that will take place both during and after the close of the public hearings. Speaker 3: Madam Mayor and Council, after the staff report is provided to the Council, the Mayor will first open the public hearing, then take comments from the public. Request any additional ballots to be submitted to the city clerk. Close the public hearing order tabulation of the ballots. And once the ballots have been tabulated, the city clerk will announce the results. Speaker 1: I will now ask with the court from the Public Works Department to provide the staff report. Speaker 8: Madam Mayor, members of the City Council. I'm Liz Acord, management analyst for the Public Works Department. As you know, assessments for the Park Street Zone of the city's landscaping lighting district have been flat since the mid 1990s. These assessments fund sidewalk cleaning, tree trimming and maintenance of the public litter cans. As a consequence of the flat assessments, services have declined and maintenance has declined in the district. Beginning in 2013, public works coordinated with Pittsburgh, the Park Street Business Association, to develop a proposal to double assessments over three years and thus improve services. This year, the proposal was approved by Pittsburgh's board, and the City Council took the necessary steps to initiate the balloting process on May 19th. As you are well aware, votes to increase assessments are difficult. No one wants to pay more, especially as assessments have been flat for two decades. Yet his boss board has courageously endorsed the raised assessments, even though there's a risk of a failed ballot. While last year Webster Street's balloting effort was successful, some may remember an unsuccessful balloting on Webster in 2008. Let's now find out whether the balloting for Part Street was successful or not. Following the public hearing and tabulation of ballots. I'll be back before you to discuss the outcome. With that, my report is complete and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. Speaker 1: Member Ashcraft. Speaker 5: And just for clarification, Ms.. Acord, the what what is required to pass this measure is a simple majority. Speaker 8: It's a 50 plus one majority of the ballots submitted. Okay. Speaker 5: Thank you. Speaker 1: Mayor Brody. Speaker 0: Thank you. I just have a couple of questions. Just some comments on or questions that folks in on person have asked me the the monitoring, the public litter cans and excess waste from cans to prevent overflowing. It says it's done daily. That the complaint I was given was that that's the biggest pet peeve on Park Street is that the waste cans are are not emptied in a timely manner, that they're overflowing, that they're out there right in front of their businesses. They have rodent issues. So, I mean, is that something that we can address or is that not the this is not the appropriate time to bring that up? Speaker 8: Or I'm for clarification, it is part of the current scope of services for the maintenance contract for the district. However, if this balloting effort is successful and we have more assessment money for more maintenance, we can increase perhaps increase the frequency of the litter can maintenance to help address the issue. Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. Speaker 1: I want to make a comment. You had used the word courageous in regards to the Park Street business district, I believe, for bringing this. I would not support the use of that word for this. I think that this is just I see this as between the district and their tenants. And our role is to facilitate that, not to intervene one way or the other. Maybe that's my understanding, is we are just to facilitate the vote. Thank you. So at this time, the City Council will hear from any interested person who desires to address the City Council on this matter. We have two speakers, Walter Mcquiston. And then Mona Hanson. Speaker 4: Honorable mayor. Council members and staff. My name is Walter Mcquiston. I'm a committee person with the Masonic Hall Association of Alameda, and I've been here to speak on its behalf. I've been a resident of this town since 1972 and a member of the local Mason Lodge for 22 years. I want to state for the record that the Masonic Hall Association of Alameda does not approve the modified boundaries proposed for the city of Alameda. The Landscape and Lighting District 84, Dash two, Zone four and the proposed assessment. Our large facility was not included in that district before and does not wish to be included for several reasons. We are a profit private, nonprofit organization that maintains a locked, restricted access facility that is not open to the general public without specific invitation or sponsorship. Furthermore, as a fraternal organization such as the Eagles across the street, we do not sell merchandise or services to the public. Since 1927, we have provided neon sidewalk lighting for the safety of our members and guests and we have always cleaned up our own sidewalks. Importantly, we have no landscaping at our facility to maintain. In other words, our fraternity will derive absolutely no benefit from the proposed assessment and the services it will allegedly support. Since our founding in 1871, we've never been a member of the Park Street Business Association. Or, as I indicated, District 84, Dash two. To my knowledge that none of our members or building tenants are members of PSB a. The fact is we pay our fair share of taxes and additional assessments would create distress for our fraternity. Furthermore, and in conclusion, we have recently retained counsel. In effort to obtain a refund from the city or wrongfully assessed and wrongfully withheld measure H funds. Again for the foregoing reasons or association, adamantly opposes increasing the boundary of District A4 Dash two to include our facility. Thank you for the opportunity to address this Council. Speaker 1: Thank you. Speaker 0: Questions? Speaker 1: Not appropriate for us to have the questions. We can give direction to staff to look into this. My understanding. Next speaker. Speaker 3: Thank you. Thank you. Speaker 1: Thank you very much. Mona Hanson. Speaker 3: Good evening, honorable mayor and Council. This will probably be short and sweet for you tonight. I want to compliment the city and the Park Street Business Association. And I'll start with just a little bit of my history. I've been involved in various business consulting or whatever in Alameda for over 30 years. I think it was my first time of actually visiting the island, and I loved it. And I would say memories there. That's the white hair. But probably about 10 to 12 years ago I purchased the building on Park Street, which I'm thrilled with. And it was I tag it before Peet's and Starbucks as opposed to after. So I just felt great about this street. I love coming here. The tenants I have are great. The people surrounding it, the community. I've worked with the city a lot on various permits and getting the tenants in order. So I thank you. But from a standpoint of the Park Street Business Association generally, is it? Building owner. Do I like paying taxes? No. But do I recognize the value that the organization brings to us from Park Street? The what I've seen, the differences with the landscaping, the changes, all of those things, it makes a difference. We do need more trash receptacles. Please, please. We've had a couple of hours removed and never to be found again. So whatever we can do for trash would be really great. And thank you. Speaker 1: Thank you. And Rob Rando. Speaker 0: I don't. Speaker 4: Oh, hi, Rob Bravo, executive director of the downtown Alameda Business Association. Yeah, we're. We had a soft opening on the name. Thank you. I just wanted to clear up one piece of what I believe is misinformation from the first speaker. Any tenant, any business tenant in that building is a member of the Park Street Business Association. He may not be aware of that, but they are. Trust me, I know these things. However, the reason I turn into speaker slip is to try to maybe clarify for Mr. O.D. and the rest of the council pertaining to the trash cans. Weekends the the maintenance company. They try to keep them as un overflowing as possible. But we are looking into with public works to replacing the plastic trash cans that took the place of the really crummy old green ones. And in fact, today was a perfect example of one of the reasons we're trying to replace them is the the fire den there at San Antonio and Park Street. Someone had moved the the can in and it had positioned it in such a way that Akai could not get to it with the claw because it was behind one of the bike racks. Now, as I've stated on numerous occasions, I made one phone call to my contact at HCI and by the time I went by there at 2:00 in the afternoon, the can had been moved and it had been empty. So, you know, we're doing the best we can and we are looking at getting much better, permanently installed trash cans that are actually not that bad looking. So I just wanted to get up and clarify that for you. Okay. Thank you. Much appreciated. Okay. No problem. Speaker 1: Any comments or questions. They see no one else who wishes to be heard. Do any members of the City Council have any further questions for the city staff or consultants as a result of public testimony? All right. I do have a question. I looked up the Masonic Hall and it looks like that they have the nonprofit rate. And I'm trying to figure out. It looks like it goes, was it 103 or was it zero? You know, from looking at this and then it looks like it goes 195 to 45 and then to 99. But can someone tell me what they currently pay or what they have in pain? Speaker 8: We can tell you what they're currently paying. I'm just going to check with and guess who is our financial consultant for special districts to get. Speaker 1: In the middle of page 31 or. If you want to try to find it. It has a dash. If I'm reading this correctly, under fiscal year 1415. Does the dash mean zero? Speaker 8: Sorry about that. The Masonic is not part of the current boundary of the districts. As part of this balloting process, we are modifying and updating the boundary to reflect the services that happen as part of the Park Street landscape and lighting zone. So they will be receiving an assessment if the balloting effort is successful. Speaker 1: Okay. So you say we. So who is determining that they were not in the Park Street Business Association district and now they will be. They were not in a part that was assessed before, but they will now be. Speaker 8: There were not in the district as it was in the zone as it was formed in 1984. But it was through the special benefit general benefit analysis that was done as part of helping. Or preparing for this increased assessment to determine that they are receiving benefit. Therefore, those who are receiving a benefit must be assessed for the benefit they're receiving. Speaker 1: And is that the I'm sorry. Let me finish my questions and then you can speak afterwards. Speaker 5: Sorry. Speaker 1: Thanks. Right. So is it the city that is now determining that they are in this group? Speaker 3: No. It was an engineer's report that the that was commissioned by staff. It's an engineer's report that actually did the analysis. Speaker 1: But who's bringing this? Is it Pittsburgh or is it the city that is making this change. Speaker 8: Is asking for this increased assessment to go forward when their board has voted to proceed with that? Speaker 1: And I appreciate it, but I'm trying to figure out if you have a business that apparently has not been part of Pittsburgh for how many years? Since at least 1984. Speaker 3: Actually, I think from the clarification from Mr. Rado, potentially the Elks themselves were not part of. Speaker 5: The Masonic Lodge. Speaker 3: I'm sorry, but the businesses within and I don't know if he's here clarify that, but that the businesses within the Masonic actually were, are part of Pittsburgh. But the building itself is now within the district. So. Speaker 1: And that change. Okay, that's what I'm speaking to. Why are they now within it? Whereas before they hadn't been. Speaker 3: Well, by law, when you're doing these assessments, an engineer's report is required by law. And the engineer's report looks at and see who has a benefit. And if you have a benefit, whether you like it or not, you have to pay into the assessment district. So they are receiving a benefit, therefore they have to pay into it. Speaker 1: Okay, so when was the last time there was an engineer's report on this? Speaker 8: As part of the regular levy. The first item that we had the public hearing for, we do a regular engineer's report every year for the landscape and lighting districts. Speaker 1: Okay. So apparently in the past, they did not find that this that they had any benefit. But today they are. Let me finish, please. Speaker 5: Question actually piggybacks on yours. Speaker 1: All right. Speaker 5: So I think if I'm reading the staff report correctly, this accord on page two, it talks about the the council we as well. In February 2014, the city council awarded a contract to conduct the analysis, voting and reporting required to increase the assessments. And they talk about in the report how the analysis has complicated because any increase any assessment increase triggers prop 218, which is of course, state law, which was passed after the district's founding, which is part of the complication. But Prop 218 special benefit analysis requires a parcel by parcel review of land use and benefit, rather than the previous analysis, which was based on acreage and frontage. So the state law mandates it's not the city, but it's the state mandates that any property that receives a special benefit must also be assessed. And I think that somewhere in this report it talks about how there I mean, there is there are going to be some hard feelings, no doubt, because there are some people who have been enjoying benefits without paying into the assessment, and there's others who have been paying into the assessment which actually might have their assessments lower just because of the analysis, the benefit analysis that is being done. So I think it's not just peers, but if this is actually compliant with state law, if I'm understanding correctly. Speaker 1: All right. But this has passed. So when did Prop 218 passed. Speaker 3: Or. Speaker 1: 96? That that is my issue. Okay. So that's my concern is there have been reports, engineer reports since passage of Prop 218, and yet this apparently was not addressed earlier. We apparently do this every year. This was changed in 96. Thank you. Remember already. And so why today as opposed to the last year, every year since 1996? Speaker 8: Sure, I will defer to NBC if I'm speaking incorrectly here, but it is the increase of assessments that triggers this special, this revisit to the special versus general benefit analysis. And because between the time of the formation of the district and this time, which has been has said they would like to increase assessments and go through this process, we do have property 18 law changes. We have changes to parcels within the district to have parcels such as the Masonic that have been reclassified from for profit to nonprofit that do affect the outcome of that analysis as well. Speaker 5: And you mentioned that the rates had remained flat since the mid 1990s, right? Correct. And also, just for clarification, even if some entity hasn't paid the assessment in the past, we're not looking to go back and collect it retroactively. Speaker 8: Right. Correct. That is that is an excellent question. Speaker 5: From this day forward, if assuming it passes. Speaker 1: Vice. Speaker 3: Mayor, and. Speaker 6: Can you confirm that the request or or an increase in assessment is what triggers a special needs engineering report? Correct. Correct. And there have been no request for increased assessment for almost two decades. Speaker 3: Correct. Speaker 6: So that trigger that's the reason why in the past this hasn't been addressed. Speaker 1: Any other questions or comments? All right. Okay. Fallon, I think this is where I am now. I would like to remind everyone that all. Thank you. I would like to remind everyone that all assessment ballots and replacement assessment ballots must be received by the city clerk before this public hearing is closed. Assessment ballots or replacement assessment ballots received after the close of this public hearing will not be tabulated. Are there any owners who have not submitted their assessment ballots and need additional time to submit their assessment ballots? Or are there any owners who have submitted their assessment ballots but now wish to submit a replacement assessment ballot? If so, the City Council will take a five minute recess before closing the public hearing to allow for the submission of such ballots. Seen? We have. Would you like to approach the podium or speak with the clerk? Speaker 3: I. Speaker 1: You could use the microphone. Speaker 5: I'm sorry. Microphone. Speaker 1: Please approach. Thank you. Speaker 3: I filled out my ballot but went on vacation and I don't know that it was mailed. My daughter thinks that she might have tossed it, so it's only one vote. Speaker 1: So at this point, then I will call for a recess and we will resolve that and then we'll resume. Okay. Thank you. Great. Speaker 3: Thank you. All right. Speaker 1: So at this point. Thank you. We're resuming. Speaker 3: The. Speaker 1: Public hearings that were we are is that correct? Is now closed. All right. The public hearing is now closed. Assessment ballots and replacement assessment ballots received by the city clerk after this time shall not be tabulated. The city council shall now. But it's same. Say we already did that. No, we need to recess now. Okay. The City Council shall now recess. While the city clerk tabulates the assessment ballots and replacements ballots received by the city clerk prior to the close of the public hearing. We will now take a short recess. Thank you. Speaker 5: If you want to get. Speaker 3: One of the gray hairs. Speaker 1: That's another. Speaker 3: Reason. Okay. There's food back. Speaker 1: Now. And now they've got. Speaker 3: Have it this. Speaker 0: I mean, whether he was okay or not. And if a gun. Speaker 3: Oh, yes. When either one was. Speaker 0: Who I. Speaker 3: Wrote didn't already vote. And now this one is actually. You're joking. I don't know. I. Right. We're having another meeting Thursday. Anything else? Speaker 0: Allegedly. He said he was. Oh, he was just like, I don't just like goofing around. Speaker 3: I'm already sort of heading. My proposal is. Yeah, I'm going we're going to be on early, though. No, really. Speaker 0: I was just like looking every other lot at such. There's a hierarchy. Speaker 3: Have you been there? I've been to Moscow. Oh, nice. Uh huh. So then a. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Speaker 0: Oh. So powerful is the are. Speaker 1: We will now be resuming. Upon completion of the tabulation of the assessment ballots, the city clerk will notify the City Council that the tabulation has been completed. Speaker 2: 200 207 assessment ballots were mailed to the owners of property within the boundaries of the assessment district, and 67 of those ballots were received prior to the close of the public hearing. 15 assessments. Ballots representing $6,839.47 or 26.6% were submitted in support of the levy of the proposed assessment within the Assessment District. 52 ballots representing 19,402 and $13 or 73.94% were submitted in opposition to the levy of the proposed assessments within the Assessment District. Speaker 3: Hmm. But. Speaker 2: The percentage was 26.06 in favor and 73.94. Speaker 1: All right. So when the. So that means that the measure fails. So then is there a specific language that I read at that point? Speaker 3: Yes, Madam Chair, there is a you cannot adopt the motion, obviously, to approve the district. And in fact, with the failure resulting in a majority protest, which is then the failure of this assessment to go forward, it cannot come back again for a year as well. But so we have a resolution that declares the results are at the bottom. Speaker 1: So a resolution of the city council of the city of Alameda, California, declaring the results of the assessment ballot tabulation for Island City Landscaping and lighting maintenance. District number 84-2 zone for Park Street determine the existence of a majority protest and abandoning the proceedings to increase such assessments there in. And then staff. Speaker 8: This is obviously not the outcome that the city or I had hoped for. Nonetheless, I want to thank the Park Street Business Association Board for their hard work in educating their members about this proposal. Public Works remains committed to working with Pittsburgh to figure out how to raise the necessary funds to enhance the area's maintenance. At this time, I'd like to invite Rob Rado, Park Street Business Association's executive director up to share a few words. Speaker 1: Would you like to speak? Speaker 4: Hi, Rob Rato. I'm still the executive director of the downtown Alameda Business Association. I'm very disappointed by the outcome, but it's the outcome. And what are you going to do? I want to thank Public Works and Bees, specifically, Liz, who's gone through this process with us and my buddy Trevor, who frankly, I just met today. And I just want the council and the general public and every possible member and every property member, owner in the district. We will continue to try to do the best we can maintenance wise with the amount of money that we've got. But as I suggested to Mr. Materazzi Rossi before the meeting, it's a very limited amount of money and we're doing the best we can and that's all we're going to be able to do. Thank you. Speaker 1: Thank you. As an agenda item. Speaker 2: Sir, you need to adopt the. Speaker 5: Yeah. All right. Speaker 0: Most time. I just want a quick question from. From staff, so. The resolution on the increase in assessment failed. What does that mean for the folks that were supposed to be added to the to the district? Speaker 8: The folks that are not included in the existing districts can no longer receive the special benefits services. Speaker 0: So they're not in the OC. Thank you. Speaker 1: Sir. Do we need to take. Speaker 5: I do have a clarification on what you just said. Which so I mean, what does that mean? Because you're still going to pick up their trash and repair the sidewalks in front of their buildings. Speaker 8: Right. So we do need to figure out a way to do that without using the assessment district funds. We can no, we can't use the funds to provide that service. We need to staff in public works, needs to work with peers to figure out a way to absorb that outside of the assessment district. Speaker 1: And have you been doing that? Have you been using the funds in the past for that? Speaker 8: There have been some of those. Part of this balloting process was to reflect the current state of the district and those who are receiving the services. Speaker 0: That's just the ones that you were like the the Masons Masonic. I'm not talking about everybody on this in the district. It's just the ones that the the the engineers report said should be added because the receiving service. Speaker 3: Correct. Speaker 0: But those are not in the district. Speaker 8: They are they are not included in this zone of the assessment district. Speaker 1: All right at this time, do we need a vote or whether we move forward because it feel. Speaker 3: You need to vote for the abandoned and excuse me, the abandonment resolution that you read, Madam Mayor, just certifying the ballot and that it's being abandoned. Yes. Speaker 1: The language that I just read at the end. All right. Do we have a motion to drop that resolution? Speaker 4: I'll move. Speaker 1: Second. Is there a second? Any comments? All those in favor. I. I'm a. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Speaker 3: Thank you. Speaker 1: All right. Next item seven, I believe, City Manager Communications.

Regular Agenda Item

SUMMARY: Public Hearing to Determine the Election Results For or Against a Proposed Assessment Increase for the Island City Landscape and Lighting District 84-2, Zone 4 and Adoption of a Resolution Imposing the Appropriate Assessment in Light of the Election Results Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of Resolution Confirming the Ballot Results to Determine Whether a Majority Protest Exists in the Proceedings to Increase Assessments in Island City Landscape and Lighting District 84-2, Zone 4 (Park Street); and Adoption of Resolution Confirming the Ballot Results and Providing for No Majority Protest and the Levy of an Annual Assessment in Island City Landscape and Lighting District 84-2, Zone 4 (Park Street). (Public Works 275)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_07072015_2015-1793

Speaker 2: Considered directing the city manager to draft a policy to increase the transient occupancy tax above the current rate of 10%, with a portion of all of revenues attributable to the rate above the original 10% dedicated to specified voter serving activities. Visitor serving activity voting. Speaker 3: April and. Speaker 1: This is Councilmember de Suggs refer also I'll be passing on member Ashcroft. Speaker 5: I before we even get started I would respectfully request that this matter be continued to another council meeting. The reason being late this afternoon we received what looked like very interesting exhibits that are about to be presented to us. But it means that the Council I certainly didn't have a chance to go over them and I can tell that my colleague De SA spent a lot of time and effort on them. I feel that to make an informed decision and in fairness to the public who should have the opportunity to look this over to. I would really like us to bring this back at another time, if that's okay. And also, I think today the council got a letter from a couple who owns a property I want to see in the 2100 block of San Jose Avenue resides in one of the units, rents another and does the other one through vacation rental by owner. I actually would like to see that letter attached as an exhibit to councilman. So if you didn't see it, you miss your madame looks quizzical. I'll offered it to you. I'm sure it went to the council, but like I said, I can tell you went to a lot of effort in this and I think there's some good information. I didn't have a chance to even get into it today. Speaker 0: And or if I may, I actually mentioned to the city manager earlier today because she had indicated that that generally we we are to keep PowerPoint presentations as part of the official public record per the Sunshine Local Sunshine Ordinance. So when she mentioned that in bumping into her later on this afternoon, I actually said, you know, I'm okay with delaying this, it's no problem with me. So I'm actually fine with it. Speaker 1: With proceeding without the PowerPoint. So what you're. Speaker 3: Saying. No, no, no, no. Speaker 0: I'm fine with pushing this off. I just want to know if we can if if there's time available for our second regular meeting this July or even. Speaker 1: So, I'd prefer discussing that because it's so before we continue it, it's my understanding that any increase, the suggested increase, would have to be approved by the voters as opposed to a policy drafted by the city manager. So I would prefer that this come back when we will be looking at the proposed utility tax, which would also be approved by the voters or have it re re brought back in the manner that would be fair. Yes. Speaker 6: I think before we have the discussion on whether we should do this or not. I'd like to be able to to absorb the information, and then we can have that discussion if we're going to either address it tonight or week. Speaker 1: So I appreciate that. I would just like to educate everyone that this is could not happen as proposed. And if the council could share with us tonight. So then everyone is aware and we're looking at this, but we're actually looking at. Well. Speaker 3: If I think I might be able to help clarify, I think it's because and we talked about this, Councilmember Desai, it's phrased as to draft a policy and that isn't actually what the council member is seeking in his referral. So it's not as clear as as probably would be would be good for the agenda, which can be fixed with the delay I believe. And the other the other part of it is to so council and the public understands that with referrals what the options are for the council because this is not really an agenda item with the full staff report and full information. The idea of a referral is for a council member to raise an issue that either the council can do one of three things. You can either say, No, we don't want to go forward and talk about this anymore and have staff spend any time. Yes, we believe we have enough information and we are willing to adopt it right here and now. And that kind of thing typically happens just with the letter of support of some kind of a thing or something like this, which is frankly a media issue that needs some consideration and will require staff work. If council wants to direct staff to do that, that would be your direction to to instruct staff to do that. But as has been discussed here, that decision, that discussion among you to even give that direction to staff, you're believing you want to postpone so people can absorb the information so we won't be coming back with have having staff draft a policy. Yeah. Speaker 0: So I like the idea of the second regular meeting in. Speaker 3: July, if that's okay. Speaker 5: But the only question I'd probably want to bounce it off. Our interim city manager I glanced at. That's the July 21st meeting. It's a pretty hefty agenda, but what do you think? Speaker 1: You've got to write, right? And I actually would prefer not proceeding in July with this. I would suggest that it come back, but not until September. I don't think we would be able to do this anyway. And because it actually has to be approved by the voters, it's not something that we would be able to implement. Speaker 5: So I would prefer. Speaker 1: To come. Speaker 3: Back. If we're speeding a system. Speaker 1: Yeah. Do you think that that would work? Speaker 3: Yes. Speaker 1: All right. But with the modification. So that it's something that we can consider. Thank you. Very. Speaker 0: Sounds good to me. I'm fine. Speaker 3: With that. Speaker 5: Thank you. Speaker 0: Counsel. Speaker 1: Oh, all right. And we do have a speaker on side. And so let's go ahead and we'll call Karen Bay, please. Thank you. Speaker 7: I was hoping that we would get a chance to talk about this tonight. I am totally in support of a hotel tax increase to pay for our visit alameda type campaign. I think it would be nice if you could all in addition, look at the oakland model. Oakland is doing quite well. They have increased their hotel tax to, I think 14% and a portion of that funds there. Visit Alameda. I'm sorry. Visit Oakland. Tampa. Speaker 3: We appreciate that. Speaker 7: And I mean, you know, I love to talk about the successes, over 300 restaurants. I don't know if you've been to Jack London Square lately, but it's pretty exciting. I went a couple weekends ago and I sat there looking over at Alameda just to see the possibilities. And I see so many possibilities. I mean, if Oakland can do it, we can do it. We've got a huge list of tourism assets. And, you know, the taxes that you make, the sales tax revenue that you bring in as a result of deciding that you want to be a destination city is incredible. This is low hanging fruit and that's what we need to go after, low hanging fruit. And if we can create an exciting visit Alameda campaign, I can assure you that we would be well on our way to increase in sales tax revenues and increasing. And you know, all that money can go towards our budget deficit. I mean, there's so many, so many wonderful benefits from becoming a tourism, a tourist destination. So I, I hope that we move forward and look at that look at this as a great possibility for Alameda. Thank you. Speaker 1: Thank you. At this point. We'll continue with nine. Be your no objection. All right. Nine be. Speaker 3: Um. Speaker 0: We could. We could postpone it for the same reason. Yeah. Speaker 3: Yeah. Thank you. Speaker 1: Thank you. All right. This council communications note. I will not be making any additional nominations at this time. Speaker 3: Oh. Speaker 1: A nine beat. Did you want to speak? You make it. All right. Go ahead. So, Karen, be on nine P and then would you read about nine beers? Thank you. Speaker 7: Thank you. Oh. Speaker 1: I'm sorry. I heard this guy. Speaker 2: Directing the city managers draft policies with regard to Airbnb and related temporary lodging activities in residential homes and zoning districts.

Council Referral

Consider Directing the City Manager to Draft a Policy to Increase the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) Above the Current Rate of 10%, with a Portion of All of Revenues Attributable to the Rate Above the Original 10% Dedicated to Specified Visitor-Serving Activities. (Councilmember Daysog)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_07072015_2015-1794

Speaker 2: Directing the city managers draft policies with regard to Airbnb and related temporary lodging activities in residential homes and zoning districts. Speaker 7: Okay. Thank you. I just want to. I'll be brief. I just wanted to also talk about the benefits of partnering with Airbnb. Effective July 1st, Oakland will be the city of Oakland. Airbnb will collect the collecting taxes on their Airbnb guest or host. Effective July 1st. It's Airbnb is growing. They're getting larger and larger. And. I believe that Alameda has a great opportunity. I think this is one of the first things that we would look at to increase tourism is to think of ourselves as partnering with Airbnb. Unlike many surrounding cities, Alameda has no bed and breakfast. Since we don't have luxury hotels, we don't have boutique hotels. So the Airbnb rentals are the closest thing that we would have to to bed and breakfast. Right now, Paris is one of the lot. Airbnb is becoming more popular in Paris, London, Cuba. And one of the other benefits of Airbnb is it addresses the sharing economy. And I'd like to talk a lot about that because tenants have a tremendous opportunity to negotiate with their landlords to say, okay, look, you're going to raise my rent and I would like to rent out my space or rent out my extra spare bedroom for some income to help offset the expenses and my other expenses. So Airbnb actually has an entire page to help tenants negotiate with their landlords. No, NOLA, this is a company that prepares legal forms and and helps small businesses. They also have tenant agreements, prepare tenant agreements to help tenants. So we have an opportunity to do something unique and different. And I think we can the rent review board could possibly use this as a tool, and I know that that's why not talking about when we view boards, but I just I've done a lot of research . I spent almost the whole weekend researching the benefits of Airbnb and I know this is going to come up again, but I'm really excited about partnering. Take a look at the city of Malibu, the Airbnb, the advertising, a promotion that they're doing for the city of Malibu. It's pretty incredible. Partnering with Airbnb means that they will do a lot of your advertising, so that's what it looks like to be partnering with it. And so you're getting all of this advertising and branding and it's pretty exciting. So if you get a chance to do that. And one last comment, Paris, they said according to their site, many of their hosts work in the creative industry and more than 40% are self-employed, freelance or part time. So this is an incredible way to increase their income and allow them to continue to be artists. So as you can see, I'm pretty excited about this one, too. Speaker 3: Thank you. Speaker 1: Any other comments on this item? All right then proceeding with Council Communications Member DE. Speaker 0: I just want to say now I know that the item of the rent reforms will be coming back to us later this month. I just want to take a moment to say, you know, it's. It's it's sad when I know two families were one living next door to my good friend Kerry and another living next door to

Council Referral

Consider Directing the City Manager to Draft Policies with Regard to AirBnb and Related Temporary Lodging Activities in Residential Homes and Zoning Districts. (Councilmember Daysog)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_06162015_2015-1729

Speaker 2: The carrying to consider introduction of ordinance amending Alameda Municipal Code Section 30 Dash 17 Density Bonus. Speaker 1: Andrew Thomas. Oh, I'm sorry. Are you ready? Speaker 0: Yes, please. Speaker 1: Andrew Thomas, city planner. Here to present this ordinance. I'm going to make this very quick and make myself available to answer questions if you have any. Back on March 10th. Well, back in December. Thank you. I guess it was January 2014. The council asked us to really take a close look at the density bonus ordinance now that we've used it a few times over the last couple of years, five to be exact. On March 10th, we came back to the City Council with a preview of some amendments that we thought would make. We thought it would make the ordinance more effective and also just easier for people to understand at that. On March 10th, you directed staff to proceed with the public review process, which means going back to the planning board, holding hearings so that you could take final action. On May 11th, the Planning Board reviewed and held a public hearing on our proposed set of amendments to the Density Bonus Ordinance. They unanimously recommended the amendments. We are recommending them to you tonight. We think these amendments do improve the ordinance, make it a lot more clear, easier for people to understand, and will improve just public understanding and implementation of the density bonus ordinance. So we are recommending approval of this series of amendments. Speaker 0: Okay. And does this take just one reading in front of us. Speaker 1: Too? Speaker 0: It takes to sort of be coming back. Speaker 1: On July no. July 7th, yes. Speaker 0: Okay. And can you explain what the changes are? Speaker 2: Yes. Speaker 1: If you'd. Speaker 0: Like. What makes this meaningful? Speaker 1: What we've done is we've added some text about phased submittals. This is something that we were the the the density bonus ordinance and the and our other other sections of the municipal code interface like with master plans. This allows the city to phase decisions over time, similar to this last project that you just approved, so that you can reserve the right to approve, for example, the design of buildings later in the process when they're being when they're closer to, to construction. And in terms of and that what that allows you to do is it allows the applicant to do. And we just to explain this is what pieces of the density bonus application need to be done for the very first entitlement? And which ones can you defer till later? Specifically things like elevations and floor plans. We added some explanation about waivers, concessions and incentives so that it was very, very clear. If you're asking for a waiver of a development standard, a zoning requirement, we need to know why a waiver is because it's preventing the project from physically fitting on the site. A concession or incentive under state law is because they are developers arguing that they need you to waive the requirement for financial reasons. So what? We made it very clear and we improved the definitions in the in the ordinance to say if it's a waiver because you can't physically fit, then we need drawings to show why they don't physically fit. If it's for financial reasons that we need performance and numbers so you we can understand why you financially need those concessions incentives. And then we did a series of amendments because we had a lot of redundant language around affordable housing agreements. These are things that the city has a lot of experience doing because our inclusionary housing ordinance we've had has affordable housing agreements that we've been doing for years. So we cleaned up a lot of the text and referenced the inclusionary ordinance so that we didn't have redundant or confusing texts between the two ordinances. So those are the three major issues that we we adjusted and improved. Speaker 0: Is there any changes in regards to parking and what does when you go over the parking allocation? Speaker 1: Well, all we did on the parking piece is to make it clear that you need to meet the parking. The city's parking ordinance. And that has you start there. And we don't even get into any changes. State law creates some opportunities for reduced parking. Pregnancy bonus projects. But what we did, all we did with this ordinance is said, Look, before you even go there, first you need to show us that you can meet our local parking ordinance. If you can't. Then we can go to state law for those waivers, but start with our local parking ordinance, because before it it was unclear. It was it sort of laid it out. Oh, you just go right to the state waivers like. No, you don't. So what we did is we we just clarified that we didn't change any of the numbers at all. Speaker 0: And what is our local law regarding parking? Speaker 1: Well, it's it varies from depending on where you are in the city. Typical residential projects, you start with two spaces per unit. If you're a mixed use project on Park Street or Webster Street. So it's an apartment upstairs above retail, then it's it's 1.5 as a starting point. Affordable housing projects. The parking ordinance allows the planning board to read to determine what the appropriate number of parking spaces are for the site. Based on the specifics of the project itself. So if it's senior housing, they can look, they can reduce a reduced amount of parking if it's a large, large units and they can increase the amount of parking. But basically they in a shape the parking to fit the project planning on its demand. Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Any other council questions? Comments. Do we have. Speaker 3: An email. Speaker 0: There? Speaker 3: And just to be clear, I think there was confusion over. The actual existence of an application that's recognizable as an application. And the the timing of when. That document has to be approved or that set of documents has to be approved. And I think you address the timing issue by separating concessions from wafer. Is it is it interpreted that there's actually going to be an application that is recognizable by the public? Who reviews these as an application? Yes. Speaker 1: What we are doing and I think this is one of the. We didn't the the ordinance where he said you need to submit an application. I think what we learned through the Del Monte was it's and we've been doing this now with every single project. If the project is approved, we have another one that recently went or is going to the planning board. We've basically just said, you know what, that's an important point. And we there needs to be a separate document, which is the application for the bonus and or waiver if they're asking for one, so that everybody the you know , the community, you know, has to come into the planning department and we need to attach it to the project so that everybody can see. All right, what are you asking for? How are you justifying it if it's a whether it's a waiver or a concession? And it's it's the way we're treating this is, you know, in the in the in the in the property owner applicants, it's their application. So they need to write it. They need to make their case. And then it becomes part of the the public packet. And we don't take action. I mean, right now what we're doing is we're bringing those to the planning board as part of the original application proposal. Speaker 3: So the scenario of having deficiencies in an application won't be an issue because I think the the previous explanation was that we just don't issue the permits. The project is already in title, but it's held up at the permit stage. This is this is now in the frontend. So the project doesn't get entitled without a complete application. Speaker 1: That's right. And what we're doing and just have just to clarify that. So what we want to do is with the very first time we go public with anything and typically it's either to the to a neighborhood meeting or to the planning board for the very first hearing. We're attaching that application and we're making staff making a termination. We believe it's complete. But, you know, if anybody questions. Let's talk about that. Let's let's get that out. Because if there's something that's not quite done right, just like whether it's the landscape plan or the parking plan, same standard for the application. We think there's something missing. Let's, let's let's get it fixed before we approve a project. Speaker 3: Thank you. Speaker 0: Other questions and comments. Speaker 1: BRODY Oh. Speaker 0: And do we have a motion? Speaker 1: Aloof. Speaker 0: Second. I'm sorry. Do you have a second? ASecond. All those in favor. I wish and passes unanimously. Thank you. Speaker 1: Thank you. I think this will really improve. The ordinance. Next 60. Speaker 2: Public hearing to consider introduction of ordinance amending Alameda Municipal Code Section 30 Dash 4.17 G Special Government. Speaker 0: Combining District and Zoning. Speaker 2: Map to ensure consistency between City of Alameda Municipal Code and Zoning Map and the Enhanced Alameda Reuse Plan for 37.36 acres of federal property located on Singleton Street at the former Naval Air Station. Speaker 1: Andrew Thomas, city planner. Also make this one. Speaker 0: Quick evening. Speaker 1: And make myself available to answer your questions. A couple of you just mentioned this actually on your last item. This is the sort of almost a companion piece to your decision on Alameda Point. And we have on your up at the dais there, you should see actually a recent adjustment we made to the actual ordinance in the findings. And it's just this underlined text where we just, um, it was really, uh, uh, the mayor was sort of asked us about, you know, really let's, we should make this relationship explicit, you know, in the future, some future council wants to know, you know, Oh, we're dealing with this site. Well, what was the logic of what happened in 2014? Let's make that explicit. So you'll see. We added a sentence about the relationship between the decision and Alameda Point and this decision, as many of you or a couple of you mentioned at the last hearing, what we are doing here with this proposal. It's a result of your discussion once again on March 10th, when you asked us to look at this, you know, the fact that our main point was moving forward and or housing element and the capacity and the city's ability to to absorb all these units while still making sure we, our transportation system can handle these changes and the need for the community to really be able to clearly manage growth. And we agree with you, this is important. We have to be able to manage these changes well. And so what this does is there is a site it's called North Housing. It is some people know it is the former Coast Guard housing. It's currently vacant. It used to be approximately 240 units. It's on 37 acres of land on Singleton Street. It's part of the former Naval Air Station. There was a the city worked with the Navy to do what's called a reuse plan, just like we did for Army to point that determine the appropriate number of units for that site. That reuse plan, which was done in 2009, stated the right number was 435. So that was sort of the what we were all working on. The current zoning allows much more than that. And just the base zoning alone, it's the zoning would allow up to 1121 units and that the total number of units with maximum state density bonuses could go as high as 1500 units. So what this zoning does is it puts a cap on the base zoning to 435. There's a table in the in the on page four of the staff report which basically lays out, you know, well, what would this do to the city's housing capacity in the northern waterfront? And it gets a little complicated because you have to make assumptions about density bonuses, which we don't know yet.

Regular Agenda Item

Public Hearing to Consider Introduction of Ordinance Amending Alameda Municipal Code (AMC) Section 30-17 Density Bonus Ordinance. The Proposed Zoning Amendments are Exempt from CEQA Pursuant to Guideline Section 15061(b)(3). (Community Development 481005)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_06162015_2015-1731

Speaker 1: There's a table in the in the on page four of the staff report which basically lays out, you know, well, what would this do to the city's housing capacity in the northern waterfront? And it gets a little complicated because you have to make assumptions about density bonuses, which we don't know yet. And we won't know until a developer comes forward to develop that site at a future date, which will only happen when the Navy finishes cleaning it and then auctions it off. And that sites different than at any point in the land will not come through the city. It'll go straight from the Navy to a private owner. But anyway, assuming there will be some density bonus request because most of these large sites do now get them or request them, and the typical density bonus that we get, the sweet spot seems to be right around 20% for the private development interests. It essentially removes eight. It removes 824 units. If they go for the maximum Darcy bonus requests, then the savings or the reduction in capacity is as much as 927 units. If there's no density bonus requests at all. If you assume that, then it's closer to 700 units. But we think this is a good move. We think it's it's consistent with our housing element. It creates consistency during the zoning and the reuse plan. And that's always good is it was send a very clear message to any future buyer of this property. What is the city expecting? And we don't have conflicting documents. And it maintains it. We remain consistent with our housing element because we are doing as a community a great job of providing our regional fair share. As you know, from March 10th hearing and I'll say it one more time if we continue with the projects that you have approved and now with Alma, a point we not only have provided the land to meet our regional fair share, it looks like we're going to actually produce the units for our regional fair share in this ten year period. And that's a major accomplishment and it will make a difference to the housing crisis. Are we going to solve it? No, but it's definitely a step in the right direction. So we support this. Your planning board recommended it unanimously. I'm available to answer any questions. Speaker 0: I do have one speaker. But that's fine. I'll call the speaker. The Natalie. Speaker 2: Good morning, Mayor Spencer and members of the City Council. My name is Lynnette Lee and I'm a member of Renewed Hope Steering Committee and also of Buena Vista United Methodist Church. First of all, congratulations and thank you for moving forward city. I think that the city of Alameda will be rejoicing along with Warriors fans. I do want to say that I appreciate the safeguards to ensure the development of affordable housing with this ordinance, and I appreciate that staff did not feel that a moratorium would be feasible at this time. However, I am concerned that any down zoning of the 24 sites listed in the housing element should be carefully considered because according to an attorney who knows state housing law, if down zoning goes and I hope I understand this right, if down zoning goes below the density required by the state for that site, even though you still will have affordable housing sites at north, housing is the city does not meet the state requirement for the minimum units per acre. Then those units that are remaining may not be counted. So I think I'm trying to understand what he's saying to me, but I just wanted to raise that concern that the city count carefully all the units for all the 24 sites so that we do meet the winning numbers and meet the state law on density. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. As a staff. Would you like to respond to that? You don't. Speaker 1: Have to. You won't even get in all the nuances of state law and all. But yes we did check we and of was you know from us from March 10th. We do not want to do anything that is going to put you out of compliance with state law. So you had a huge surplus in your current housing element. You still have a surplus even with this down zoning. Speaker 0: Thank you. And I really appreciate Steph adding the sentence paragraph to that. That speaks to us adding the 800 new residents residential units. Allow me to point out any comments. Speaker 3: Vice Mayor I just have a couple of comments. I in the original reuse plan of the 2009 agreement, there's a ten acre park which makes that parcel actually that tucked in 37 acres livable at the densities that are going to be there. And they're also 90 units of homeless housing, which are sorely needed. And those don't go away with this action. So I think this is a very good move, delivering 90 more very low income unit house housing and then also meeting our agreement with the Navy. And I believe there was a HUD buy in on this as well. So I think it was a good trade. Speaker 1: Three. Speaker 2: Yes, I remember already. Speaker 7: Quick question. So the 800 units for a, are those. Is there a plan to put those in the housing element or. I think I heard you correctly were not out of compliance without right. Speaker 1: You what the housing element does is it identified a whole list of sites and then it said we also have a couple other sites in addition to that. One of those was site A at the time when we were doing the housing element, we weren't quite sure we didn't have the zoning done for site, so technically we couldn't count it right. But we told it's in the right there in the housing element, it says it, hey, we also have site A which and now only a point which should be also available during this period. But we can't technically count it right now as soon as the so just it was a weird timing so essentially site is already in the housing element as part of this huge surplus. So all we're doing is. Changing some of the zoning and the staff report includes the the justification and the rationale for why we are still in conformance with our with the state. I mean a numbers. Speaker 7: Thanks. Just. Just a quick comment. I mean, I think I talked about this twice, twice before. I think that this proposal, which I think was was generated from the vice mayor, you know, it put us in a position where we were able to ultimately approve Side A without adding any housing to our housing element, without adding any additional housing. You know, people have asked for more time. We know that's not happening. And people have asked for no housing and we know that's not possible. What we have done is, in my mind, the next best thing, as we've said, we have this number, we have this target, we have this commitment. We're not going above this commitment. And thanks to this. This proposal, this ordinance that we have today, it allowed us to. You cite a and still keep that commitment. So I really appreciate, you know, the leadership displayed by the vice mayor when we were together in the fall. You know, you said you will listen and lead. And sitting here, you know, I'm trying to take that to heart. And from you I listen and I learn and then try to lead. So thank you very much for doing this. Its idea. Speaker 0: We have a motion. Speaker 3: I'll move. The ordinance amended municipal code section 30 oh oh. That was what we just did. I'm sorry. I'm reading my wrong notes here. I'm a can rezoning certain property bounded by mostly affluent new and Singleton Street, the former Naval Air Station. Speaker 7: I'll second that. Speaker 0: All those in favor. I wish it passed unanimously. Thank you. Seven. City Manager Communications.

Regular Agenda Item

SUMMARY: Public Hearing to consider rezoning certain property bounded by Mosely Avenue and Singleton Street at the Former Naval Air Station. Public Hearing to Consider Introduction of Ordinance Amending Alameda Municipal Code (“AMC”) Section 30-4.17 G, Special Government Combining District and Zoning Map to Ensure Consistency between the City of Alameda Municipal Code and Zoning Map and the NAS Alameda Reuse Plan for 37.36 Acres of Federal Property Located on Singleton Street at the Former Naval Air Station. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, No Further Environmental Review is Required. (Community Development 481005)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_06112015_2015-1694

Speaker 3: Right. And those of you that would like to stand at the podium while I read this proclamation, I'm more than welcome to. Speaker 1: Come on up to this. Speaker 3: Let's do it. Speaker 1: Like you said. Come down. Speaker 3: All right. Ready? Proclamation. Whereas Alameda has a long, proud history of recognizing the contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer questioning community members. And. Whereas, all, Alameda has worked together to fight bullying and harassment and teach respect for everyone, regardless of gender, age, sexual orientation, ethnicity, faith, or any differences perceived or real. And. WHEREAS, the Alameda Unified School District has established the LGB GQ roundtable to ensure safer schools for all students, faculty and staff. And. WHEREAS, Each year, the City of Alameda Social Services Human Relations Board co-sponsors Alameda Annual Harvey Milk Day Celebration and Alameda 4th of July Parade, Gay Pride Float. And. Whereas Allen meetings are proud to live in a historic time where the President has declared his support for marriage equality and the end of Don't Ask, Don't Tell enabling gay and lesbian Alameda INS to openly serve in the military. And. Whereas, same sex marriage has been legalized in 36 states, including California. Yeah, you can indulge a little bit. Yeah, the District of Columbia and in 17 countries around the world. And. Whereas, LGBTQ residents contribute to our rich community culture as homeowners, taxpayers, business owners and service providers, and through participation in city government, the arts, religious institutions and community organizations. And. Whereas, The City of Alameda believes that all community members deserve equal treatment under the law now, therefore, be it resolved that I, Treasurer Spencer, Mayor of the City of Alameda, do hereby proclaim the month of June 2015 as LGBTQ Pride Month in the City of Alameda and in appreciation of the diverse contributions of LGBTQ members of the community and the unwavering quest for equal rights. FISHER Spencer, Mayor. Speaker 6: Thank you. And each of you may introduce yourselves. Speaker 3: And if you want to say anything, I'm going to come on down and hand this off to someone. Speaker 1: Donna Dowdle. Speaker 7: Dos Santos. Since it's been legal, we got married on 12 1314 at 1516. Speaker 2: Congratulates Yes. Speaker 0: Is that the strength in numbers? Yeah. Speaker 7: Yeah. Speaker 1: There you go. Speaker 4: Henry Very well. Been a resident here in Alameda for about 11 years now. And this is such. Speaker 1: A great community. It is very welcoming. It's very affirming. Speaker 4: And not only the proclamation from the mayor in terms of Pride Month, but also the proclamation that was provided for Harvey Milk Day by the school district. In addition, the Social Services Human Relations Board, of which I've been a part for the past. Speaker 1: Seven years or so. Speaker 4: And also the LGBTQ roundtable, being a member of that group has contributed to my own ability to promote awareness and education, equity. Speaker 1: Equality for the LGBTQ community. Speaker 4: Here in Alameda. And so, again, a wonderful place to live. And thank you to the mayor and to all of our council members for your support of tonight's proclamation. Thank you. Speaker 1: Only they're. Speaker 3: Ready. Speaker 1: This is it. I understand. I do not want to be like this. Thank you, gentlemen. I hear. Speaker 3: Feel free to text us by letting us know the score we have. All right. I said that doesn't. Okay. That's our proclamation, right? Our communications, not agenda. Speaker 5: We have the speaker. Speaker 3: And now can do it. That? Speaker 1: Yeah. Okay. Speaker 7: I'm sorry. I came here unprepared. So I only found out about this meeting a few minutes ago. My name is Candi DeWitt and I am founder, co-founder of Mother Voices of Mothers Project and United for a Path to Hope. And I come here tonight because I am in favor of AB 1421 laws law which will help our most severely and persistently mentally ill. I am a mother of a young son that became ill with the debilitating illness of severe schizophrenia at the young age of 18. No matter what we did, we could not get the sustained help he needed given our current mental health system. The reason for this is our son, along with many others, was unable to understand that he was ill and needed help. This condition is a part of the illness. It's part of the same brain that is broken, that is unable to understand that delusions are not real, and that the paranoia that you feel is not true. It affects approximately 50% of people with severe mental illness, schizophrenia or bipolar illness. And doctors refer to this condition as honest nausea. Currently, our system is made up of 100% of voluntary programs. Those who are unable to understand their ill will not seek help, and they will not participate in voluntary programs. And so we continue to have our revolving doors of psychiatric emergency hospital stays, which do nothing and costs the county a lot of money and put the public at risk of suicide, jail and sometimes harms to others. I imagine that many of you know our family's story. And it's a tragedy. For our family and for another family. And nothing we ever expected in our lifetime. We must have something different in our system. We must have a different tool in the toolbox. And we must give families the ability to help their loved ones. I do not feel any joy in revealing our son's suffering or our family's pain. But the story must be told. It's a story of thousands. Violence and untreated mental illness are realities. Violence happens when a right to treatment is denied and when inadequate, inadequate treatment is provided. This is a public safety issue. It's a human rights issue. And most of all, it's a moral issue. And I urge you to support AB 1421 Moore's Law. We note with Supervisor Miley today for a couple of hours, it will go before our Board of Supervisors in the late summer to early fall. I believe we have to. I believe we have two supervisors endorsements. We need three. And we need your leadership. We need change. Speaker 3: Thank you. Next is consent calendar. Speaker 1: Well. Oh. Speaker 0: Was it. Speaker 1: Communication? Speaker 0: That one was pulled. Speaker 3: So as far as I know, we don't have any other speakers. Speaker 1: But I. Speaker 3: Guess at this point we don't have any other speakers. Correct. Speaker 4: Okay.

Proclamation/Special Order

Proclamation Declaring June, 2015 as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer/Questioning (LGBTQ) Pride Month. (City Manager 2110)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_06112015_2015-1750

Speaker 5: Recommendation to approve sending a letter to the Alameda County Board of Supervisors endorsing Implementation of Assembly Bill 1421. Laura's Law. We have a speaker on this. Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 3: Doug Fix. Speaker 1: Good evening, Madam Mayor. Members of the City Council. My name is Doug Biggs. I'm here tonight as president of the Social Service Human Relations Board. The Social Service Human Relations Board did meet and consider an endorsement of implementing Laura's Law in Alameda County. And we we did choose to support that. And we're requesting that the city council also endorse implementing Laura's Law in a pilot phase here in Alameda County. As Mr. Wet pointed out, there's a great need for this law here. The police at this time have a really blunt instrument to use in 5150, which are mandatory holdings up to 72 hours. I checked before I came here in the last seven days. There's been over two dozen 5150s in Alameda alone. A lot of those are repeat fliers, frequent fliers. I every day, not every day, but every week I witness, you know, the impacts of 51, 50 out where I work. And I could tell you that sometimes those folks that are taking in get back to Alameda before the police do. The police that took them up there, 5150 is not a treatment option. It's an imprisonment option. Laura's Law provides for assisted outpatient treatment, which is a process that allows courts to compel individuals with mental illness and a past history of arrest or violence to stay in treatment as a condition for living in the community. Assisted outpatient treatment is a proven evidence based treatment by SAMHSA, the Substance Abuse Mental Health Services Administration of the federal government. Laura's Law was passed in California, but it's left to the local counties to implement it in counties where it has been implemented, both in California and other states, because 42 other states have shown leadership on this and have already implemented it and are seeing results in California, hospitalization in counties where it was, it was implemented, hospitalization was reduced by 46%, incarceration reduced by 65%. In New York, where it's also been implemented, reducing physical harm to others was reduced by 47%. This is treatment we're talking about. This is an outpatient treatment where where the person can still have some connection with their community. It's not imprisonment. It's a proven practice. It's in our best interest as a community that has to deal with 5150 on a constant basis to find not an imprisonment solution, but a treatment solution. And this is what it is. I do hope you move forward tonight and endorse implementation of Laura's Law in Alameda County and that you urge the Board of Supervisors to act on that as soon as possible. Thank you very much. Speaker 3: Thank you. Do you have any other speakers on this item? And Brody. Speaker 1: Thank you. I have a question. The staff who are the supervisors in favor and who seem to be against? We know that. Speaker 7: Supervisor Chan is in favor and permits to it. Speaker 1: Supervisor Smiley answers in favor. Thank you. Speaker 3: Any discussions? Well. Rushkoff Yeah. Speaker 0: I pulled this from the consent calendar because I read the the staff report and then I emailed Miss Wooldridge because she'd written the staff report and I had a number of questions among them, you know, why if this piece of legislation that was implemented in was enacted in 2000 to have only ten or maybe 12 of 58 California counties chosen to enact it. And I would have liked a little more information about. Numbers and what results have actually been seen. So I did reach out to some staff from the County Board of Supervisors. And what I learned and this is what concerns me, first of all, there is no dispute that there is a need for more mental illness. And to Mr. Witt, I knew your father in law well, and it was a very sad situation that I don't think any of us can really imagine unless we've experienced it yourself. But if you're a parent, you can only imagine the pain that you would feel for your child in a situation like that , as well as anyone harmed by your child. And but I wanted to know, why was the board of Supervisors not not passing this? Because it came before them two years ago. And what I was told is that this was a very controversial measure from the start among the mental health provider community, even among the families. But it's not unusual for a a difficult situation to not have, you know, 100% buy in. But the what the board of Supervisors asked to have done when this issue came before them two years ago, was for there to be a study group. So it was chaired by the behavioral health care services of the county, and they came up late last year with this report re-envisioning engagement AB 1421 Stakeholder Planning Response and Implementation Plan. And what the 11 different points that are, are or suggestions that are made do is the summary is that it focuses on increasing capacity across the system and expanding programs with a sharp focus on creating intentional linkages for consumers and families with these who need these services and community supports. This was presented to the supervisors earlier this year. It was pulled from the agenda by one of the supervisors and it hasn't come back before them. And at the very least, I and I was told that this implementation doesn't have a chance of passing at the Board of Supervisors. I don't pretend to get into those weeds, but what I would at least like the council to consider and you know, maybe if this were to come back that we could somehow supplement it with . I just would like the council to know what the Board of Supervisors has actually seen as a way to supplement this implementation, because at some point this may get back before the the supervisors and I was told that what Alameda County among these 11 steps that are recommended is envisioning doing is more akin to what the city of San Francisco is doing. They have a community conservatorship. And there's also the mental health court and the judge there, I'm told, Judge Brosnahan, has said that we can do what needs to be done through the mental health courts. So at least I think we should be endorsing all possible avenues because we you know, we certainly have these kinds of cases in our community, as does the rest of the county. But anyway, I. I want to see something done. I want to see it done effectively using the resources in the most efficient manner. So I think we should also encourage the the supervisors to consider this stakeholder report that they ordered that was done over the course of, I think, four or five months. And it was a facilitated process involving mental health providers, family members, the representatives of the sheriff's department and the public defender, family members, service providers, as well as consumers, the actual people who are in need of these services. So if there was a way that we could somehow amend this recommendation to consider both implementing AB 1421 and or this stakeholder planning response and implement implementation plan, I could certainly support that. Speaker 3: The other council members comments or motion. Speaker 1: In America? Speaker 3: Yes, Vice Mayor. Speaker 2: I think the gist of our letter is that the laws on the books and we'd like it to be implemented. We're not telling them how to implement it. I think they've already started that process. And this is our urging them to. They basically follow the state law and we have examples of this in our community. And I want to make the motion that. Support or approve the recommendation to send the letter on behalf of the city endorsing. AB 1421. Speaker 0: And just for clarity, the law actually leaves it to each county to decide whether to implement. And that's why, you know, only a handful of counties. Speaker 3: Have a motion. Speaker 1: I'll second that motion. Speaker 3: Any other discussion? Speaker 4: Yes. I'd like to offer a quick comment. In reviewing the information that's presented to us. It looks like there is a number of credible leaders in this, particularly on this matter, who want to see action done. It seems, though, I think the necessity of the law is well understood, like no other city other than Berkeley. I think we here in Alameda feel special desire to see, at least speaking for myself, feel special desire to see this implemented sooner rather than later. And I have to believe that the process has been place where a variety of issues and a variety and a number of stakeholders have been involved. Can we involve even more stakeholders to get even greater consensus? That's possible, but I think we're at a point now where we're we're ready for action. We don't want to see something that happened, not just to the Cougar family in Berkeley, but also to the dimwit family whose family we hold in high esteem. With the contributions, especially of former council member Abdi Witt, father in law and of misty wit, as well as father of Mr. Wit and grandfather. Young Mr.. So I'm ready to vote and moving this forward. Speaker 3: I'd like to speak real quick, if that's all right. Could you clarify, was this passed by the people in 2002 that. Speaker 0: I think was passed by the legislature? Speaker 3: In 2002. Speaker 1: That. Speaker 7: Was passed by the California state legislature in. Speaker 3: 2002. Thank you very much. All right. So I'd like to speak to that 2002. We are now in 2015. It's my understanding Alameda County has one of the highest, if not the highest rate of 5150s. The current system. Based upon that, at least in Alameda County not working. We need to step up. We got to try something different. And and this is a I'm ready. I plan to support this. I think it's extremely unfortunate. And I would actually say wrong that counties have not stepped up. I think this actually should have been not opt in, but mandatory. When you are failing society, action must be taken. You can change it if it if it's not working. But you got to try something. We can tell you what's happening now is not working. So I plan to support this. Speaker 0: And Mayor, I'm actually going to join you in supporting it with the caveat that it might not pass the supervisors. And then I hope that at least the the other implementation plan will and you know, like so many things, it's not simple and it's not black and white, because what was explained to me is that even though this is involuntary, the once the person is brought in, they can't be made to stay in the treatment. They can't be made to take their medications. And so this other one is not no one was saying, oh, this law is, you know, wrong headed. They're just saying, let's look at the processes we already have in place and strengthen them. But this is at the supervisors level. I mean, I don't it's not a bad thing to support, but it may come down to. Speaker 3: I requested to be put on the agenda. I understood the imperative that we step up. I think it's imperative that this go that our supervisors step up. 13 years is too long. Any other comment? All those in favor I motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Next agenda item. Six eight. Speaker 5: Présentation on the City of Alameda Homeless survey by the Social Service Human Relations Board. Speaker 1: This point is the point. This. And we solve all the problems. Speaker 0: Yeah, that's the magic moment. Speaker 1: You want to push a button to? Speaker 5: I know, I. Speaker 0: And you're now. Time for an update on the score. Speaker 1: Yeah. Anybody have the score? Who's watching? Speaker 0: Do you want to score and still up 5442 at halftime. I just kind of that came to me. Speaker 1: For those of you that don't know. Speaker 3: The Warriors playoff game is going on as we're sitting here and say the score again. Member Ashcraft. Speaker 0: What did they just say? 5442 at the half. Speaker 3: Warriors are leading. Yes. Speaker 0: And I'm clairvoyant city attorney that. Speaker 1: Thought I could make it. Do folks have a personal screen? Speaker 5: Yeah. Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 5: And on the projector, I. Speaker 1: To the fans on our screen. You don't know that. Speaker 0: Is it too late to add that to the budget? Speaker 5: No, I. Speaker 1: Can't. But is this, like, keep coming down and if I go too long, I know. And. It's going to. Speaker 3: So we're waiting for the projector to help us out. Speaker 0: China is going to save us. Speaker 3: Those of you that are watching us from home. Speaker 1: Yeah. Speaker 0: It's happening. Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. I'm trying to make this as fast as I can to get out. Speaker 0: But you have to start, right? Speaker 4: Well, if you have a printed format, I suppose you can put it there then. You borrow it? Speaker 1: You want to do that? Oh, well. Speaker 7: No. Well, I don't think I can protect acting at all and project from the table. Speaker 1: Like no light. Speaker 2: Coming out of the. Speaker 1: Projector. Right. Speaker 4: Oh, regardless. Okay. Speaker 1: You have it in your screen to life. Speaker 4: It is. Speaker 1: Only used. Speaker 0: But it means it is. Speaker 3: On our screens. But if the audience can't see, it is correct. Speaker 1: Something's coming up. Here we go. Up the. Speaker 2: Oak area. Speaker 3: Okay. All right. Please proceed, Mr. Biggs. Speaker 1: That's the first time I've been cheered, and I don't think that was. Good evening. My name is Doug Biggs. I'm president of the Social Service Human Relations Board. And I'm delighted tonight to present results of a homeless survey that the board led the effort on. That was conducted on September 24th, 2014. And I guess I have to work this thing going, okay. So the goals of the count were to kind of begin understanding the breadth and diversity of homelessness in Alameda and to begin looking at gaps in services for the homeless in Alameda. And I really have to thank member Ashcraft who led the effort on really bringing this together to begin with. There was some question she had around the condition of homeless and the the breadth of homelessness in Alameda that prompted us to take a look at it. So the process was that we divided the city into six sectors and we developed and we actually put quite a bit of lot of thought into the interview questions we would ask. We started with a number of counties. In fact, every county in the country does a homeless count if they get HUD funding. And we started with that questionnaire and then narrowed it down because that questionnaire is, quite frankly, about 35 pages long and could take up to a half hour to complete. And we didn't have that skills expertize. Plus we only wanted information that was really useful to us. One of the very unique aspects of our program and also something we put a lot of thought into is we had backpacks to distribute to whoever we met. And I want to thank Jim, friend of city staff and who staff to the shrub of of helping to put that together the backpacks included some food included included some basic necessities such as toiletries, socks. It also included bus passes so people could get to appointments that included phone cards and it included resource books about services that would be available. So the the districts that were created or the or the sectors that were created spanned from Alameda point out to Bay Farm Island. And each sector had a team of volunteers that did counting in that area. The volunteers were made up of community members, Alameda Police Department, other staff, Alameda Police Department volunteers and policing elected officials. Again, we're very thrilled to have our Mayor Spencer join us for the Count and Councilmember Ashcraft also join us for the Count. And we had staff from the County of Alameda Housing Department who were getting ready to lead their own homeless count that came out to see what they could assist us with in helping us. And then each member of Shrub also took a role as a leader of one of the teams. So we met very early in the morning prior to going out. The idea was to get out there right at sunrise and we did a briefing of the volunteers. Each volunteer was was very clearly identified as a volunteer to assist with homeless information. We had the assistant, the Alameda Police Department, and I can't say this enough. Alameda is so extremely fortunate to have on its police force a woman like Elisa Ledbetter, who on her own leading up to this has put together an amazing number of resources to assist people with mental disabilities, the homeless that she encounters. The police in general were a wealth of information on where we should we should be looking protocols for contacting, to making sure that both we were safe and the people we were contacting were safe. They just did a wonderful job on this. Plus, they recruited a number of volunteers. So we we we divided up the teams and made sure everybody was filled up with coffee and gave last minute instructions to each of the teams as to where you would be going to go over their questionnaire real briefly and then head out. And again, this is Officer Ledbetter, who can't say enough about her. So the findings of the survey were that we identified the 17 people as being homeless. Of that number, eight were interviewed and an additional nine were observed but were not interviewed. This was this was an anecdotal study versus an empirical study. If you do the county count, they have a lot of algorithms that they throw into the fig data more realistic. This was really literally feet on the ground with our eyes in some cases. You know, it's a little intimidating to approach somebody and say, are you homeless and ask those questions? So we may not have captured all the data. We weren't really trying to we were just trying to get a little baseline, a little bit of an understanding of where we're at. And we found two very interesting things. Of the eight that were interviewed, five indicated they were chronically homeless. That is, that continuously homeless for a year or more or homeless more than four times over a three year period. Among this group, mental health issues seemed apparent. And just to give you an example, we had one gentleman who had been dropped off here by his brother from, I believe, Arizona, and he had no spatial recognition ability. He had no sense of direction. He had been to the food bank once. He had left the island of Alameda. He'd been to the food bank once, but had never been able to find it again. So he stayed where he was and really relied on other people to bring him things. The Alameda Food Bank was I'm sorry, another important issue that three of the eight indicated they are veterans. And we had very specific information to hand out to veterans to get them hooked up with the Veteran Homeless Initiative. The Alameda Food Bank was used by four of the eight individuals, and several also mentioned that they'd use hospital and emergency services repeated times. What I think is really important of the eight people that were interviewed for who listed Alameda as their last permanent address. So they were living here as residents before they became homeless. So the next steps in this is actually I'm go to number two to begin with is to bring back the homeless count for a follow up count. We want to repeat this. So the more often we repeat it, the more the better information we get. So we are planning on doing another count in late July or early August, and we hope that some folks will join us for that. We also want to convene an interdepartmental meeting of some of the city departments to talk about some of the needs and an impact on homelessness in the context of future development. There's things we do, whether it's Parkland development or whatnot, that can either encourage or support homeless or discourage and move them out. And there's discussion to be had on both sides. But I think we need to go into it with an understanding of what are the consequences on the homeless of whatever policy actions we take. And of course, the last was was to continue working with the police department to improve protocols around the provision of resources, housing brochure, encountering homeless. And I can report to you that as recently as this week, when the police went out to the Sweeny Parkland and to do a clearing action, they took with them the backpacks we had prepared. And of the five people that were left there, because they've been for the last month, they've been going out there saying, you've got to move on, you've got to move on. They've been supporting these people in their efforts to move. And again, Officer Leadbitter has been out there with her resources. Five people were left and each of those five got a backpack with with bus passes and the calling cards and foods and socks. So there's already a lot of initiative underway between social services and the police department and not you know, this isn't a punishment action. It's a resource action to help direct people in the in the direction of the right resources. And that's my report. And I'd be glad to entertain any questions you may have. Speaker 0: Member Ashcraft First of all, thank you for that report and also for for all of your efforts. I agree with you that Officer Elisha Ledbetter is a rock star when it comes to this, but so are you. Because when I raised the question with you last more than a year ago, you right away said, okay, let's let's walk Webster Street and let's, you know, pick a time to do that. And we walked up one side and down the other and it was really touching to see we did encounter some individuals and very touching to see Mr. Biggs and how non-threatening and respectful and low key his manner of speaking and eliciting information. Not everybody wanted our help, but I also wanted to just add that that day that we went out was a day kind of like yesterday we had rain, remember rain, and it had rained overnight. And so things were a little damp. So even when we showed up to get organized for the count, I know we were told some people head indoors. They find in a shelter somewhere under a roof when it's raining. So the count might have been a little low as a result of that. And I'm glad that you mentioned the encampment that was recently cleared out at the the site of the Jean Sweeney Beltline Park Open Space Park that we're developing, because it isn't just I read the local online news sites, Michelle Allison site and someone made the comment that, oh, the police just tell the homeless to move along, not Alameda PD. They don't. They had, as Mr. Biggs indicated, the backpacks that are full of not only some supplies but resources. And they can get you to where you need to go if you need the food bank or you need, you know, medical care or you need some rapid rehousing. And there was also a comment on the story that Michelle Allison did on her site. And someone mentioned seeing a family at the pizza at Nob Hill Market. You can think of where that is and that they appeared to be homeless. They were heating their dinner in a microwave and wasn't a shame that, you know, but if the police had come, they probably would have shooed them away. And I emailed the police chief, O'Leary, and said, did you see that comment? Because trust me, he reads those, too. And he said he did. And no, no, no. If so, this is just for the public and anyone listening. If you see a situation that looks like a family or an individual in need of assistance, you can call the police department the non-emergency number, tell them what you're seeing, where you're seeing it, and they will send an officer out to assist. So I checked that with the police chief when I read that comment. But anyway, thank you for all the work you're doing. We look forward to the next steps in this process. Speaker 1: Thank you. And if I could just add, and I think I do have to say this, I saw that same comment and also prior to the first count I comment about, well, there were people barbecuing down at Crab Cove that, look, homeless people have a right to barbecue in our parks. People have a right to go shopping in the shopping centers and purchase items and heat them up. They may not necessarily be hot, not all. They may look different for you. They may be homeless. And it's okay to ask if their services that they need. Speaker 3: Uh, member, Odie. Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Mr. Briggs. For. For all you do. You're one of the pillars of our community that, you know, take care of the people that are are least fortunate. And we really appreciate, you know, all of your hard work. I mean, I do I think I speak for the council. Just a couple of quick questions. So when we go back and we do this other count, are we doing kind of a census where, you know, we keep track? You know, is this someone we counted last time? You know, when we talk to that person, did they need services, you know, almost and almost like case management? I don't know if, you know, we have the resources to do that, but no. Are we doing that or are we are we able to tell in our next count? Are these folks that are new to alamy this homeless population or I mean, just things like that? I was just curious. We are going to attempt to see if there's there's any repeats from people we interviewed before. A number of the interviews, folks that we interviewed for last time I had notes on, in some cases I was able to because some of them already had case management in other jurisdictions that they were working with. So I was able to contact that case management. They're not able to share information with me. It's a one way, you know, hey, we met this person. Just want to make sure they're they're doing stuff. So we'll follow up if we do meet somebody that is a repeat from last year will definitely ask a question about what services they've they've are taking off since then. And you have the program where, you know, homeless veterans over at the collaborative government are. Were you able to help any of the if there was, what, three, three veterans Operation Dignity operates those those units? Our understanding is they were already tied in with services to some extent. And I know that since that time there's been a huge influx of vet services. So I want to follow up and see if they've they've been reached. Okay. And thanks again for everything you do. You're you're welcome. Speaker 3: Everyday. Speaker 4: Just two points. First point is thank you very much to Councilmember Marilyn as the Ashcraft for bringing this to the fore and also a thank you to Councilmember Ashcraft and Mayor Spencer for taking part. So we'll have to step up as well. Next time you have your count. And I mean that seriously, because this is an important and this leads me to the second point is that, you know, for the city of Alameda to be as proactive as we are, particularly you, the council members here, I think is a great reflection of how far we've come. Way back in 1994, you know, we were dealing with the homeless issue, but perhaps and in antagonistic ways. And out of that came. Amendment to the McKinney Act. And it really started here in Alameda. But, you know, through the collaborative homeless collaborative, Alameda Point Collaborative, you know, I think our community has done a sea change in terms of what its responsibility is with regard to those who are the most vulnerable. But we're not going to just build housing for those who can afford the highest market rate rents or for sale prices. But I think as staff and as council working with our community, we will also make sure to. Do what we can for those who are most vulnerable. Speaker 1: I would be remiss also if I didn't say this was a this is a project of the entire shrub. Every member was very actively involved here in the morning state after work to help crunch the data. So this was this was a truly a whole commission effort. Speaker 2: I swear I appreciate the diligence and particularly put in next steps after having the experience. There are a couple of things that I wanted perhaps to address to staff through through this board, if people are interested. And it's one thing to to live in a park. But we had the issue of the event abandoned the vacant buildings that are on the point that are attractive nuisances to young people. I'm afraid that they can be places where people who are leaving June 20 park might look for shelter and. I do not want to us to be reading that someone has died there. There's a fire there because of another encampment inside. And I'm hoping we can address removing those buildings. And at the same time, I think looking at the the means that we might have, not just in Alameda but through the county or state, is kind of a next step of where we put a roof over the heads of people who. What avail themselves to it and in a shortage of space that we have now, and how do we add to that to address it? Because I think in the next count, we'll probably see that the numbers are bigger. And that's just what I've observed over the last year. West side of Alameda. Speaker 3: But it's my understanding that the point is on the parking lot and we'll be coming back. But we will be hearing from staff on that issue. Speaker 1: I was just saying. Just go ahead. Speaker 2: It's just to. Is there a way that we can accelerate? Is there a money in the Alameda Point budget to address what's an attractive nuisance but now that people are being moved out. Of in Sweeney Park. I mean, we there were five that were remaining, but there were others there. What are we going to do about that? And can we do it sooner than waiting until September when we talk about the parking lot? Speaker 3: Right. So we do not meet during August. I was going to come back number. Speaker 2: But the problem is now. Speaker 7: I think at least for the buildings out at Alameda Point, part of that process is looking at sort of doing an inventory of that and making sure that we understand which buildings need to come down and then get a cost estimate to take them down and then sort of triage them to make sure, because we may not be able to afford to take them all down at once. So there is some planning that we need to do before we just sort of say, okay, yeah, we're going to do that. So we will absolutely do it as quickly as we can. Speaker 0: Just a clarification, Mr. Madame. Is that part of the study that Public Works is doing? This is separate and apart and separate. Okay. Got it. And then just a question for Mr. Biggs. And we talked about this a couple of times about the need for rapid rehousing, but often using countywide or regional resources to maximize resources. I mean, I know we have we have a women's shelter in there, but do you can you just touch on that? So. Speaker 1: Sure. Speaker 0: So some of the resources. Speaker 1: That as far as rapid rehousing goes, which is the whole idea of keeping people from becoming homeless first, the county, the boomerang fund. Which is the whole complex we all get into, but it's money that's coming back through the dissolution of redevelopment. They put a significant amount of funds from that. They could have gone into the general fund. They're putting it into rapid rehousing, building a future for women and children, which operates Midway Shelter is also the regional provider, including the City of Alameda for Rapid Rehousing Funds, and they also have some money, CDBG funds from the city for that as well. So they've really gone out of their way to make sure that Alameda serve through rapid rehousing. I will say, though, that the chronically homeless, the ones we're seeing out there, require the highest level. They need permanent supportive housing, which is what we operate out of at Alameda Point. But you know, the good side of it is if we can find some way to get seven, eight permanent supportive housing units, we have solved homelessness for all practical purposes in Alameda. You're always going to have people moving through. But for the chronically homeless, these guys who have been living in the wharves, under the wharves for the last five years. You could provide a permanent solution for them. Though we're close. We could be really close on that. Speaker 3: So I'd like to share my experience going out that morning we left. My recollection is 6 a.m. or something like that. It was early. It was in the dark. When we met here, we teamed up. My partner and I were assigned an area, I think by South Shore, walking along the waterfront to Crab Cove. And we came we found only one person and the person we found actually by the time we we saw him, he was watching the sunrise and we spoke with him. And he was my recollection is he was a vet, but he had lived in this area previously. This is where he felt comfortable and he was very appreciative of the bag. He really did appreciate us giving him the bag. He was actually. You know, comfortable chatting with us. And I got the impression that that's actually where he feels comfortable, is there at Crab Cove, which, by the way, is where I feel comfortable, which if I chose that area, I run there in the morning and it's a beautiful place to live. However, of course, it's a serious issue. And, you know, reaching out to him, going out in these teams. I'm hoping, you know, it'd be great to have more community members join us whenever this data set. And we do team up in pairs. And it's it's actually a really good experience as someone that's out there trying to help our community members. Thank you to share that. Thank you. Speaker 1: Thank you very much. Speaker 3: All right. So we just. This is the presentation. We don't vote on this. Yeah. The 6 p.m.. Speaker 5: Public hearing to consider collection of delinquent business license, taxes and delinquent integrated waste management accounts via the property tax bills.

Consent Calendar Item

Recommendation to Approve Sending a Letter to the Alameda County Board of Supervisors Endorsing Implementation of Assembly Bill (AB) 1421 (Laura’s Law). (City Manager 2110)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_06112015_2015-1674

Speaker 5: Public hearing to consider collection of delinquent business license, taxes and delinquent integrated waste management accounts via the property tax bills. Speaker 3: Do we have a presentation by staff? Speaker 1: Yes, they do. Speaker 8: Hello? Elena Dias, finance director. Speaker 1: Um. Speaker 8: I really don't have a actual presentation, so we're just going to go over real quickly on the staff report. So there are a couple of. Feels that the city were actually presenting today to levy with the county against the property. Properties within Alameda. So those are the business license tax. As you you're aware, any time a business owner does business in the city, according to the ordinance, they are supposed to pay a business license tax. In some cases, some of the business owners are delinquent in paying the business license tax. We do provide ample time to actually make the payment. Original notice of the renewals goes out to those business owners around May one for fiscal year 1415 went out in May of 2014. And the customers, our customers who are the business owners get a chance to actually make the payment and be on time by the end of July. So they have about three months to pay for the business license. Unfortunately, some of them do not and then those that are delinquent. We sent out three notices this year. We send them out one in March, one in April and one in May, letting them know that they are being delinquent and on top of that, informing them that there is going to be a public hearing last time we've had it set for today. And so today is the public hearing to clean those particular properties. The City Clerk may have already distributed you the updated updated listing for business license delinquent customers. And I do want to let you know that this is current as of today. All of the business owners that are on that list do have an opportunity to still pay the business license by the end of June, June 30th, specifically in order not to have a lean on their properties. The second one you will see is a. Waste management fees that. Actually is done through ac i ac i bills the customers within city of alameda and. They provide actually quite of an extended period of time to collect the fees, the fees that you actually see on the list right now. Those were sent to the city by ACI. And generally they are never less than 360 days being delinquent. So they are at least a year past being paid. That said, again, you have received an updated list of all of those delinquencies and those customers do get as well notices. Quite a few of them, actually. I believe it's for where they're being notified about delinquent outstanding counts and we request for them to clear their bill before it's actually been levied with their account, with their properties. That said, tonight we are asking you to approve the current list unless of course, somebody makes the payment and those will be removed from the list and approved. Correct. One is for the monarch clarified. Speaker 3: Were speaking about two lists. Speaker 8: Yes, there are two lists. One is for business license and one is for the Integrated Waste Management. Speaker 1: Hmm. Speaker 3: All right. Do we have any clarifying questions? We do have speakers. Member, Odie. Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam Mayor. Just a couple quick questions. So the people on this list, did they get an actual notice saying today, June 11th, that 7:00 is the hearing? Speaker 8: Yes, they do. Speaker 1: Okay. And then is it been the past history of this council if someone does pay their delinquent business license that the late fees are waived? Speaker 8: Well, this is a per ordinance. And per our masterpiece schedule, we are supposed to levy any penalties or interest. Now, this is not up to a department, I guess, to waive fees. I cannot tell you if previously these particular fees have been waived or not, but it would be up to council to actually if you do decide to do that, you can do that. Speaker 7: I couldn't actually speak to that. If it's a first offense, we have waived the fees in the past, but if it's recurring, then we don't. Speaker 3: The list does not delineate between any recurring and first offense. Far as I know. Speaker 1: No, I was going to ask that question. Speaker 7: I think that's just something that we do administratively. Speaker 1: Mean. So do we know any of these that are on here? Speaker 7: I guess those whether they're another recurring. I don't know. I don't know. Speaker 8: Do you know? I can tell you that there are a few on the business license side that have been generally late in paying. I'm not sure if they were specifically delinquent. Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you. Speaker 3: Member de SAC. Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam Chair. If you can, can you just give us some background on the leg that matter of legacy. Speaker 1: Programs. Speaker 3: Public information. Speaker 4: Yes. Yes, yes. The matter. Thank you. The matter of legacy partners. I mean, there is a substantial amount there. I mean, what's this? What's the story there? Speaker 8: Well, they have rental properties and they have been previously late in making payments. Cannot tell you actually if they have been delinquent previously or not. But they have rental properties for which at this point in time, after last contacting them, they have not made the payments yet for their rental properties. Speaker 4: I see. So on the very same topic, when it comes to the late charge, it seems as though the late charge on it seems to be if the amount due is 4000 and then there's a late charge of 3200 or a total outstanding fee of 7200, and then there's some processing charges, etc.. So the 3200 late charge tacked on top of the $4,000 amount. It just seemed a little excessive. Now, let me just say, before anything, I have not been lobbied by anybody indirectly or directly about this. But just looking at this. My inclination is I want to hear more. Thank you. Speaker 3: Okay. Clarify, in regards to legacy partners, is that a first offense or a recurring? Speaker 8: I can find out that information if need be, but I don't have that in front of me right now. Speaker 3: All right. Speaker 0: Remember Ashcroft? And then I was just going to ask Mr. and by the way, thank you for your email. I didn't have a chance to get back to you and say thank you for your email earlier today, answering some questions that I had. But so how is the the late fee determined? Is that is that something that every city does a little differently? I know you've worked in some other cities or is there some formula. Speaker 3: And can you clarify that in regards to the business license list or the way I'd like to actually treat these issues? Well, one is waste management, and that probably determines differently. Speaker 0: You know, the only one I'm seeing with a late fee is the business license tax, but that doesn't mean it doesn't also exist for waste management. Speaker 3: So if you could ask in regards to each list. Okay. This you're speaking to. Speaker 8: So on a business license, that particular fee is actually in our master free schedule. And the way it's being calculated, it's 20% per month and up to 100%. So technically, if a business is delinquent anywhere from August, you're pretty much January and not paying it. You're out of 100% of the fee, the late charge. Speaker 3: Imminently or per year, or. Speaker 8: It cannot exceed 200% in a year. Speaker 3: And a year. So per annum. Speaker 0: But 20, 20% per month? Speaker 8: Yes. Speaker 4: Okay. So mathematically then Legacy Partners is ten months behind? No. Hundred is 80% of. Oh. Technically 20, 20 times. Speaker 8: Yes. So it's 20% for each month starting August. Okay. And, um. Speaker 3: And we do have two speakers. Okay. Any other clarifying questions? All right. I'm going to go ahead and call our speakers. And of course. Dennis Wong. And then to Peter Todd Whitman. Speaker 4: Good evening. My name is Dennis Hwang and my family. Most of my family still resides here over 50 years. And they earn income property here in Alameda. And my parents have lived in the same address for over 50 years. I retired to Utah about ten years ago. And I don't know what that lady was speaking about, but all I know is my personal experience. I receive the notice on one of our properties for delinquent business license fees on the letters dated March the 31st. I live in Utah, so I probably received that about seven days later. Speaker 2: And I quote. Speaker 1: That if payment is not received on or before April 16th. Speaker 4: Of 2015, the amount due plus additional late charges and collection fees. Speaker 1: Will be sent to the. Speaker 4: City Council for their review and approval for attachment of the amount due on the property. Speaker 1: Tax. Speaker 4: So I receive and again we've been paying diligently on a four plex way on business taxes for. 30 some odd years. Never received notice on this duplex. I did not know that duplexes within the purview of the business license. So I called the city clerk, the finance department and the legal department, and wrote letters. And some were helpful. Some were not. But I spent about two weeks of my life researching it. Came and spent it. Great afternoon with this listener and this smaller but I can't pronounce your name but Carol the delightful people explaining it. Speaker 1: Researched back. Speaker 4: On the legislation. Speaker 1: Which was first wrote. Speaker 4: I think section 834. Speaker 1: Uh. Speaker 4: July the 20th, in 1943. And at that time Council saw fit to levy business licenses. And the, the intent was to generate income. And at that time it defines business as is in calling or any any enterprise carried on for profit dispenser. At the last meeting we were discussing AT&T and astoundingly and I tried to answer, but I was stopped. You wanted to know whether or not that tower, AT&T, it were subject to business license. And I was going to give. Speaker 1: You the answer. Speaker 4: What astounds me was you had three counsel here. You had three attorneys sitting here. I talked to two of them. They didn't know the answer. And if you look subsequently over the years, they've added fortune tellers on telecom bowling alley. You're to have pure, clean legislation. Anything any enterprise carried on for profit. Why do you need to add all these subcategories? You don't need to do that. And I don't know if it's because you feel like you need to generate more legislation so that you're doing your job, but you have clean legislation. Leave it as it is. And quite frankly, I find it rather offensive that. Speaker 3: You may continue like that. Speaker 4: You're trying to scratch out $20 a unit, which I'm perfectly happy to pay. I just wasn't aware of a subject to it. And you don't know or we're not levying business taxes for AT&T and the Verizon's of the world. So you asked about the penalty. It's still $20 a unit. And that's been since 1986. In my my junior high school principal actually enacted that offensive $20 unit. I mean, I think if you went to people and actually told them $20 unit and they knew that it existed, they'd be happy to pay it. I'd be more than happy to pay it. It's the penalty that seems like you give me seven days to pay and then also you're asking for 100 800% penalty. Speaker 3: So I'd like to ask you a clarifying, crushing real quick. When I look up, are you on here long? I'm on the list. I'm looking at it. Shows amount due just the late the the late charge of $160 and amount due zero. So did you pay? Speaker 4: Right. So I researched I researched it. And again, you they what they did was they added they had this general language about anything carried out for profit. And then over the years they started added these specific businesses. Speaker 0: To understand the Maersk question you were asking, did you pay off the late. Speaker 3: Or the principal? Because on this chart. Speaker 0: Did you pay the back? Speaker 3: He's the only one that has a zero under the amount to call columns for. Speaker 0: This a dare. Speaker 4: Well, I can I can answer. So I came and I researched it and sure enough, it was it was an 86 that they added specific language on duplexes and they still exclude single family dwellings and I don't know why. Right. So I said, oh yeah, we the duplexes subject to the business license. And so I told Carol, I said, Hey, I want to pay this, but what do you suggest? You know, I'm going to ask counsel to weigh the fee. Now, first of all, I haven't had no problems with the thing. And ironically enough, I got my annual notice for Meals on Wheels. I'd be happy to pay the penalty to Meals on Wheels. It's it's the principle. And if you look at the history, we have it increase that business license since 1986. But the penalties over the years have been increasing. And I don't I can give you the detail the year in the legislation, but the penalty is now 100%. And what it seems like is from a layperson who has no notices that, hey, you know what we get, we want to penalize you. Speaker 1: You probably was afraid of the microphone, say, oh. Speaker 4: We want to penalize you. We don't want the $20. We want the penalty fees. Do you. Speaker 1: See? Speaker 3: Right. So man, clarify I at this point that let him finish if you could wind up and we can have so. Speaker 4: In any of it you know I have some suggestions suggestions. Okay if you say, hey, the $20 it goes to, you know, here's your annual business license notice again, which I did not receive until the date that I indicated it. Here's this business license. And by the way, what's really helpful, this is new federal legislation on landlord tenant issues. This is new, particularly the local ones like I look every year, you know, you change the fire notices. You know, you have to put the notice. Speaker 3: I'm happy to meet with you. Oh, you remember how it went? Speaker 4: So, you know, something like that, so. Oh, wow. You know, I talked to all my my friends, you know, my high school buddies about this, and it's kind of it's kind of bang for the bang for the buck. And I don't I don't really none of my friends, we have nothing against the 20 hours. We actually think it should be increased. It's it's the penalty and the lack of notice. Speaker 3: That's right. Did you have any other points you want to raise? So that's that's that's about it. Speaker 1: Okay. I had one question, Mr. Wong. One question. So thank you, Madam Mayor. So I didn't quite follow your presentation, but are you asking us that we, we waive the late charge and not send that for for you you because you paid and not send that through the property tax attachment. Well yeah, I'm I'm. Speaker 4: Glad to see you decision. You know, I came here today and I just right earlier this afternoon thought I was going to make the appeal, mostly to give notice and give you some feedback on what I think long time aluminum and some of us, you know, small dwelling unit landlords, are. Speaker 1: They yes or no? I mean, are you asking that? Yeah. Yeah, I think that there's not. There was some sympathy on my part to do that. Okay. Yeah. 10 minutes ago. Speaker 4: So that and then but I think more importantly, maybe some suggestions on how to take a look at this legislation. Speaker 3: Also look at the policy. I appreciate that. Speaker 1: Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much. Speaker 3: Thank you. We have another speaker. Speaker 0: I think I'd like to hear the clarification on this point while we're still on it, though, from this one, madame. Speaker 7: So the point is that several years ago, under the previous finance director, Fred Marsh, there was a change in the fee because we were continually getting people not paying on time. And so the idea was to actually create a penalty for people not paying on time. I think the staff, the finance staff does a admirable job trying to reach out based on the the address that we have, based on the business license that people have submitted. So we try and we do our best to try and reach out to these individuals so that they can pay on time. But sometimes we don't have the correct address. Speaker 3: Right. But I actually think that's more appropriate after we hear from our speakers. I'd like to continue with our speakers. Thank you, Mr. Raymond. Speaker 1: Yes. Good evening. My name is Todd Wyman. I have been a resident here for about 15 years as a homeowner. And I'm also here to speak against, I guess, the penalties and back business fees for for a number of the reasons that have actually been cited by Mr. Fong. I, I received the notice on, I guess it was probably around the March 31st notice. That was actually the first notice I received full stop that a business license was required for the In Law Unit that I have behind my house. I received no there was no effort by the city to actually let me know that. As you know, as you need a business license for this, I did receive three letters threatening me with the problem with the additional fees and penalties, which again I had no knowledge of to begin with. I didn't know that to rent a piece of property behind my house. And incidentally, my house is two houses on one lot. Which is kind of to be honest, to send the penalty is kind of a cynical way to treat residents of Alameda to assume that we were I was or residents as a whole are trying to evade a fairly nominal tax or fee, if you will. I'm sorry. I had similar difficulty understanding the penalties. I actually had someone in the department explain it to me. I am still baffled by how it all. After that discussion, I was still baffled at how they arrived at the penalties. And I have a graduate degree in business that I mean, that's that's horrible. From what I can tell the city to simply a search of county records and blindly sent out notices to anyone that had anything other than a single family residence. This was a fishing expedition. I was actually one of the honest ones that said, Huh, I didn't know about this. I actually came down. I paid for the business license for this year. I even paid. Speaker 4: The late fee for. Speaker 1: This year. I simply refused to pay the back penalties or back fees because it doesn't make sense to. Speaker 4: Me at all. Speaker 3: Can you speak to the numbers when I'm looking at this with your name? It has amount due principal $14 and it has $64. Late charge adding all the way up to 156. Speaker 4: Yeah. Speaker 3: Again, the total amount due at this point. Is that. Speaker 1: Correct? The total amount that I received on the most recent letter, which was dated May 28th, was 154. And it goes through a bunch of different charges that don't up that add up to that. Speaker 3: And the principal initially was $14. I was $14 then. Speaker 1: You know, more than I do. All right. No one's explained that to someone on staff explaining that. Speaker 3: Yes. Speaker 1: The 14. Speaker 3: Staff confirm. Are we starting with that? That's what it says on here. Amount due $14, but the total amount due now with the county fee, which I believe is after assessing late charges, is now $156. But initially, if this gentleman had paid $14 within the correct time, was that all that would have been? Speaker 7: Do I miss him? So, Miss Adair, could you please. Give us some. Speaker 0: I was going to ask Mr. Women, do you have those letters you're referring to in your file? And if so. Speaker 1: Two of the three? I don't have the initial one. Speaker 0: Can we look at them? Speaker 1: Sure. Speaker 3: You get to the car, give them to the clerk, and then she'll pass them. Thank you so much. Ms.. Adair. Speaker 8: Okay. So for Mr. Women specifically, so the amount due was $14. With the late charges of 64 making total being 78, there's a additional $1 fee, which is a state fee. It's a state required fee added on to a business license. Our master office schedule also does have a fee for business license processing fee. It's an annual fee and it's flat amount, $25. Speaker 3: And that's for the city. Speaker 8: For the city. And that's. As I mentioned, it's part of the masterpiece schedule already. Speaker 3: There's also it's not really $14. And if he'd paid on time, what would he have had to pay? 14 plus 25? Speaker 1: Correct. I'm still confused. I think that doesn't get to the point of the mayor's question, the $14 or how is that composed? Because I heard this gentleman say he paid his his his bill. Speaker 8: I would I don't have to back up for this particular business with me, so I would need to go and take a look. Okay. I apologize for that, but I can get you that information. Speaker 3: I'm saying remember de sa. Speaker 4: Thank you. Is it there for for your assistance? Much appreciate it. The question that I have is so this in this particular case, we're talking about a granny unit, as they call it. It's I believe it's a separate from the main house. Is that correct? It's on the same parcel, separate from the main house. But the parcel is owned, I suspect, by the resident who lives in the main house. That correct? Absolutely. And so the unit in the back is rented out. Now it has its separate completely right? Like it has its own kitchen and has its own bath and everything. So. So the rule regarding renting out single family homes doesn't apply. Speaker 1: In this case. Speaker 4: Is isn't that. Speaker 7: A single. Speaker 1: Family house? Speaker 4: I mean, it's certainly not a duplex in the sense that like when you go down, I forgot that avenue. Yeah, there's all these duplexes that are attached to the same wall. So how does. Speaker 8: The way what I can tell you is the way as part of the collection effort of the business license, because the Revenue Division, it's not just, you know, sending out a bill, but it's also making sure we do do a collection effort as well and making sure that the businesses comply with our current ordinances. So, in essence, compliance. So one of the ways we research or identify which businesses need to pay and if they are paying, is going through county records. So on a county record, on a parcel, they will identify, for example, that it's a owner, but it has two units on it. So and then once we'll look into that and identify that there's one owner, two units and send out letters. And I'm sure Mr.. When women can speak to that, but we identify that there's a unit that's been rented out as part of the I guess. Speaker 1: I ask actually a question of how. Speaker 0: They come in, use the microphone, because then we'll get it in the record. Speaker 4: QUESTION Now, how is it. Speaker 1: Determined that that unit is rented out? It's an in-law unit. It's been used as a guesthouse. It's been used as an office. There's an assumption that's made here that it's being rented out because it's two properties on one lot or two houses on one lot. Speaker 0: And that was a question I had. Didn't we hear earlier that there's a license required for renting a duplex, but not a single family residence? Speaker 7: And if I can help a little bit, I'm looking at the ordinance and it first, let's say we admit it's confusing. Speaker 3: And I think it's also staff. Speaker 1: Would. Speaker 7: Would tell you that this ordinance, as has been pointed out, has been on the books for a long time and has been modified and revised many times over the years. Speaker 3: And frankly. Speaker 7: Could use. Speaker 3: A nice dusting off and making it. Speaker 7: Even more clear. However, on in in the definitions of hotel rooming house dwelling unit, there is. Speaker 3: An exception. Speaker 7: Where if you have a single family residence that you are renting. So the entire single family residence. Speaker 3: You don't live. Speaker 1: In, you live. Speaker 7: Someplace else. It's a single family residence that is accepted. But everything else where there is any other unit. Speaker 3: That you rent, rent. Speaker 7: Lease or higher, you pay a. Speaker 3: License fee of $5 for each room that's in. Speaker 1: The building. And so what would happen in. Speaker 3: A case like the mother in law type unit. Speaker 7: Assuming it is rented, that the single family house. Speaker 3: Would not qualify, but that is. Speaker 1: Another. Speaker 3: Unit on. Speaker 7: That lot. Speaker 3: And that one would qualify. Speaker 7: To to. Speaker 3: Be required to have a business license. Speaker 7: That's what happens with duplexes. Speaker 1: It's the two units. Speaker 3: They both would be subject to a business license. Speaker 4: Yeah. Speaker 3: And the reason. Speaker 4: The reason why I'm even pursuing this is because it is my feeling, hey, you know, I rent out two rooms at my place. You know, there's a downstairs, and it's like, well, I'm just one guy, so my hotel just. It'd be empty. So. And I asked, do I have to pay a business license? And they asked, was it a single family house? Yes. Do you live in it? Yes. Well, then it no, you don't have to. So it's just kind of quirky that I don't have to pay a a business license of $20, but someone who , for all intents and purposes, kind of meets the same attributes of the same owning the parcel, owning at least one unit and having a net. But having another unit, I don't know. If I had a C or I differ with Mr. Wong as if I had to alter it, I would say that I should pay a $20 fee. I think all the people who are in some who are advertising on Craigslist, for example, should pay a $20 fee. But I think what we're hearing from Mr. Wong and from Mr. Wayman isn't so much the dollar amount, but just clarify what the rule is. And, and so that, you know, we get. Speaker 1: Yeah, actually I do want to I do want to clarify. I mean, the dollar amount on an annualized basis, I mean, 20, 25 bucks. I mean, I've already I've already got my renewal notice, which I actually would like to pay before the July 31st deadline online because it's actually cheaper. You get a break if you do that. I'm not being allowed to right now because there is a balance. Do I don't have an issue paying 25 bucks a year if I'm renting it out, honestly, that's not a big deal. The issue that I have is I was not aware of it and the first notice I got of it tacked on a whole bunch of penalties that I didn't even I'm very willing to. Do the right thing and act in accordance with the with the requirement. But the first letter I receive is basically a stick. Saying You've screwed up. That's. That's it doesn't feel right. Speaker 0: Thank you. May I ask you, Mr. Women? So how long? How long have you lived at that Central Avenue address? Speaker 1: Since 2006. Speaker 0: And then you've rented the back bungalow. Speaker 1: It's been rented. It's been rented on and off. I was told, actually when I came here that I was actually being charged for fees due back to 2011. Which to me seems strange. It seems very arbitrary and capricious, to be honest. Speaker 0: So this is in the past, you've paid these fees? Speaker 1: No, no. I have never been aware of it. Speaker 0: Under this this current billing cycle, you're being told that you're being paid. You're paying back to 2011. Speaker 1: Yes. I have never. I have never received any notice that I was required to have any type of business license at all. So when we talked earlier about sort of first time offender, if you call me an offender, I guess that's that's perhaps what I am. But I had. Speaker 0: No, it's offensive. Speaker 1: I mean, I find that yeah, I find that maybe offensive. What I would ask. I think the city I think the city can do a better job letting folks know that this is required. And, you know, there are a number of different ways to do it. You can when multi-unit properties are sold, you can send a notice out to those folks. You can have it as a disclosure with real estate agents. If anyone who buys those properties, you can have an amp, put it a notice in once a year if you rent out a property, anyone who's got a property that has two different, you know, accounts on it, ahem, send that notice out. You can even. And this takes the carrot approach. You can run an ad in the journal and say you have to have one. Speaker 4: And if you do, you have. Speaker 1: A business license, you can go shop at Jetro on High Street because you have a business license. I would. I know a lot of people would love to be able to do that. So it's not all bad. Speaker 4: It's just the. Speaker 1: City I don't think has done enough to let folks know they need to do this. Speaker 3: Thank you. And Vice Mayor. Speaker 2: I have three points here in this. Speaker 3: Gentlemen, you could have a seat at this point. Speaker 2: Thank you for bringing this story. Speaker 0: I'm in. Both of our speakers can sit right here. Speaker 1: No, no. Speaker 0: No. I want. Speaker 1: To speak to. Speaker 0: Him. Oh, Mr. Raymond. Yeah. Speaker 1: Yes, it went well at my turn. Okay. Speaker 3: So at this point, you could. Did you want to speak to the speaker? Is that what you're doing? Speaker 2: All right. Speaker 3: All right. All right. So you can have a seat until we call you back. Speaker 1: Thank you. Speaker 2: I have two points. One is here in these two gentlemen, I'm inclined to ask that we waive their late fees. They've made due diligence efforts on very small amounts. I am not inclined to ask to waive the late fees on legacy partners. These are big companies. They know that they have to have a business license. This is not. Oh, we weren't aware. They owe us a lot of money. They have to do it. And the third point is we've got a Byzantine code there that really needs to be revamped. And I'd like to ask this council to direct staff. Start that process and give us a time on how long it's going to take to get there. I think the other point that goes along with that is the notification process and to come up, rather than us trying to cobble something together to ask staff to put together along with that revamping a notification process or disclosure process that lets people know who have to have business licenses that they need. But and the dates are right on their on. Once you have the business license, you know, when it's payable, due and payable. So Matthew. Speaker 3: I may just quickly and I just want just for clarification and information, understand what vice mayor matter as he has has said. Speaker 1: This is a tax, however. Speaker 3: So while staff certainly can go through and try to update. Speaker 7: This ordinance, which. Speaker 3: Frankly probably would be very. Speaker 1: Helpful, it will take a vote of the of the the voters of Alameda. It'll take a vote to change the business. Speaker 2: When you bring back the weekend. Speaker 7: I mean, it's just going to take a lot longer. Speaker 1: I just heard that you've got. Speaker 0: A problem in in the meantime, you know, you're winning. Think the public speaking part has ended, but the mayor can speak to that. But what I was going to say was I. Speaker 1: Think I was just. I'm sorry. Speaker 0: Oh, I'm sorry you were. And then I'd like to come back. So, yes, I've already been. Speaker 1: Cut off. Speaker 0: Once. I'm so patient. Yeah. Speaker 3: All right, Vice, see where you stand. All right. Member. Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam Mayor. I actually had a couple questions for Mr. Wayman, so I'm still confused. What? You know what this $14 is for? No. 14. The first time I heard about this, $14 was when the mayor said it. So. And you've paid something? I came in and I paid a sum, I think a check for somewhere in the neighborhood of 50 to $60 to get my license and the late fee as before, before the notice given on the first letter, which I don't I don't have. So then my understanding from staff is that they cannot tell us at this point what that $14 represents, what year or anything. Is that is that correct? I mean, this gentleman says he's paid. Well, first of all, you said that you don't rent that place. So, no, it's not that I said I didn't rent it like I do it. I'm that's I'm saying it hasn't necessarily been rented like full time. I was originally told these were fees going back to 2011 and it hasn't been rented the whole time. I guess that that's that's a little bit what concerns me is I don't know this $14. You know what what it I don't either and I would think and no disrespect to staff but I think if you're going to come and ask us to put something on somebody, you know, property tax assessment that, you know, if they come and appeal, that we would be able to have that information in front of us. So we know what you know, what we're actually doing. I mean, for what time periods. And, you know, we'd have the file and we could ask questions for future, you know, I I'd like to see that. So. Mr.. MCDANIEL Can you can you ask can you restate what you're asking this counsel to do related to your account? Yes, I'm asking I'm asking to to waive all of the penalties for whatever goes back to 2011. I've got my business license. Ah, the I've paid the business license fee I'm current for this year. I will renew in subsequent years when, when I've got the place rented and we'll continue to do that. I would just like to wipe out all the back stuff as a, as basically a first time offense since I was unaware . And just to be clear, does your request include that $14 that's alleged is the amount? I suppose so, because I have no idea what that's for. I know I've paid my business license. I actually have the renewal form here, so I'm up to date on that already. No idea what that 14. I appreciate I appreciate that request. Speaker 3: It shows that you owe $156.62. And that's my understanding. You're asking that that be waived. Speaker 0: Let's make sure that he gets his letters back. I we were circling them around. Okay. Thank you. Speaker 1: Is it time for talking or are we still doing your questions? Because I kind of wanted to follow up. May I. Speaker 8: Clarify something, council members, just to let you know that what happens is the ordinance allows us to go back no more than three years, I believe, to collect any business license fees that haven't been paid. So what Mr. Women seen is that the if the business license hasn't been paid, then we can only go back three years and collect those. So should he. You know, as you mentioned here, has had it for several years. We cannot go back that far. We can only do so many years. And that's authorized by the ordinance. Speaker 1: But all right. With the assumption that it was, in fact, rented during that period of time, well, we don't know because we don't know. So it could be. It could not be. I mean, that that's that was part of my point. I would like to know that information before we put a property tax assessment on your property taxes. Speaker 4: I spoke to Mr. Raymond and. Speaker 1: I'm actually retired. You're winning, so you might want to sit down. No, no, no. And that's just it. I think you're. Speaker 4: Concerned that I'm trying to over argue the case. And I spoke to Mr. Raymond. I am a retired attorney. I have written California legislation. Okay. Thank you. And Mr. Raymond is very wise and we both are volunteering our services to help. Speaker 3: We appreciate that. Okay. Thank you very. Speaker 1: Much that we can with the. Speaker 3: Client. Let us have our conversation. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Member Ashcraft. Speaker 0: Yeah. So thank you, everyone, for your comments. I am troubled by a number of things. I, I do understand the concept of a penalty and a penalty in creasing as time goes by because it gives you an incentive to pay on time and and correct any arrearages. Quickly, I read two of those three letters that were sent, and I'm an attorney too, and I'm all for plain English and saying what needs to be said. And I, I think the letters could, could be more informative and not just the letters that are sent out. I think we I'm I'm a little unclear as to the whole process of how we put these lists together. But in this day and age, there should be a wide variety of ways that we reach out to our community and let them know if there is a fee or a, you know, a license or a tax or something they should be paying. And it's both print media, but it should be electronic media, too. We have a website and maybe it's on there, I'm not sure. But it should be easier for the the average citizen to and I think we have some above average citizens here. But be that as it may, anybody should be able to understand clearly and simply what is expected of them. And once that, you know, we have that process and that clarity in place, then I feel comfortable going forward and imposing penalties. But I do think this is something that we need to spend a little more time on. Because I just think that we're not we're not doing ourselves or our residents any favors when we're as unclear as this appears to be. And this is on the business license part. Speaker 3: So there were no questions or comments in regards to the waste management lines. Is there any interest in having a motion to approve that and discuss it separately that way? That's what I would prefer. Speaker 2: I'll make that motion move the approval of the lens on the Integrated Waste Management lens. Speaker 3: Do we have a second? Speaker 0: A second that any discussion? Well, and I'll also note that just in the time that our packet came out online and today, this afternoon, the original amount owed on the Integrated Waste Management fees was 13,167. It's down to 9800. So, you know, hopefully it keeps going down. But anyway. Speaker 3: The variety and. Speaker 1: Just one quick point. I mean, we've we've given notice to individuals on the waste management list, giving them notice at this hearing. And as far as I know, no one has come to appeal or dispute or try to clarify anything and with proper notice. So I'll be supportive of this motion. Speaker 3: Can staff confirm member Otis comments in regards to We did not receive any challenges on this. We didn't. Thank you. All right, all those in favor. Why? That motion carries unanimously. Thank you. And now to the 2015 delinquent business license tax issue. Speaker 1: And I'm here. Speaker 3: A member already. Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam Chair. So. I kind of want to echo what I think I've heard from my colleagues over on the other side of the the dais here. We had a list here of 17 different delinquent business license tax. 15 of them were given notice of this hearing, and 15 of them did not come and appeal or otherwise dispute. So I would be in favor of moving forward with those 15 and the two individuals that came. Mr. Wong apparently has paid and I would be in favor of waiving the late charge on that. And then on Mr. Women's matter, I do not believe I have enough information to. Assess him on this. And I would also move to grant his request for a waiver of his complete $156.62 as well. Speaker 2: I'll second that motion member Ashcroft. Speaker 0: And just a clarification point. It is in actually 17 individuals because the legacy partners has for 17 parcels. Parcels. Okay. Speaker 3: All right. So concerns. Speaker 0: That sounds reasonable. Speaker 3: So I would prefer not including item parcels one through six. I'm concerned that the late charges greatly exceed it's actually more than 100%. You have an initial fee of $120, for instance, on number on parcel number one. And the total amount due today is 321. That is more than a 100% increase. So I have concerns about these additional late charges. So I would not support pursuing item the first six passes. I'm I agree with vice mayor in regards to legacy partners that we know that they no, I actually do not know that these one these other ones know the fact that these two came today, whereas in questions of notice, in fact, suggests that without confirmation that these other individuals are aware of this and having what appears to be sometimes as great as a 300% increase, I think that's very significant and I would not be able to support that. However, in regards to our source, what appears to be more of a business where we were confident that they would know what's going on as opposed to someone that appears to be an individual. Speaker 0: So I as I understand it, the 100% cap is on the late charge. By the time you add processing and county fees, it may get up higher than that. But I. This is what the the fears that was set by ordinance. And so I don't think we're here properly to dispute that. And also, I would caution a little about assuming that Legacy Partners got noticed and others didn't. Speaker 3: So that's so I'm saying I do not accept this as is I do not know that these people received these notices. And as far as I know, these are individuals within our community. When the bill starts at 120 and today we're asking for 321 or. And there's many examples of similar numbers on here. Without knowing that these individuals receive this. That's my concern is I do not know and I don't have that documented. Speaker 0: But of course, you understand the legal definition of a notice being there. Speaker 3: I actually don't appreciate your comment at this point. I understand you don't appear to be listening to what I'm saying, so I am not willing to support these. But I would consider egregious taxes on entities, on individuals that we cannot confirm that they actually received notice. And we have had that issue raised this evening that there may very well be issues in regards to receipt, unless it's in fact where we know, for instance, legacy partners, I'm confident that they received notice and understand what's occurring here. But I think that the amounts, the total is so egregious without any confirmation. And this ledger, I think, is insufficient. That's my position. Member de SAC. Speaker 4: Thank you very much. You know, what I want to address my comments to is just kind of like this. And if curious way that we go about applying the business license tax fee on residential properties. I think during the housing discussions that we had earlier this spring, which will hopefully come back to us sooner rather than later . One of the things I mentioned was this whole issue where I don't have to pay a business license fee and maybe there's state laws as to why we don't allow single family units to pay business license fee. But it seems to me that. Whatever argument there is for a gent. The gentlemen such as Mr. Wayman, you pay a business license fee for a granny flat should hold. While it might not be the same, I think the thrust should still hold. Or those who own a single family unit and live in it. And rent it out. So for example. In Alameda, there are 15,800 rental units and 15,800 of the 15,800. There are roughly 4100. Single family units. Now some of those 4100 are paying a business license fee because as the owner doesn't live in it, though. But a good number of them aren't. I would be the example. And. And so. You know, it's very difficult to estimate how much you can generate by the $20 a year. But, you know, if you kind of ballpark it low to high, I mean, you've got enough collection possibly there to run the whatever affordable housing program or whatever program we want to do to to help. The Rent Review Advisory Board, you've got enough revenue being generated there. So. So I like, uh, council member Vice Mayor Matt Orestes point about looking at this because I think this was really an opportunity. I don't want to say this is going to solve all the rent review advisory board type of issues. But, you know, there might be some money there to to help them expand in doing their task. Speaker 3: So I also agree with that. Is there any other council members you want to weigh in on that? The suggestion. Thank you. All right. So we have a motion and the second. All those. Speaker 7: May I make just a comment? Two things. I would just respectfully ask not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. If we had to verify every time somebody got a receipt, we'd have to do return receipt. There's no way we could do that. We cannot verify to make sure that everybody received these notices. We have 4000 businesses in this community with three notices that would be impossible to do. So we do make our best effort. I understand from time to time we probably don't get it right. And I think it's perfectly appropriate for people who come tonight to ask for a waiver for you to provide that. But I respectfully request that you don't do that as a policy. I think that just would be very detrimental. Thank you. Speaker 3: So I'll respond then that my position continues to be that when the penalties are so egregious that we have a serious issue and we did have that issue raised. Speaker 0: And so we have a motion. And what was the motion? I wasn't. Speaker 1: Clear. The motion was to attach the 15. 15 of the 17. Yes. And waive Mr. Wong's one and. Speaker 0: Mr. Wei. Speaker 1: Mr. Wong and Mr. Waymon per their request. With the understanding that this was a publicly noticed hearing. Speaker 0: And it was seconded, right? Speaker 3: Yes. Yes. And I will not be supporting this. Not because I agree. I agree. You should not have to pay us. But I have concerns in regards to these other individuals also. All those in favor. Speaker 1: Hi. Speaker 8: May I just clarify for Mr. Wayman? Are you waiving everything or just delay charges and fees? Speaker 1: I think it was. The motion included everything. I believe that I can tell you the amount of get one giving 62. Speaker 0: Yeah. Given all the confusion. Speaker 1: Not being able to go. Speaker 0: Back to 2011. Speaker 1: I have clarity on what that $14 represented as far as a year. Speaker 3: Thank you. Thank you, gentlemen. Six C. Speaker 5: A recommendation to provide input to Adrian Associates on the qualifications of a city manager, the recruitment brochure and the selection process. Speaker 7: Good evening, Mayor and City Council members. My name is Stephanie Geller, Brant Serra. I am your administrative services director. And first of all, would you like an update on the score? Yeah, it's 98 to 79 with 3 minutes left to play.

Regular Agenda Item

Public Hearing to Consider Collection of Delinquent Business License Taxes and Delinquent Integrated Waste Management Accounts Via the Property Tax Bills. (Finance 2450)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_06022015_2015-1695

Speaker 2: Proclamation declaring May 30th through. Speaker 0: June 7th as Alameda Elks Bike Safety. Speaker 2: Week. Speaker 1: And Dean Seacrest will be receiving this correct? You may approach the podium, please. And I'll read the proclamation. Whereas bicycle riding is an integral part of life for children in the city of Alameda. And. WHEREAS, proper bicycle training is an important precursor for the enjoyment of riding. And. Whereas, registration with the Alameda Fire Department helps to protect the bicycle from theft and assist in the recovery of stolen property. And. WHEREAS, Bicycle safety checks help to ensure that the equipment is functioning properly. And. WHEREAS, everyone who rides a bike should do so while wearing a bicycle helmet. And. WHEREAS, the Alameda Elks Lodge number 1015 supports youth activities throughout the community to quicken the spirit of our youth, to explore the many miles of beautiful bicycle paths of the city, and to do so safely now, therefore, be it resolved that I. Trish Herrera Spencer, mayor of the city of Alameda, do hereby proclaim May 30th through June 7th, 2015, as Alameda Elks Bike Safety Week in the city of Alameda and encourage all citizens to safely navigate the streets, bike lanes and bike paths and to equally respect the laws and the riders throughout this community. Here we are. Spencer Mayor, thank you. Mr. Seacrest, you can say a few words if you'd like. Speaker 4: Thank you. Mayors Council members, thank you for this recognition of the proclamation. As you know, for 110 years, our lodge has been supporting and and giving back to this community. Each year we try and do a little bit more, a little bit more. And this year, two of our members came up with another idea. And so during the our lodge meeting, they came to the floor of the lodge and proposed that we take and support the bike safety program. They presented their plan on how to do it, how we would get the funds to a Grand Lodge. I received a grant and researched the thing and got the how much and proposed this, which was voted on the lodge unanimously. And here we are. Thank you. And so June 7th is another one. So look forward to having the people come out. We still have plenty of helmets left, plenty of hot dogs, and so come on out. Well, certainly want to thank the fire department for being there for the 4 hours, you know, registering the bicycles. It's amazing how many bicycles are stolen each day in Alameda. This will help get them back, hopefully. Thank you. Speaker 1: All right. Next item. Oral communications. Non agenda items.

Proclamation/Special Order

Proclamation Declaring May 30 through June 7, 2015 as Alameda Elks’ Bike Safety Week. (City Manager 2110)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_06022015_2015-1637

Speaker 2: Appropriate 424,000 from the Police Department's fiscal year 20 1415 budget. Speaker 3: Good evening, Madam Mayor. Members of the Council, Paul Woolery, Chief Police, thank you for your time and consideration of this. As I stated in the staff report, there's obviously been a national conversation about body worn cameras. That has really picked up a head of steam after after August, after Ferguson, and continued with several other high profile incidents around the country. All the while, going back three years, we've been testing various types of cameras in anticipation that someday we would probably come before you and ask for your permission to approve them. So after everything that happened in the fall and over the winter, we had both a financial opportunity with our salary savings that we had this year and the cops money. And we thought that it would be probably the best and most appropriate time to come to you and and ask for your approval on this. I'm sure that some of you are going to have questions about the policy component of this. We are still working on a draft policy. We are well, well into that. We just have, I think, a few a few details to hammer out. And I would expect that I would be able to submit something for your review by the last meeting in July before you recessed for the for the month of August. So as a point of clarification, although I didn't stated in the staff report, if tonight I'm asking for your approval to buy the cameras and I will commit to you that I will not deploy them or put them put them out in the field until you all in the public have had a chance to review the policy . With that. If you have any questions, I'm happy to try to answer them. Speaker 1: First of all, let me ask. Okay, wrinkles clarify. Do we have any speakers from the public on this item? Speaker 0: No. None? Speaker 1: No. Okay. Thank you. Comments from Council Member Ashcroft. Speaker 5: Thank you, Mary Spencer. And I will disclose that I have spoken with both police chief Valerie and I'm interim city manager Liz Warmer Demme about this item in fact. Chief Hillary and I have had discussions going back months about body worn cameras because that's what this proposal is for. So at the outset, it said, I want to state that I do understand the national conversation and events that we read about in the news media that have contributed in part to this request. I will also hasten to say that I'm very proud of the police department that we have in Alameda. But this is still a good policy for a number of reasons, both to limit the amount of potential police violence and also to protect police from unwarranted accusations of misconduct. But that said, it is my feeling that this request for acquisition of this equipment should not have come forward to the council without a draft use policy. And we went through something similar in the last administration when the police department asked for license plate readers, which we did. And at purchasing and not quite before we purchased them, but before it was all finalized, we did hold a public forum at the library and we heard from a number of different representatives. And I don't think that we need to do quite such a full blown presentation or forum, but I do feel that it's important. This is a high profile kind of an item. And I think both the city council and the public want to know not just what are we acquiring, how are they used, under what circumstances are there circumstances where they might not be used? The ACLU has put out a white paper that I've read that, you know, has its own certain slant to it, but certainly raises some some points that are worth considering. There are other communities around the area. San Leandro, I believe, is has purchased the same type of equipment that we in Alameda are looking at. They did their use policy ahead of time while while the equipment was just being tested. San Jose is looking at purchasing body worn cameras and they are simultaneously in the process of developing their policy. And I think there are a number of things that the city council would like to know more about and the public would like to know more about and would also like to have input on. So I do appreciate the chief's offer that he would bring back a draft use policy to this council before we recess in August so that we would be able to offer input. Because I well, I do think there's an important public policy here. And I know I've spoken to the interim city manager about not wanting to see this sort of cart before the horse situation again. I but I do understand we're coming to the close of the fiscal year and there's some available money out there. At the same time, it's no secret that the fiscal year ends at the end of June. And so we've we've known this as long as we've known we wanted these cameras, but taking a more pragmatic approach. I don't want to disadvantage both the department and the city by saying, no, you can't make this purchase in this fiscal year. But in order to have my vote to move forward with this, I would need it. The this proposal conditioned on the fact that the use policy, the draft use policy comes back before the council for comment before well before the end of this fiscal year and before that before we go on recess in August and also before the use of these cameras in the field. That's all for me for now. Thank you, Mayor. Speaker 1: The other member comments. Well. Speaker 4: I actually have a question for the chief justice to the fore and for the public to. The policy will include not only the use of the camera as it's being deployed, but access to the. The data that the camera collects. And I was also wondering about the protection that the storage, because most of the money is for storing data. And I read in here, I think it was a cloud base storage and. What assurances do we have that they have the necessary protection of our data, that the data is not shopped to other people and that we have evidence that the data has has been maintained in that fashion, that it's ours. And Arsalan, it doesn't go to NSA or anybody else and that they can prove that it's protected. Speaker 3: Yeah, they are. I'll see if I can get a representative from Taser to come. Back here with me in July. When I speak. Speaker 4: I'd like to have something in writing that says We are protective and we have recourse if something happens, sure that it's their fault or not. Sure, something happens to our data. Speaker 3: Right. I can I can tell you for a fact that there is they would not have. It's our data. They're simply holding it for us. They are not they would not be authorized to give it to anyone under any circumstance. And it would it would only be in and it would be deleted on our our retention schedule that will develop with this policy. Speaker 4: And then the last bit is the question about public access as a matter of public records. I'm not asking you to explain what the policy is, but I'm asking you if the policy will include a Freedom of Information Act or a public I'm sorry, public records act or rule requests from either remember the public or an attorney or whoever might. Speaker 3: Yes. That will be a component of the policy. Speaker 4: Thank you. Speaker 1: And Brody. Speaker 6: Thank you, madam. A question through the chair to my colleague, Councilmember Ashcroft. So I think the chief said that he was willing to come back with a policy before the August recess and not implement or not deploy them until we had a policy. Is that satisfy your concern? Because I thought you threw in a in the fiscal year. Speaker 5: I said that, but then I corrected it before the before the August recess. I am mindful of the fact that if a majority of us were to vote no now with the calendar year requirements and all, we probably couldn't get this purchase agreement done before the end of our fiscal year. And that would that would not be beneficial because it would you know, if we think this is beneficial equipment, it's going to we're going to have to pay for it in one fiscal year or the other. And the fact remains that there's $300,000 of available funds from the police department now. So so that was a misstatement on my part. Speaker 6: Okay. Just just clarification that. Speaker 5: I. Speaker 6: Think a misstatement. So just a few quick comments. Thank you for for bringing this forward. You know, this whole issue of community police relations, I mean, this is the civil rights issue of our day and of our time. And, you know, I'm sympathetic to you as far as the timeline on developing the policy, because it has you know, this is a debate that we're having nationwide, and it's also a debate that we're having at the state level, you know, at the state level. Know there's three bills that are being talked about. You know, one is is AB 66, Dr. Weber to create statewide standards. And that's that requires so much thought and so much consideration that that bill is now turned from a one year bill into a two year bill. So at a statewide at the state level, we're struggling with the policy. We're struggling with the standards. So I understand, you know, that we don't have one yet, but I'm looking forward to seeing it. And the same thing. There's another bill, HB 65 by Assemblymember Alejo to actually pay for body cams, and that bill did not get out of appropriations. And, you know, there's a letter going around, from what I understand, you know, to appropriate $5 million. My first thought was, why don't we wait until we see if the state can help us pay for this or if, you know, the federal government could could help us pay for this. But, you know, our our bill is 1/10 of what the state is proposing. So I doubt that Alameda is going to get 10% of the funds that are allocated statewide. But the one bill that is still alive, Assemblyman Rodriguez, is AB 69 that talks about the retention of data. So those standards, as the vice mayor mentioned, I think are important. And I hope that as you develop these standards, you know, you take a look at the debate that's going on statewide. You know, they're talking about evidentiary data, you know, being retained for three years. And what a lot of this is, is evidentiary data, you know? This is why this is so important and why it's an issue that I'm supportive of. It helps keep the public safe because if there are rogue officers that are, you know, violating civil rights and violating the law, then as we've seen throughout the country, we can see that and the public can see that. And policymakers such as us can, you know, speak to you, hopefully not, but, you know, in other jurisdictions and say, you know, what's going on here. But I think it also protects the police department. And I. I did have an opportunity to attend a Taser summit on this with you. And I know Ed Treacy, our our colleague from San Leandro, who recently passed away. He presented on on behalf of San Leandro. And there was a presentation on behalf of Oakland. And Oakland said from if I remember correctly, they went with the other vendor and then they said they should have gone with with Taser. And San Leandro seemed to be happy with Taser Tasers. But now it protects the officers from from false accusations because I think there's probably more instances of false accusations of police conduct than there actually are instances of police conduct. So. This is, you know, a critical issue. I'm glad that we're taking the time to, you know, develop the policy. I'm looking forward to seeing it. But I hope that, you know, look at what's going on at the statewide level and look what's going on in other cities. And, you know, use those as guidelines for your policy because we will eventually, at the state level, come up with a set of guidelines. But if ours are more protective of civil rights and more, I think we'll be able to have those apply. But, you know, keep that in mind. And, you know, I'm I'm in favor of moving this forward today. Speaker 4: Thank you. Speaker 1: Amber Data. Speaker 3: Thank you. You know, Alameda, as we all know, is one of the safest cities in the Bay Area, not just because we're an island, but because we have an effective law enforcement. And when the chief of police says that this is a certain piece of equipment that's going to make them men and women even more effective, it's going to protect them as well as the public. And, you know, I'm ready to get behind that. I understand, you know, the issues regarding the civil rights and the questions and all that. But to me, it's very practical. You know, this is going to make our our law enforcement enforcement that much more effective. Speaker 4: You. Speaker 5: A follow up to my. Yes, because. Thank you. Because I know you want to go there. Yes, go ahead and go that. Don't you prefer. That's okay. SCHIEFFER Larry, I also meant to ask I think this came up in one of our conversations. Does the agreement that we would be entering into you would be entering into with Taser? And by the way, Taser is the manufacturer of these body worn cameras. Does that allow you to upgrade the equipment when a new version comes out? Speaker 3: Yes. So one of the nice features of this contract is with it, with the money that we're paying and the package that we're buying. If, as we all know in technology, what's, you know, new and hip today is obsolete. Tomorrow, if they come up with a better camera during this five year period, we will get that. We will get that camera at no additional charge. If the cameras that we have break for some reason, they will replace them. It's all it's all included in the package that I have before you. Speaker 5: And as a follow up to what the vice mayor said about what Taser can do with our information, because this evidence, AECOM, cloud based storage is also a subsidiary of Taser. And so I would hope that it somewhere in the agreement is are the parameters of what exactly can be done, if anything, besides storage with our with our data. Yeah. Speaker 3: Well we'll make sure and I, I don't have the, the agreement in front of me or memorize, but there's no, there's no possibility that they're going to be allowed to share this data. It's our data. They're simply holding it for us. It's military grade security. I was never in the military, but I'm going to assume that a company is largest, as Taylor as a Taser has has high security features built into their system. Numerous agencies around the country have been using them for a while. They have not had a data breach. And again, it's not one of these things where with the lpas, you know, we talked about it back then that there were I'm sorry, the license plate readers, that there were private companies, tow companies, for example, that were, you know, that were selling the records to other people for other interests , that none of that's happening. That's not we don't do that with our LPR data. And that certainly won't be the case with with the videos. Speaker 5: Thank you. Speaker 1: So I had questions in regards to and you had mentioned the policy coming back to the community and getting feedback and I participated as a citizen during that process. When you were doing it for the is that what you called it? Right. Do you anticipate a similar. Can you explain what you anticipate that to look like, that process? Speaker 3: All I intend to do this time is to once we once the policy's ready for prime time, I would submit it. I'm assuming that as an item on the consent calendar for for your acceptance and put it out two or three weeks in advance. I'd even be willing to put it up on this, on the website, on the city website, in advance so that the public can read it. I have no plans to have a public meeting like I did for the license plate readers. I just would put it out for the public's consumption and your consumption before the meeting. Speaker 1: Okay. So I would like to have I don't council members, if you'd like to weigh in on this, I thought that that was a good process. It was informal. Some people don't feel comfortable coming up here and speaking, and I would like the opportunity to be able to walk through the policy. Not at this meeting. Not at this. Speaker 5: Meeting. So if I could offer maybe a compromise for proposition, just because we are coming up close on the August recess with, you know, a number of meetings and things to accomplish, I rather than seeing this come back to us on the consent calendar, because, I mean, obviously, someone can pull it from the consent calendar, but if that's on the regular calendar, a review of the policy, then the public and the city council can weigh in. I mean, I think if it if the the draft policy comes out in the staff report, which is what we did with the LPR, as that should give ample opportunity with the noticing requirements for us all to have that I think. I know reasonable minds can differ. I do feel like we're getting kind of saturated with extra meetings. And I would I would prefer to just keep this at a council meeting. Do we have a date, by the way, when we anticipated bringing this back? Speaker 3: I think we talked about the three meetings in July, correct? Yep. Speaker 0: So the last. Speaker 1: So I would like go first. So I will want to have a conversation, want to have that opportunity with the public of council is not interested in that. I'm comfortable reaching out to one of our communities, such as a city, to hold a forum at the library on this issue if they think that there's interest by the community. My concern would be that we would not have enough conversation on this. However, that that's what that's just one issue. And so I'm not hearing any support from the council to have a meeting, which is. I just want before I move on from that. Speaker 3: Oh, my, my only thought is, you know, however, the the chief thinks best in terms of moving along. I'm fine with that. So, I mean, it's altogether possible they might decide to do. Speaker 1: So I attended the meeting at the library. There were quite a few people that came. I thought that there were a lot of serious questions asked and and that that it was not a waste of anyone's time. And, and to me, this is just as important. If not, I would actually submit more important than monitoring cars that come in and out of our town. Speaker 5: I might differ somewhat there. I think this is an important purchase for the police department. I and I was at that same forum we attended at the library. There was a lot of concern over the infringement of civil liberties on the part of license plate readers because they are they can be very non discriminating, just, you know , picking up whatever traffic is driving down the street. On the other hand, we also established that there is no expectation of privacy on a public street. Another difference between these two pieces of equipment is that the ACLU you'll remember there was an ACLU attorney at the at the Library Forum on the license plate readers. And they were definitely very skeptical and mostly opposed to the whole concept of papers. Whereas the ACLU in this 12 page white paper that I read that was updated just earlier this year, actually comes out and says, we surprised ourselves by coming down on the side of something that is a form of surveillance. You know, they made a good case for why it it is both beneficial to the public and also to members of the police force. And I also I'm all for a robust a full and robust discussion. I don't understand why it can't happen at a council meeting. We certainly see in this chamber when there's something that's of a lot of interest to someone. So anyway, those are those are my thoughts. I don't know what the rest of the concern. Speaker 1: Really is if there are no other council members that are interested in that. But that's all I'm looking for. If there's not, then I'm happy to work with another group to host and I and ask the police chief if you'd like to participate. Sure. That would be voluntary on everyone's part. But I think education, we may have an interest in answering questions on this issue. I also we now we have a speakership on this item council. Are you agreeable to having me call someone at this point? Well, we haven't we're actually still in the question yet, but ourselves. Right. Speaker 5: Could I just hear if you could we. Speaker 1: So I haven't finished the I mean, we did hear from. Speaker 5: A will on your. Speaker 1: Proposal. Speaker 5: On this proposal of holding a. Speaker 1: Separate member. Speaker 6: Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'll leave it to the chief's discretion on how he wants to develop the policy. Speaker 1: All right. So and I also I also want to commend the chief and our police officers for attending the county event that was in Hayward involved, that where the ACP faith leaders and community members from the county participated. Officers from across the county participated. And the issue was to improve relations between police and community members. And I really think that your appearance, their interaction with the community, absolutely important and great job. Speaker 3: Thank you. Speaker 1: And then in regards to this, I fully support funding this at this point. I think it is very important. I think it goes to protecting the rights of the citizens as well as protecting the officers involved. I think I, I, I do want to work on the policy, but I think that at the I think what we're seeing, this will be better quality then. But right now, what we see quite often on TV is someone's cell phone taking video. This will be better. It will serve its purpose at a higher quality. Speaker 3: I agree. A couple of points I want to make and I don't want to delay the meeting any more than I need to, but. One thing that I want to point out to you and to the public is, you know, I mentioned in there that that one of the things that the studies have indicated around the countries that use of force complaints go down dramatically and the use of force incidents go down dramatically. I don't want to paint a false picture to the public or to you that we have a problem here right now. I respectfully think that we do not. There was a piece that was just that Michelle Olsen wrote in the Almeida, and that included a five year lookback of our calls for service, our arrests, our use of force incidents and our complaints. And, you know, we had 141 uses of force all across the spectrum from a simple control hold to a baton strike, 141 uses of force, over 13,000 arrests, less than 1%. It's not it's not a lot. So if we're fortunate enough to reduce it, which I would be all for, and I'm sure every police officer in the department would before it's going to be right. We're not talking about a large number, 141 in five years, and I hope I'm not jinxing it. But that's that's basically what we're talking about in this town. The other thing that I wanted to to point out, remember, you brought up the the state funding or the potential for state funding. I also alluded to briefly in the staff report that there is some federal money that's coming available literally at the last minute. But in our estimation, in my estimation, it will be we have a slightly better chance of winning the lottery than we do of getting that funding. Right. Yeah. One. There's 16 awards for departments our size around the country. And I mean, talk about cramming it in. We would have to get that in by June 16th. So I am very aware of how much this costs. But I actually have gotten to the point where I think we can't afford to not do it. If I can use a double negative. Speaker 1: Member, Ashcraft. Speaker 5: And just a question on costs. So it does seem that the majority of the cost comes from the storage of the data. Yes, that agreement and I've heard from other law enforcement professionals that Taser, because they've cornered the market, can kind of price as they as they wish. Is there any movement or are there any attempts among law enforcement agencies to get together and create their own? Speaker 3: They're have. Yes. I'm sorry. I mean, there have been some conversations about people pooling departments, pooling their resources to share servers. I personally, I think that that might create more questions than it resolves. One of the issues is who's going to store the data and who has access to the data? Chain of evidence, chain of custody and evidence, whether it's, you know, a gun, a knife, you know, whatever whatever the item is, is very important. And that has to be completely unassailable for us to present it in court. People who some people who support us having these cameras, you know, want to make sure that we're ultimately accountable. Well, if we're the holder, if we if we are in control of that data here at the city, then that's not going to help people feel any better about, you know, who who's controlling the evidence. Will you might delete it. You might edit it. We can't do that. We can't do that. There's no there's no ability. Once that stuff is once the video has been docked and transferred to Taser, we can't edit the footage anymore. Now, we might have some situations at our my discretion or at a captain's discretion where we can delete it. Inadvertent recordings, things that are otherwise prohibited by the policy. I mean, you can imagine all kinds of accidental activations of the recording that, you know, none of us would ever want to see. And so there might be some situations where we want to delete that stuff, but there would be an audit trail, would be the request would remain indefinitely there. There's nothing nothing would be hidden in that regard. We really are trying to make it balance privacy and technology, accountability on the part of the police department and, you know , continue to instill confidence with the public. And it's it's a difficult conversation. And that's, as a member already mentioned, I mean, even at Sacramento, they're still debating it. The AB 66 has been revised five times since December. Most recently on May. Speaker 1: 6th, you anticipate that there would be within the policy a built in review, for instance that six months or a year after. In the start of the policy review. Review of the policy. Speaker 3: Sure. Speaker 1: Absolutely. Come back. Speaker 3: Absolutely. And as I mentioned, for the license plate reader policy, we we subscribe to a company called Lexa Poll that that produces the policy templates based on federal law, state law and then best practice. The federal law and state law stuff stays regardless. So if we developed a policy, everybody looked at it, agreed, hey, this is a good policy for Starting Point in August and then in October, legislation is passed that makes something law. The next day I change the policy and it's reflective of what the what the current law is the next day. Speaker 1: But a review in regards to the community and council being able to come back, for instance, six months or a year or something like that. Do you have that in the policy? Was that. Speaker 5: Did we do that with license plate readers? Is isn't the policy supposed to come back to after they've been in use for a certain period of time, whether it was six months or a year? Speaker 3: What? Yeah, I think what member Chen back then had asked was that if we would do an additional audit, internal audit, because Nick Rick was, was proposing a one year audit and I believe I assured the council that I would do it at a six month and we're right at that now. I mean, as of yesterday, we're just at that six month mark because we we deployed a couple of the LPR cars in late December, I think, and then a few more and the other two in January. So we're just now coming up on that six month. Speaker 1: Or so of that, come back to the council. So with that included, then, sure, it's six months. So that would do that for the LP. Speaker 3: Sure, I can do that. Speaker 1: And then this policy would have a similar. A provision within it. All right. And we do have one speaker, Carol Goldstein. Speaker 0: Hello, Madam Chair. City Council Carol Gosling, Alameda Resident. I wasn't planning to speak and I apologize for putting my speaker speak slip in late as I don't know if any of you know this, but when the automatic license plate readers were up for a debate, I was one of the more vocal questioners of how the data was going to be collected and how it was going to be used, primarily because the owner of the license plate data usually didn't know the data was being collected, and it was rather indiscriminate collection, and the data points could be used and manipulated to track people's movements. And I would caution about drawing too much, too close a parallel between body cameras and and license plate reading. I think Councilmember Ashcraft is pretty much on the money because body cameras are mostly for the protection of the people being accosted by the police. It's unlikely that the person being filmed isn't going to know that they're being filmed because they're going to be talking to a police officer. I am concerned and I'm glad that someone addressed this by correspondence to you, that there I think there should be some sort of policy about disclosure to the public when a citizen knows they have been filmed. Speaker 3: I'm one of those citizens. Speaker 0: I was informed by a police officer back in February of this year that his body camera was recording us. So it wasn't until after the recording was going. But I asked him, Can I see that recording? And he said, Oh yeah, probably you can. Of course, there's no policy right now, so I don't exactly know if I'll ever be able to see that, but I think it would be important to have some sort of a citizen oversight or input position or maybe a little subcommittee or something. But I'm not sure that we really need to have the the same amount of attention given to the body camera question as was given to the automatic license plate reader debate. Thank you. Speaker 1: Thank you. Remember already. Speaker 6: In America. We can start discussion after this. Right. So I'd like to move recommendation of a staff report to authorize the interim city manager to negotiate and execute by the agreement, the Taser International for the acquisition, support and maintenance of 80 body worn digital video cameras, video cameras and a digital evidence management system and appropriate appropriate. $424,752.61 from the Police Department's Fiscal Year 20 1415 budget to finance the acquisition with the caveat that it's not deployed until the Council has an opportunity to review the policy and that policy be brought back by the January or July. July 21st. Last meeting in July. Speaker 5: I'll second. Speaker 1: I'd like to clarify is we this council approves the policy, we review it. Speaker 5: And review and add and provide input. Speaker 1: Okay. So we may not agree with the policy then, and it can be if if it's completely separate from council, the policy is. Speaker 2: Typically those those policies are something that the chief does do. But I mean, I. Speaker 0: Think, you know. Speaker 2: He's going to want your input on it and it's a review by the Council. Speaker 5: And and I will just add that at least from the experience with the license plate readers and I appreciate Ms. got Stones comments, I know for a fact that that the chief did incorporate our suggestions. Speaker 1: So I would prefer that it be the Council approves the policy since we're being asked to fund it before seeing the policy or how do you address that matter? Speaker 0: The problem is that the way the law is, is the chief of police who has the control and operation of his department. And so this is operational procedures. And as you've heard from the interim city manager and also chief, Hillary is perfectly willing understanding that this is a more controversial type of issue, that he is willing to talk. Speaker 1: About what. Speaker 0: The policy is and get your input. And he has in the past and probably will, of course, take your thoughts into very serious consideration. But the council doesn't does it manage and operate the police department? Of course, they're. Speaker 4: The recourse and this is the devil's advocate position, is that if we don't like the policy, we don't fund beyond this contract. That correct? Speaker 0: That's certainly something you could do. Speaker 4: Okay. Thank you. Speaker 1: Thank you. Any other comments? QUESTION I'm going to call the question this point, then all those in favor. I oppose abstentions. Motion carries unanimously. Thank you. City Manager Communications. Is that correct? Speaker 0: Yeah. We're at. Speaker 1: Number seven. Speaker 0: Oh. Speaker 1: We actually have two different calendars. For those of you that aren't aware, the budget falls at our joint meeting after this meeting. Speaker 2: Would you like me to save my communications for the end? No. I'm happy to save it to the end so that we can move the the substantive items ahead. Speaker 1: Is it on the calendar? Twice. Speaker 2: Then is it on again? No. No, it's not. Speaker 1: It's on this. All right. So if you're planning on coming now. Speaker 2: I will be very brief. Speaker 1: Stick to the agenda. Thank you.

Regular Agenda Item

Recommendation to Authorize the Interim City Manager to Negotiate and Execute a Five Year Agreement with Taser International for the Acquisition, Support and Maintenance of 80 Body Worn Digital Video Cameras and a Digital Evidence Management System and Appropriate $424,752.61 from the Police Departments’ Fiscal Year (FY) 2014-15 Budget to Finance the Acquisition. (Police 3121)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_06022015_2015-1701

Speaker 2: Federation of Mayors nominations to the Civil Service Board Commission on Disabilities Golf Commission. Library Board. Planning Board. Public Art Commission. Public Utilities Board. Recreation Part Commission. Social Service. Human Relations Board and Transportation Commission. And Mayor's Appointment to the Rent Review Advisory Committee. Speaker 1: So this evening. I'm not a we're not doing transportation or. Correct. Speaker 2: Right. Speaker 1: We have one speaker slip. Four Smiley. Speaker 3: Good evening, Madam Mayor. Council members. Speaker 4: Know you have a big item with the budget on the agenda, so I'll try to be brief, but I just want to. Speaker 3: Say in my. Speaker 4: Day job I work for the county and I really appreciate. Speaker 6: It. Listening to the considered discussion you had. Speaker 3: On the body camera item. There's a lot of. Speaker 4: Discussion even at the county level about data retention and surveillance policies. Speaker 6: And it's very refreshing to see you all. Speaker 4: Have that discussion and. Speaker 6: The police department stepping up to be. Speaker 3: Accountable and setting example for other departments on how to work with a policy body and the community on on those types of things. I understand you're not going to be taking up the Transportation Commission. Speaker 4: Item this evening, but I did want. Speaker 6: To attend to. Speaker 3: Just say that I hope to continue to serve on the Transportation Committee and receive the nomination to. Speaker 4: Be reappointed. Speaker 6: In the four years that I've gotten to serve with the other commissioners, it's been a privilege to work with them, city staff. Speaker 4: And residents in that public process. I've really I've been really encouraged. Speaker 3: Growing up here in the on the island and. Speaker 4: Working in government for many years, seeing. Speaker 6: The active participation of so many residents. Speaker 4: At our meetings. For a time, the Commission wasn't meeting. When I started. We started meeting again with. Speaker 3: Considerable help from city staff. Speaker 6: To make sure those. Speaker 4: Meetings took place and the diligent work. Speaker 6: Of the other commissioners as well. Speaker 3: You know, not every city in our county has a transportation commission. Speaker 4: So I think this shows real commitment from this body. Speaker 3: Your council, to. Speaker 6: Really consider these. Speaker 3: Items and. Speaker 4: Have community engagement on on transportation decisions. And so that's why I take this volunteer position so seriously, as well as the. Speaker 3: Impact it. Speaker 4: Has on. Speaker 3: Long term environmental impacts due to greenhouse. Speaker 6: Gas emissions, as well as improving. Speaker 3: Our everyday quality of life as we move about our island. Speaker 6: So with that, I just hope to have your ear receive your. Speaker 4: Consideration and support to continue serving the city. Thank you. Speaker 1: Thank you. So this evening. I will be nominating candidates for civil service board or my recommend my appointments for Civil Service Board, Golf Commission and Rent Review Advisory Committee. And first, I want to say that we had a very good candidates for all of these positions. I am limited in regards to how many I can appoint. So it's actually a really hard process and for some of these. We we would have. I received input from community members staff. And after actually a lot of deliberation on my part. And then and it's time to do the nominations. So for Civil Service Board, I will be nominating Jan Bryant and Cookie Robles Wong. For Golf Commission. There's two seats. One of us. One is a partial term and the other one is a full term. For the partial, I'll be nominating Ronald Carlson. And for the full ad downing. And then the last one is Rent Review Advisory Committee. And for that position, I'll be nominating Karen Lucas. Those will be the nominations. And then they will come back for approval by count by council at the next meeting, except. Speaker 0: For the rent review advisory committee that the mayor directly appoints. Speaker 1: Okay. So except for a rent review advisory committee and the rest of these commissions and boards. Members of the public may still continue submitting applications. And we are. Rolling out these as we get through them. So some of them you can expect to see come back on the 16th. And also in regards to when their next meeting is, so that they will hopefully have a quorum at all of the upcoming meetings and then after. So in June and July, you should see the appointments for the balance. Yes. Speaker 0: Member Ashcroft. Speaker 5: So, um, thank you, Mary Spencer. So I would just like to comment. First of all, I appreciated hearing from Commissioner Miley. I have actually been at a transportation commission meeting. I think we did a joint planning board Transportation Commission meeting when I was on the planning board. And I've also had occasion to sit in on a transportation commission meeting. And I would say that this is just the kind of applicant, current serving commissioner that I'd like to see more of. And why is because as you can see, he's young and I appreciate hearing that perspective. We often find that it's almost you know, it's something that takes a lot of time and to be in the midst of a full time career, to have a family and to take time out to serve your community, I think is something laudable. I think anyone who's done a good job in one term as a commission, really, as a commissioner, really should, and by tradition has always been reappointed. And I wouldn't want to think that we're trying to make our commissions very homogenous so that I mean, in terms of maybe opinions and outlooks and, you know, wanting people to just vote a certain way. It goes back to what I said earlier, that I think we as a community, certainly as a council, are better served by a wide array of differences of opinions. And I really do like whenever ever I'm out and about. And people often, you know, young families that have moved down, me meeting, they tell me how much they love Almeida. Love what's going on? Love the development. Added Alameda Landing. I've been hearing that a lot lately. I always say, Well, wouldn't you love to serve your city on a border commission? Go online? They go, Oh, it takes so much time. I just don't have time. So I really hope that we're encouraging people who are already doing a stellar job to to keep doing it and that we will look for diversity of, I know age, geographic location, ethnicity, professions, all those different things. Thank you. Speaker 1: Any other member body? Speaker 6: Thank you, Madam Mayor, for putting forth your nominees. And in a way, I respect the prerogative of the mayor to make these nominations. I mean, I think there should be some respect to the the council is provocative to approve them. And I hope as you go through deliberations, you'll give serious thought to renominating Mr. Miley. I think he has served the community well. I think it's important to have an independent voice on these these boards and commissions. These are where the issues that we ultimately decide percolate through the community, where there's a lot of discussion, a lot of back and forth, a lot of forming of of policies and recommendations. And then, you know, after we have that back and forth on both sides, you know, we get a chance to weigh in and either ratify those or send them back for reconsideration. So I really respect the job that Chris has done as a as a fellow government staffer. You know, I think he brings a wealth of knowledge and connections to to the position. And I really think he deserves an opportunity to be renominated. And I hope that you give strong consideration to renominating him. And I'm also happy that Cooky Roberts Wrong is going to be on the Civil Service Board. So. Thanks very much for making that that nomination. Speaker 1: So any other member comments? I think we have many good applicants that are diverse and I am working with staff and community members on feedback for all of the positions and I actually I do welcome more applications. If there's anyone else that's interested in applying for these other positions, step up, feel free to. And you can always in fact ask staff if you have any questions about what what the position entails or any other members that are serving currently. If you'd like more information, feel free to inquire. All right. That being said, I will. Now, at this point, I'm going to do it during the meeting. Speaker 2: Oh, sorry, sorry. We did have two additional. Speaker 0: Speakers under oral communications, if we could go back to that. Speaker 1: On prior to going to number eight. Okay. And do we have those lips? That's all right. And just so you know, we would just be adjourning the first meeting, but then we have a second meeting. All right, Linda Weinstock and then Ken Petersen.

Council Communication

Consideration of Mayor’s Nominations to the Civil Service Board, Commission on Disabilities, Golf Commission, Library Board, Planning Board, Public Art Commission, Public Utilities Board, Recreation and Park Commission, Social Service Human Relations Board, and Transportation Commission; and Mayor’s Appointment to the Rent Review Advisory Committee.

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_05192015_2015-1644

Speaker 1: Recommendation to authorize the mayor to send her to sign a letter of support for a Senate bill, assembly bill 35, providing funding for affordable housing and a letter of support for Assembly Bill 1335 providing for affordable housing. Speaker 0: And we have one speaker, is that correct? For five and of our 11. Speaker 6: Good evening, Mayor Spencer. Council members and staff. I'm here this evening at the request of the president of the Alameda Association of Realtors and speaking on his behalf. So the Alameda Association of Realtors respectfully request your support for AB 1335 Atkins. Item five On this evening's council meeting agenda, our California Association leadership and staff have work collaboratively with Assemblymember Atkins to make sure that AB 1335 does not burden home purchase transactions, that a significant portion of the funds generated are dedicated to affordable workforce ownership, housing, and that decisions to spend the funds generated are under control of a governing board with representation from the administration, the general public and housing industry groups. Thank you for your consideration. Speaker 0: I like to ask a question more quick. Does that mean the local realtors were supporting both of those? Is it just that you said one or both? Speaker 6: The only letter that I have is actually on 1335. So thank you for saying that. We're not there yet. Speaker 4: Okay. And could I just. Yes. And also, I think that so for those who are watching who might not be clear about this, these are two pieces of state legislation, Assembly Bill 35 and Assembly Bill one three, three five. And I think the 1335 was more controversial to realtors because it would impose a $75 transaction fee on some real estate transactions, but not the purchase of a home or commercial property, but that the fund that that would create would provide funding for affordable housing. And so I especially want to commend not only our local realtors, but also the state association, because they were not always behind this. And it's that's really strong support when the realtors of this state come out and acknowledge the need for more affordable housing, but more importantly, the funding mechanism for affordable housing, because we can all say we want more affordable housing, but you've got to find the funds to do that. And so this is a very important step to take for our city to get behind this. So thank you all the realtors. We have a. Speaker 0: Motion. Speaker 4: I will move that we is this. This is a motion. Yeah. Okay, so I'll move that. We authorize our mayor to sign letters of support for support for both Assembly Bill 35, providing funding for affordable housing, and also a letter of support for Assembly Bill 1335 providing funding for affordable housing. Speaker 2: Like. Speaker 0: All those in favor. Speaker 2: I. Speaker 0: Oppose abstentions passes unanimously. Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. A point of clarification. Did we include item five oh as one of the items that was. Speaker 0: Was not pulled. Speaker 5: Not pulled, oh, because we have members here, I believe, who are here for item five. Oh. Speaker 0: Yes. So can we have speakers on that item, though, even though we didn't vote because we already we have approved it. We don't we don't have slips on it. All right. Next item, then. Five. So we did already approve five. Oh, which is? It authorizes myself to sign a memorandum of understanding regarding the formulation and implementation of sister city relations between the City of Getty, Philippines, and the city of Alameda. Speaker 5: That was approved. Speaker 0: That was approved. We voted on that. So the next item is, if anyone does want to speak to, feel free to turn on a slip. Speaker 1: Five K Adoption Resolution Preliminary approving the annual report declaring the city's intention to order the levying collection of assessments and providing for notice of public hearing on July seven, 2015. Island City Landscaping and Lighting District 84 to various location.

Consent Calendar Item

Recommendation to Authorize the Mayor to Sign a Letter of Support for Assembly Bill (AB) 35 Providing Funding for Affordable Housing; and Recommendation to Authorize the Mayor to Sign a Letter of Support for AB1335, Providing Funding for Affordable Housing. (Community Development 236)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_05192015_2015-1614

Speaker 1: Adoption resolution approval. Oh, wait. We have a speaker here on this one. We do a resolution approving the Alameda County Transportation Commission, Measure B, master programs funding agreement and authorizing the interim city manager to execute a document. Speaker 0: And our speaker, Darcy Morrison. Speaker 6: On five and I want to express my opposition to any Fruitvale BRT system pending a very thorough and public discussion of. Speaker 1: What that system will look like. I keep reading that this is AC Transit's Plan, quote unquote. Speaker 6: AC Transit doesn't control Alameda. The residents do. We have only heard. Speaker 1: Bits and pieces about this. By comparison, when AC Transit planned its Berkeley to San Leandro BRT system, it was under. Speaker 6: Discussion very publicly for years. Speaker 1: Yet here we haven't announced to us like it's already been decided. A bus rapid transit system is a bus route with dedicated lanes and various other features like queue jumping and signal priority. Speaker 6: It's supposed to run virtually without. Speaker 1: Any delay between stops. It is intended. Speaker 6: For a very congested urban corridor, something that we don't have here, except that the. Speaker 1: Crossings the Berkeley to San Leandro system was supposed to run 17 miles and save 15 minutes in travel time. So do the math. A bus running along Lincoln have a 25 miles per hour. We'll save just a few minutes in travel time. If it interferes. Speaker 6: With traffic at the crossings. Speaker 1: With signal priority, for example, it will increase congestion without saving any significant time. The dedicated lanes result in a loss of traffic lanes, of course, and the standard fix is to remove the parking along the street, which would be a disaster here. In fact, Berkeley turned down the proposed BRT system for precisely the reason because it would harm businesses, among other things. They went instead with the obvious alternative to the elaborate BRT bus, a simple express bus with limited stops which runs efficiently without causing massive disruption. Speaker 6: I've also heard that the Fruitvale Bridge might be. Speaker 1: Rebuilt to accommodate a BRT system. Let me point out the obvious. So once you cross the bridge, you're in Oakland and there's only three lanes. Not to mention a freeway underpass. I have no faith in this planning process. I think it's cookie cutter planning, which is liable to do a great deal more harm than good here. And I'm tired of being dictated to by regional agencies. Let me suggest very strongly that with this and anything else that might seriously affect traffic, that the city run articles in the newspaper informing the public of the plans and then following follow it with weekend meetings to heavily publicize to explain further what these plans are. I'm going to comment briefly on site as well on the proposed BRT system there and say the same thing that the same objections apply. It's 800 units at Alameda Point versus the versus 30,000 units and the rest of the island. We need an absolute commitment that nothing about the transit planning and I don't mean to point would cause any predictable or preventable delays to traffic at the tubes. And I would like to see the site atrium plan amended to spell that out. I would also like to see an article in the paper spelling out what the points BRT system would look like. It's not at all clear in the term plan. I'm aware of all the hearings. I'm also aware that most people have no idea what a BRT system is. Frankly, I think we're entitled to the same level of discussion here that occurred in our neighboring cities, and it hasn't happened. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. Do we have motion? Speaker 3: I'll move approval of the item a second. Speaker 0: All right. A discussion. I'd like staff. It's my understanding from looking at this that this is asking us to approve the first year expenditures. Now explain what we're being asked to. Speaker 2: My name is Virendra Patel, transportation engineer, public works. As far as this agreement, this master funding agreement is concerned, it's only for direct local distribution. It is not a capital project that that is part of the measure, Bobbie. So this is just a direct local distribution that is coming to the city for bike and pedestrian improvement, infrastructure improvement, road, local streets, roads or sidewalks, potholes and payment rehab. Speaker 0: And it's for one year, right? Speaker 2: Yes. Speaker 0: It's only the revenues collected. April 1st, 2015 through June 30th, 2016. Which is. Whereas B.B. is 25 years or something. Was it was it was a long. Speaker 2: It's 2015 to 20 4530. Speaker 0: Okay. And in regards to the BRT system. Will our community have an opportunity to discuss the Fruitvale that the example is for Fruitvale? Well, we've be having community meetings about that. Will we have any input as a community? Speaker 2: The the projects are already included in the measure b. B when the voters went in November 2014, when it was passed. So right now, CDC, Alameda County Transportation Commission is basically looking for the timeline for individual project. And Fruitvale Avenue. BART is is one of the projects that we have to discuss in terms of giving AC DC the timeline for the project, but there's no discussion for that publicly. Speaker 0: And that was specified in B that it would include that specifically. So when the tax when the voters went to vote for it, then they approved the project at that time. Correct. Okay. So this has to be Archie or Fruitvale, which is what the speaker spoke to. My understanding there's also a BRT through the rest of us, too. Is that correct? Or is that some other system? No, no, not that. Is there are there any other breaches that were. Speaker 2: This is the only one in the Fruitvale. Speaker 0: But would you know what the route is? Speaker 2: It's it's basically from Alameda to to from 12 BART station. Speaker 0: To or. Speaker 2: It's either along Lincoln from Alameda Point all the way to 412. Speaker 0: BART or so. So it goes directly across Lincoln? Speaker 2: Correct. Speaker 0: So in regards to any concerns of businesses, of not having stops at businesses, would there not be any stops along Lincoln, do you know? Speaker 2: There will be stops and that part has not been identified. We will definitely have to go to go to the public process to in order to give them the project definition as to where the stops would be. Nothing of that sort has been discussed yet. Speaker 0: And that was very. Speaker 2: Preliminary. Speaker 0: And that will be discussed within our community. We will have those discussions. Yes. When do you anticipate that will be? Speaker 2: I would I it's subject to other grants that Alameda Point Partners are seeking. So this is part of the art of the Tiger brand as a match to this will be when it comes to that point. It will be brought forward. Speaker 0: Okay. And Will. Speaker 2: On that. Speaker 0: Is the city. Will we be we will fully advertise, communicate with the public businesses. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Speaker 7: I'm Bob Hahn, Public Works director. Let me make one correction. We actually have two potential BRT lanes. One is on Ralph Hap Azhar Memorial Parkway. We will be applying for the grant next month on that one, the Tiger grant for that. And so if we get the Tiger grant there, and that's two and that is two through the tubes. Okay. Yep, yep. So up our up Ralph out, you know, up ramp, left turn. And then we now have a clear transit lane. If you've been out there from Atlantic all the way through the tubes or not all the way through the tubes that are up to the tubes for the busses. And so the plan is, is to bring people up quickly on ramp, make that left turn and get them through the tube. Again, this is all designed to reduce the number of cars going through. Speaker 0: Okay. And was that specified specifically in Beebe that. Speaker 7: That's not that it will not. We have match money from Beebe going to that, but it's not specifically specified because that's our grant that are asked. Speaker 0: Okay. And will we be having community discussions. Speaker 8: That. Speaker 7: We'd be having as public works always does and takes great pride in? We will have extensive community meetings, publications, ads in the newspapers and opportunities on the website for people to comment on all of our projects before they move forward. Speaker 0: Wonderful. All right. And then your second one is the one that we were earlier discussing. Speaker 7: And the second one is the same thing. We will have community meetings. We will have ads in the paper. We will have public discussion. We will have posting on websites. We will have we have a variety of opportunities for the public to comment on all of our projects prior to implementation. Speaker 0: Thank you. Any other council questions? Comments. I really appreciate your response and the speaker's comments. All right. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor. I oppose pensions. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Next item is. No, that's all concerned. Okay. We've made it through consent now. Regular agenda item six A. Speaker 1: Adoption of resolutions appointing Stephanie Ship as a member of the Housing Authority Board of Commissioners and Summer Carter and Brandi Graham as members of the Public Art Commission. Would the minister, though.

Consent Calendar Item

Adoption of Resolution Approving the Alameda County Transportation Commission Measure BB Master Programs Funding Agreement and Authorizing the Interim City Manager to Execute all Documents. (Public Works 4255)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_05192015_2015-1670

Speaker 1: Adoption of resolutions appointing Stephanie Ship as a member of the Housing Authority Board of Commissioners and Summer Carter and Brandi Graham as members of the Public Art Commission. Would the minister, though. Speaker 4: Still move a second? Speaker 0: All those in favor. Why those abstentions? Motion passes unanimously. And this evening we have to. Speaker 1: Yvonne Carter. Miss Carter unfortunately couldn't make it. She was tied up at work, but she'll come in for. Okay. You can both come up the same time. Speaker 0: And can you identify who but not. Speaker 6: I'm Stephanie Sharp. Hi. I'm Brandy Graham. Speaker 1: Okay. Geranium. You solemnly swear to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California, and that you will well and faithfully. And granted this. Natalie. Speaker 0: So Stephanie Sharp will be serving as a member of our Housing Authority Board of Commissioners, and Randy Graham, as well as Summer Carter will be serving on our Public Art Commission. Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you. Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. And now six p. Speaker 1: Public hearing to consider an application for design review for approval for a new enclosure on the rooftop of an apartment building to house 12 new panel antenna and other associated equipment for an AT&T Wireless telecommunication facility. The project is located within an hour three PD Garden Residential Plan Development, Zoning District and adoption of related resolution. The facilities are 1777 Shoreline Drive. And then a public hearing to consider an application for design review for an approval of a new enclosure on a rooftop of an apartment building to house nine new panel attendants and other associated equipment for an AT&T Wireless telecommunication facility. The proposed facility will be co-located with an existing T-Mobile facility. The project is located within our four neighborhood residential zoning district and adoption of related resolution. The location is 1538 St James Street. Think Charles St James. Charles Franco.

Regular Agenda Item

Adoption of Resolutions Appointing Stephanie Shipe as a Member of the Housing Authority Board of Commissioners; and Sommer Carter and Brandy Graham as Members of the Public Art Commission.

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_05192015_2015-1640

Speaker 1: The proposed facility will be co-located with an existing T-Mobile facility. The project is located within our four neighborhood residential zoning district and adoption of related resolution. The location is 1538 St James Street. Think Charles St James. Charles Franco. She plays Monopoly too much. Speaker 4: Here's St. Speaker 1: Andrew again. Speaker 8: There's not much to add after that. Yeah. Speaker 0: Right, Mr. Thomas. Speaker 8: Thank you, Mayor Spencer. Vice Mayor Matt Tracy, members of the council. My name's Andrew Thomas. I'm your city planner. Tonight we're here or you're here acting as your in your role as land use regulator. We have two applications before you tonight, two separate applications. These are design review applications. One, as the clerk so ably described as on Shoreline Drive. The other is on Saint Charles Street. These are two totally separate applications, but we're going to handle them together because the issues are all very similar. These are antennas by wireless telecommunication facilities for essentially cell phones and data transmission here in Alameda. These projects, these two individual projects, both came to the city at around the same time. City staff reviewed the applications. And through our role as essentially a surrogate for the planning board, we approved design review applications for small projects around the city US. These wireless communications facilities are examples of the kinds of things that are approved at the staff level fairly regularly. We approve approximately 2 to 3 design reviews every week downstairs in the planning department. These all occur with though with public notice, the neighbors who have an opportunity to comment on the applications before we take action . And then what we do is we report our actions to the planning board at their next meeting. Both of these applications generated a number of comments from the neighbors. We went ahead and approved them anyway and then with conditions. And then the planning board, because of concerns raised by the neighbors, called it for review. So the planning board held a public hearing in April, at which time they considered the merits of these two applications, and after their public hearing, they went ahead and re-approved them also with conditions. Then the City Council, you exercised your right to call that decision for review. So this is the third time we'll be looking at these these items. Both of these applications are the result of a decision by the Alameda Unified School District to discontinue cell towers and cell facilities on school facilities on the school district as a property owner made the decision that they did not want to have these types of facilities on their on their buildings. So they have to be shut down and they have to be moved by these cell tower operators. And in this case, we're talking about AT&T as the applicant and owner of both facilities. So on the left, you have the word middle school. You can see where the playing fields are and the where the existing location of the antenna. So that antenna needs to be removed. And you can see where they're proposing to move. It is nearby at 1777 Shoreline Drive. And this as the slide shows, there's already another wireless facility on the adjacent building. So we have these facilities are scattered all around around the city. And then on your right, you see the existing myelin elementary school. So that facility has to be closed down. And the proposal is to put the replacement facility at 1538 St Charles Street, approximately four blocks away. Maya Lin School. As you can see, these are coverage maps. These are provided by AT&T. And what this basically these two maps show you is that today, this whole central area of Alameda, there's cell phone service. So people are using their cell phones in these neighborhoods. Many households have actually eliminated their landlines. So they just live with cell phones. And as you can see, it's the areas fairly well covered. When you remove the facility from the mail in school, the map looks like the map on the right. And what you're seeing there is a large swath of the interior portions of of Alameda where self cell phone service is going to end and it's going to end in September of this year. That is for us, you know, down in the planning department. That was a major factor here. We wanted to get these projects approved and get them approved quickly because we didn't want to start getting the phone calls from the residents in that central part of Alameda saying, what happened to my cell service ? So that's a really a major concern for us. Here's what the would. Speaker 0: Schools are before you move on when you're getting your information as to what it will look like without those without coverage information. Can can you clarify that? We did not the city did not independently gather this information? Speaker 8: You're absolutely right. These maps are provided to us by AT&T. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 8: So next map. Oh, this is the next map. Okay, good. So, same. Same basic storyline. All the people living along Shoreline today have cell service. You can see little spots of light where it's cell service a little shaky. Once the facility shuts down in September at would school, the gaps you can see on the slide on the right, they're going to they're going to be big. So what we do downstairs and what the planning board did in April is they had to make a decision about whether the project should be approved, whether these facilities should be approved, and the and the land use regulation that is at play here is our design review ordinance, but we are also governed by federal regulations dealing with these types of facilities. And what the federal regulations basically say is that in our review of these applications, we cannot base our decisions on issues related to the potential health effects of RF emissions, essentially that we cannot discriminate between divider providers. So if there's, you know, Sprint has a facility on the roof for the building, we can't say, oh, AT&T, you can't have one that we cannot use our regulations to essentially prohibit services to certain areas, certain neighborhoods, if a coverage gap exists. And then particularly this last issue and this really plays into Saint Charles Street, where there's already a cell phone antenna on the roof of Saint Charles for another provider, and that's called co-location, where it's where the provider says, oh, look, I want to just go on the same roof as the other provider. We have almost no discretion to say to say no. Under federal law. Federal law also establishes what they call the shot clock. It's a basically a time limit for cities to take action. It's shorter for co-location facilities. So ST, the St Charles facility has 90 days to take action. We are because of the all the calls for review, we are very quickly hitting the end of our 90 day period. We have a little bit more time on Shoreline. But frankly, from staff's perspective, the issue here is not so much these federal deadlines for action. It's that September deadline when those neighborhoods go dark. Speaker 0: Maybe if I move. If you could go back the 150 days on the shoreline property, you know what that day is. Speaker 8: Yeah, that takes us to about mid-June. Thank you. You know, the issue there is if we hold our decision until mid-June, then they still need to build the new facilities. So we question is, depending on where the new facility ends up being, will they have time to build a new facility and get it online in time to . Before the September deadline for getting the old facility shut down. Speaker 1: You. Speaker 8: So what federal law does say is essentially you can use your design review process when looking at the city of Alameda. You can focus your discretion on the appearance of the structures and the physical placement of the facility. So that's essentially what we do in design review. We use the design review ordinance for everything from the review of these wireless facilities to second story additions to, you know, the new Walgreens on Park Street. That's all the same regulatory structure. And these are the findings for two approved design reviews that the design is consistent with the general plan zoning and design review manual, that the project is compatible and harmonious with the design and use of the surrounding area, and that the proposed design of the structure and existing materials are visually compatible with the surrounding development. So those are the basic findings. If the answer is yes to everything, then presumably the answer is yes to the application of the answer is no to any one of those questions, and presumably the answer is no. So here's some examples we have. As I said, we have these facilities all over town. They've been through various design review. Applications over the years. These are three examples of facilities on the roofs of existing residential buildings. You can see they are we pointed them out with the arrows. In some cases we tried to. In many cases we tried to screen them, you know, hide them. Like you can see that the big building on the left with the fake little arches. It was really designed. I mean, that's essentially that structure is for one purpose. It's screening a set of antennas. And then you see these other are some of the other ones less ornate on the right. We also have some like the corner of Santa Clara and Park over here, the big tall building that's called the Oddfellows Building. Is that the name of it on the corner? If you look up there, we've there the the the antennas are unscreened. And in that case, it felt like putting a box on top of a boxy building. It just looked bad. So in that case, the decision was to to keep them without the screening. Speaker 0: So the one on the left, the shoreline property or. No, no, no. Speaker 8: So these are just examples around town, right? This is shoreline. So existing photo, if you go out there today and stand in the parking lot on the left, existing elevator housing, you see a little arrow pointing down. There is an elevator in that building and it creates this little box on the roof. So what AT&T is proposing is, well, let's just make that box a little bit bigger. So you see the drawing on the right. That's a simulation of what it will look like in the future. So that the idea was, let's just make that box a little bigger and it'll house the elevator housing and the antennas. So that is the design review application. We determined that it was consistent with the zoning and general plan, that it was compatible with the design and architecture of the building and that it should be approved. So we approved that design review application and the planning board concurred and also approved it with some additional conditions. Speaker 0: The height, the same is wider. What's the difference? Speaker 8: It's a it's a bill. It's a little higher. Um. I can give you the exact date on that. The screening structure will extend 11 feet from the top of the roof to a height of 38 feet and six inches. Speaker 0: What is it currently? Speaker 8: I that I do not have. Speaker 4: May I ask? Speaker 8: Probably the typical elevator thing is probably around 9 to 10 feet. Speaker 4: So, Mr. Thomas, with the proposed extension in height and length, would that still be within the city's height limit for this particular area? Speaker 8: The city's height limit actually provides a very large exception for antennas. Yeah. So you can actually go 25 feet above the height limit for the antennas. Speaker 4: Thank you. And it's not 25 feet, obviously. No. Speaker 0: No. So what is the and if if we didn't extend the box, do you know how what the antenna would look like? Is it possible to do it without extending the box? Just having the antenna. Speaker 8: I mean, just have the antennas adjacent. AT&T would like can follow, would like to follow was also present some of this and maybe they can oh some ideas with their slides what what these antennas look like they're not in a box. Let's just go to the next I've got two more quick slides and then I can sit down and let AT&T answer some of these questions. So here's Saint Charles. Apartment building on the left and what it looks like today with the existing roofline. You can see there's already a little you can barely see it there with the lights on. But there's a there's already a screening, an antenna on the roof. So this is the co-location one. So you see some things sticking up on the roof there. So that's another provider with a screened in antenna. And then the AT&T facility would be set further back on the roof. And you can see the arrow. You can barely see the little box sticking up over the edge of the parapet there. So once again, this is the other reason why we felt the design review application could be approved. We approved it. In the end, the planning board upheld that decision. So our recommendation is that you uphold the Planning Board's approval of both of these applications at both Shoreline Drive and St Charles Street. We also just one more slide. We also this whole experience over the last three meetings has really made us talk sort of internally and with the neighbors and with the providers that we need. Well, we have very little control. We have very little discretion over these, but we need to have a better process. This has not been a very satisfactory process or experience for anyone. It's been frustrating for the neighbors. It's been frustrating for the planning board. They sat through a big, long hearing and then felt like, well, there's nothing they really could do about it, and that the real issues were being, you know, just weren't available to be discussed. So some of the quick ideas that we have been talking about doing and that we've been talking about this for a while, actually is trying to work with not only the city, the new city council, but the other agencies around the city who own property. You know, the park district, the the the Navy, the, you know, even the school district might have some sites like Thompson Field and create a citywide list of preferred sites so that when we were that and for those agencies who want to put properties on the list, it's an opportunity for revenue, of course, as well. But if they if the providers want to use their their land for these facilities. So the idea would be create a list of preferred sites and that would be the first choice. So providers, when they said, hey, we're trying to fill a gap, we would say, well, we want you to go to one of our preferred sites. It may be a city site, it might be a school district site, it might be a park district site. Who knows? But basically, it would be our way as working as a community to identify where we would prefer these things to go. And then we would establish sort of standard procedures, conditions for that for those sites. We could work with the various agencies on that. And hopefully essentially also the third piece would be creating some sort of an expedited process for the approval of those on those sites. Now, if, of course, this does not make these other applications necessarily go away in the future, a provider might look at those lists and say, it just doesn't fill our gap. It doesn't work, in which case then we'll have to entertain other sites because under federal law, we have to allow them to fill a gap. But the idea of this process would be two things. One, if we as a community can identify preferred sites, that would be great because as many of these future facilities that we can direct to those sites, so much the better. The other piece is the sort of the expedited review. What was very frustrating about this is we send out notices to neighbors like our typical notice, hey, we're we got an application we're considering. It sort of implies that you can have some input and shape the project on these situations with all the FCC regulations. What's happening is we're sending out notices and then we're basically telling people, Yeah, but you actually have no say in this process at all because the FCC says this and this and this and this and this , and there's very little discretion. So I think part of our idea on this is that we really do need to think about if we can get providers to go to preferred sites, it would be nice to have an expedited process where we get those approved rather than sending out notices telling people you can have input and then really not give them a whole lot of input. So that's just something we've been thinking about. If the council wants to direct us sort of down that path, that's certainly something we would support. And with that, I am available to answer questions for Ashcraft. Speaker 4: Thank you. I have one. Do you want to tell us a little bit about a meeting that was held last week with them? Speaker 8: Absolutely. We met briefly with a representative of Congresswoman. Speaker 4: Barbara Lee. Speaker 8: Barbara Lee's office, who is here meeting with constituents. And we invited a couple of the residents who have been active, Ms.. Jessica Reed, who I think is yes, I know she's here tonight and will be speaking. And another neighbor, unfortunately, was on fairly short notice. So there wasn't a lot of time. But it was helpful to be able to talk through these issues with both the OH and AT&T team as well. So it was it was helpful to talk through not only this idea, but just some of the pros and cons and frustrations that we all have with the sort of the situation. On one hand, we're all using cell phones, so we all kind of get it. We need cell phones, but we'd like to have a little bit more control over where these things go and how we place them. And so it was it was helpful to talk that through with the with both the residents and AT&T. AT&T was very encouraging to us about this kind of process. If we as a community can can pull together and do that because they think not just AT&T, but the other providers as all as well, would be very interested in. Working through this kind of process with us. They are doing it with other communities. You know, we're not the only community struggling with these kinds of issues. So they offered their help and encouragement to sort of proceed along these lines. Speaker 0: Remember, they suck. Speaker 5: While the equipment that we're discussing tonight is AT&T. Is it correct to say that cell phone users generally will benefit not just people who have phones that are AT&T? Speaker 8: You know, I'm not an expert on that. But can I hold can we hold that question for the experts? AT&T, you actually would like to continue this presentation with some of their information. This is a field that it's a little technical, and I'm not. Speaker 0: Frankly, for other member questions at this point. Speaker 8: Any more questions for me? I'll be available to answer any. Speaker 0: More later on in regards to. So we had received a correspondence suggesting that we consider not not allowing, I think, the box so that the skyline would not be disrupted. Is that something that counsel can say that we don't want. Speaker 8: Absolute. Speaker 0: Box out of? Speaker 8: Absolutely. You know, it's an interesting question. We've debated that for a number of different sites and projects around the city over the years. There's sort of an ongoing debate just downstairs among the planners, like, you know. What looks worse, the actual antenna, which is an antenna or the box that we're putting around it. In some cases on historic buildings, we've always pushed for the box and we've tried to put a lot of ornamentation on it. In other cases, we've sort of leaned away from that. Obviously what we're talking about tonight are facilities sitting on roofs on existing buildings. We also approve, you know, the freestanding poles. We have some would allow me to point there's one going in a yacht club. Typically, we don't try to screen those, although there is one recently going in that was approved by the planning board. We'll have our first fake tree in town. It's going to be at the Alien Yacht Club. It's basically a cell phone tower. It's a council tonight. Says we don't want the the a box. Just put the antennas. That's certainly within your discretion. Speaker 0: And we say is the one property and not estate, or do they both have boxes or only one of them? Speaker 8: We are proposing boxes on both. You could do both. None. One. You know, it's that's they do have some discretion. Okay. Speaker 0: And also at the planning board, I think that when when one of these projects is approved, they this one of them, they said they wanted notices given to residents. Yeah. Speaker 8: Let me if you'd like. I just the planning board added a couple conditions to our conditions. One was that the because this permit is going to AT&T and the owner of the property, the permit actually goes with the property, as with all of our design review. But when you sell your property, the city approval stays with the property. You don't take it with you. They said, look, the one requirement, the property owner and AT&T must notify everybody in the building about what's going on the roof. Just basic disclosure. If somebody doesn't want to live in a building with those things on the roof, they should at least know what's up there. The other thing was that there are limitations in terms of for workmen and people like that up on the roof around this facility that do it, certain types of maintenance, the facility should be turned off. So there was just some basic safety information that they they imposed, which we think we're going to use now as standard conditions on all such facilities. Speaker 0: All right. Speaker 5: Two points. The idea about noticing the residents, I think is a good idea. Perhaps we should make that a regular policy or a city across. The second issue is so there's already one next door. So why why on on the Shoreline Avenue? So if there's already one on the roof of next door, why aren't they co-locating there and pointing at it in whatever direction? Speaker 8: If it's okay with you? I mean, I. Push that question to the to AT&T. They do a what they call alternative site selection so that they can talk a little bit about what worked and what didn't work for those facilities in high school. If that's okay with you. So if it's all right with the council, can I invite AT&T to sort of finish the presentation? Good evening, Mr. Spencer and members of Council appreciate the opportunity to speak to you this evening. My name is Ken Mintz. I'm the area manager of external affairs here in the East Bay for eternity. I have some prepared remarks. I'm going to go through them quickly. I don't want to repeat too much of what staff has already brought forward, but I want to put in some context about the process that we go through to help your understanding. And finally, I'd like to then invite up a third party engineer that we utilize for our emissions studies, which I think is also central to a lot of questions have been coming to us from the community as stated by staff, the applications before the Council or due to the loss of long term leases at two school sites within the city. Normally applications are brought forward as gaps in wireless coverage are identified. In the case of these applications, however, we are under extreme pressure to fill gaps that will exist once AT&T can no longer depend upon the existing antennas at the mile in Inwood schools. The school board has terminated our leases these sites and identified late September as the termination date for both leases. As the Council is well aware, that demand for wireless services has been growing in an extraordinary pace. The school sites have been in place for more than ten years each. During that time, many people have come to depend on services in their homes as they've discontinued the use of landline phones and now expect the same level of reliability when needing to communicate through wireless devices. This is especially true for many lower income households who gave up landlines to increase their disposable income, as well as millennials who never had landlines in the first place. You may know some 20 year olds like that also across the United States. Approximately 44% of households have given up traditional landline service and now depend entirely on wireless service. Any loss of service for even a short period of time could affect public safety, as well as all the other ways that households now utilize our network, including children's education, home businesses, entertainment, etc.. Let me take a moment to explain how we identified the locations for the internment applications. When we identify a gap in coverage, our engineers identify a search area within which they look for potential candidate sites. These must meet certain requirements. First, they must be able to fill the identified gap. This is dependent on the topography of the sites and by topography, it's not just hills. We don't have a whole lot of that here on the island. However, foliage can have an impact. Size of buildings around the antenna sites can have an impact. The number of antennas underneath and also the height of the antennas are another couple of requirements that we need to look at. Second, the site must be constructed all and have sufficient space not only for the intended structure, but the associated equipment that needs to be placed in the same general vicinity by construct ability. There are a number of sites that we looked at that have heavily sloped roofs, for instance, very hard to place equipment on those type of facilities. Third, we also need a willing landlord. The two school sites met all of these criteria for many years until the school district decided it not wanted antennas on their properties and thereby no longer being liveaboard. Our search of the two neighborhoods resulted in examining quite a number of possible locations. Ultimately, we were looking for the least intrusive means for filling the coverage gap, and that is something that's directed to us by the FCC, at least intrusive means for filling a significant gap in coverage. We also consider properties that already contain one or more cell providers in order to co-locate at the same location where another wireless carrier already has facilities. Keep in mind, however, that a site may that may work for one provider does not necessarily work for another, given where each provider's other antennas are that say they create honeycombs and each honeycomb is different for each of the providers. You go to that next slide. This shows the area around our proposed site on St Charles Street. The yellow pushpins are a number of the alternative sites that we looked at. If you notice all of those, there are commercial sites. When we talk about the preference list that we currently go through, we look for there are things like public properties, city owned properties, school district churches, that type of thing. We also look for commercial sites and co-location of existing antennas that we could also utilize. So sites. A number of sites were rejected due to the lack of suitable space since many of the surrounding locations, particularly around 1530 in Charles, were too low to meet the coverage gap. We particularly looked at a mastic senior center which sits adjacent to the 1538 property. To build on that site would have required erecting an antenna over 60 feet in height, as well as taking up at least three parking spaces for the ground based equipment. If we switch to the next slide, I think you've seen this one. This is the roof of 1538 St Charles. On the other hand, three storey apartment building that already houses T-Mobile antennas and has sufficient space for the ground equipment as well, actually in the garage unit. Our plan calls for stealth in our antennas. There's some discussion of that with the staff to minimize the visual impact. Again, to create the least intrusive means, go quickly to the next one. You've seen these. Speaker 0: Things. You move on when you look at the stealth and yeah, do you know how much higher or wider this box will be than what's currently there? Speaker 8: Yes, let me pull it up. I can. Okay. So the existing height of the top of the penthouse is 47 feet ten inches, and the top of the antenna enclosure would be 50 feet, three inches. So about less than three additional feet. Speaker 0: So it's currently 47 feet high. Speaker 8: 47, 47 feet ten inches high. Speaker 0: Right. Speaker 8: And it would be expanded to 50 feet, three inches. So two and three inches, two and a half feet higher, wider than the existing, because we would be placing the antennas inside that enclosure, enclosing it of making it the same color and feel of the building itself. So it would blend in. Speaker 0: And do you know how much wider it will be with the current with this? Speaker 8: In terms of. Width of the enclosure. That was in the report. Speaker 3: Is not an exhibit 315 feet by 14 feet, six inches by ten feet tall. Speaker 0: Is that the current? Speaker 3: That's this. From what I understand, not speaking as an expert, that's the approved. Speaker 8: Yeah. Right now there is no box on top. Speaker 0: No box at all. Right. Speaker 8: So I'm sorry. I'm thinking of the other side. Appreciate that. On this one, there is another structure which is the team mobile antenna site closer to the front of the building. When you look at that picture, you can actually see and that one T mobile did not enclosed area tenants they sit around the box and you can actually see their antennas hanging off the side of box. Our enclosure would have the antennas inside and then they would be surrounded by by that enclosure. Speaker 0: All right. So do you have pictures of what it currently is that shows what the antenna looks like and what the proposed will look like if we don't have a box? Speaker 4: And can I just interject that I know that this this item was brought to our attention by some of our residents, and I believe at least one of them is going to speak maybe more. I'm also under the impression that the Saint Charles location actually is not the controversial one because it's not in proximity to the school in the park. So I just for the sake of time, because I know, Mayor, you want to move this along because of the length of the agenda. I just thought I'd point that out. Thank you. Speaker 8: It sits about three blocks away from the Maitland School. Speaker 0: But there's currently not a box near proposing adding a. Speaker 8: Box, adding a box to a co-location site, which under the FCC is. Almost a done deal type of situation. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 8: I just. You've seen the propagation maps or flipped through those. The application for 1777 Shoreline Drive will replace the antennas currently situated at Woods School. How we cover the gap in service that will exist with the loss of the Woods site is very important in that leaving gaps in coverage will mean a loss of service area residents in reviewing potential sites and buildings in the neighborhood. We found several that would be much more visible and thus more intrusive, such as if we were to erect a freestanding pole at Riddler Park, for instance, on the other side of the school. This is a view of, again, the alternative site analysis that we did. You'll note that we looked as far to the east as the shopping center, as far to the north, I'm sorry, west their shoreline court. These sites, unfortunately, do not provide that level of coverage within the needed area, which means that residents with no longer have service who have it today. If we were to construct that those sites. As you get closer to the school site, that's where we start looking at other factors. So for instance, there were three well, there are other three story buildings in the vicinity. The placement of certain roofs creates what's known as a shadowing effect, which means that a higher antenna would be needed to get the same level of coverage. So if we were to move to one of the other buildings that sit and place it closer to Shoreline Drive, for instance, it would have to be a much larger intended to get that same level of coverage and not lose service for some of your residents. This is also an area that's very land constrained, as much of the available open ground space is devoted to parking, which makes placement of our ground equipment very difficult. We don't have underground garages in this area. If we were to look at several of them, we did look at a number of the other apartment buildings in that vicinity. And unfortunately, there just isn't the amount of space that would be required. That's two, three, four parking spaces, very difficult for these apartment buildings to give up and even a question of city code given requirements of what they need to maintain. There was a question asked early, and I have the answer here in terms of we did consider the building adjacent to 1777 shoreline, which is 1801. That's the site that currently houses the T-Mobile. Again, parking became an issue on the 1777 Shoreline Drive site. We're actually looking to put the ground equipment into an enclosure that's kind of like a patio on the side of the building. So we're not taking up parking spaces at 1801. T-Mobile's ground equipment is in a like enclosure. So for us to go onto that facility would require us placing it someplace else on the property. And the landlord was not interested in us doing that. So it was on their suggestion. We move to what is another one of his buildings. However, it's a separate parcel and that's why it didn't qualify as a location, even though the adjacent parcel has an antenna. Speaker 5: So many. So the question that I have still the other question that I have is so do people who are non AT&T cell phone users, do they benefit by from this new AT&T tower equipment that you're putting on? Speaker 8: Not directly, because each its cellular provider has their own service. Now, there is a certain amount of of what's known as roaming where other providers might lease our service to provide their customers service within a certain area. Speaker 5: If you're if you're a T-Mobile customer and you live in the area. I don't know what the numbers, but near Shoreline Court. Right. Your service is integrated? Speaker 7: No. Speaker 8: No. But if you consider how large each of these companies are, the number of folks that, you know, have our services, you can imagine there's quite a number of folks that, you know, would be our customers in this area. The other thing about the shoreline site is because it is the beach right there. That whole beach area is covered by by these. So intent is to and while there should still be coverage outdoor. It's a question of reliability of the service at that point too. So particularly the summer months, you have a lot of extra traffic all over that island. You know, it's not just the residents who are affected. It's everyone who's passing through the area as well. So in closing on my remarks, we believe that the rooftops at 1538 St Charles and 1777 Shoreline Drive provide the best possible and least intrusive means to cover the significant gaps that we are expecting to see in coverage. And your planning staff and planning board have recognized that as well. With me today, five representatives from AT&T, from our engineering team, as well as our site acquisition team. So between us, we can answer any questions you might have. Well, what I'd like to do now is invite up to the podium Mr. Bill Hammett. He's an independent third party professional engineer from the firm of Hammett Anderson to discuss radio frequency emissions. Since this has been a major topic of interest in turning our existing license. Good evening, Mayor Spencer. Council members. My name is Bill Hammett. I'm a registered professional engineer in the state of California. I manage a firm of 20, relocated up in Sonoma, and a regular part of our practice is the calculation or the measurement of radio frequency exposure conditions. We do this work for for AT&T, for AT&T competitors, for cities, for landlords. As engineers, our job is really straightforward. What are the exposure levels, either by measurement or by calculation? How do they compare to the standards? In this case, we've done that analysis. My reports are a matter of record for these two applications, and I can state with assurance that these facilities will meet the federal safety standards. That's the threshold condition, as you've heard earlier, to take that issue off the table. I did want to make one comment about the siting of these on apartment houses. The carriers have to site their facilities within the area that they're trying to serve. They can't go outside and leap into a place. They have to be in an area where they serve in San Francisco. San Francisco, as an example. They're on apartment houses all over. And so they have a rule that anybody who lives within 25 feet has to be offered measurements. So we were in and out of apartments quite a bit in San Francisco, and I put the meter together, I hand it to the resident, let them go wherever they want, and they're always surprised at how low the levels actually are, even if they're directly below. This is a high roof, but even directly below the facilities, as some people would be in this case, the levels are very low for a couple of reasons. One is that the antennas are not. They have a physical dimension. If they were a point source, like the microphone or like a light bulb, the energy would go equally out in all directions. But they're not there, oh, probably eight or ten inches wide, which allows them to put them in groups focused in one general direction. And this proposal, if you've seen it inside, they have antennas in three different directions to serve all the way around. It's more efficient just to reuse those frequencies. But what's interesting is the antennas stand four feet tall and that allows the energy to be focused down and pushed out toward the horizon is a thousand times less energy that goes down and goes out. So that's why directly underneath the facilities, the levels are very low. The other factor is that the energy doesn't like to go through something you can't see through. And if you'd like in a moment or two, I can show you what the whole spectrum looks like the electromagnetic spectrum, all the different frequencies and their positions. But what that means is that there's a thousand times less going down and what little goes down can't get through the roof. So the service provided is actually bounced off other buildings, comes back in through the windows. And that's a very easy thing to demonstrate. And as I always like to do that for the people in the in the apartments is in great assurance that indeed it's really not an issue for them. The spectrum that I mentioned goes from 60 hertz. That's power line frequencies. So coming out of the plug over here, plus, minus, plus, minus plus, -60 times a second, that's 60 hertz is extremely low frequency. And that's where the power lines run on a wavelength. There is 5000 kilometers here in New York, very low frequency. Above that, there's a big chunk of frequencies that are called radio frequencies used for radio and TV and taxicab paging and police and fire aeronautical frequencies is packed with different users in in that band above radio frequencies is infrared that we use to control our TV's or I have one in my shower I stand under it when I get out above that is a tiny sliver of the spectrum we call it light is our eyes are sensitive to it. This is all one big continuous electromagnetic spectrum. Above light is ultraviolet. And what is ultraviolet do? If your sunburn. The waves are so short, they can get into a molecule and break off an electron. That's called ionization. Above above ultraviolet is x rays. When you go to the dentist and get an x ray, what do they do? They put LED shield on you. And where does the operator stand when the times cut and they stand behind another shield? Because these are acknowledged as ionizing frequencies. They're the wavelength is so short, will get in and break off electronic causes. There's a little bit of damage over time. But what AT&T is doing is not x rays, it's not ultraviolet, it's not light, it's not infrared. It's down in this big chunk in the middle called radio frequencies. So there's nothing inherently dangerous about radio frequencies. They don't cause ionization. It's just a question of magnitude. And in this case, the magnitudes are tiny as a result. So I wanted to share those two concepts with you. I'm happy to talk about any aspect of the science or the standards that might be of interest to you. But I thought those are would be useful points to raise. Speaker 0: And so comments. All right. Thank you very. Thank you. And I'm going to go ahead and call our speakers. And you each get 3 minutes. Jessica Reed breaks a bond. Sarah Cruz. Oh, yes. And on the slip. It's on in Charlotte. Are there any other students? Speaker 1: And. Speaker 0: Yeah, so. Thank you. Speaker 1: Hi, I'm Anita Hughes. And I just want to say that evil didn't move down the list because because that they wanted really good cell phone reception, but they wanted to move down there because they have because it's a safe environment for the for the families. And also, I think that cell towers look really ugly on top of buildings, because if they're just hiding them, I don't think it's really good for other people because people might not know about the cell towers. And if they move into somewhere that they don't know the cell towers and they can get affected by it. And that's just all I want to say. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. On the slip. It also has Charlotte. Speaker 6: Um, she's not here. Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Jessica Reed. Speaker 6: Honorable Member and council, honorable mayor and council members. My name is Jessica Reed and I am a resident of Alameda and have two sons. One currently attends violin school and another who will do so in little over a year, and both of whom who participate in Little League at Riddler Park. And the title of my comments is Location, Location, Location. Thank you for considering the appeal of the installation of an AT&T cell antenna atop 1777 Shoreline Drive. This is not an FTC tower, as some have stated. This is a private commercial moneymaking enterprise. While the FCC says that we must assume emissions levels are safe and are not a basis for your decision, that's that's it. This is a private development over which you can determine its appropriateness to the location. Please note that I am not against cell antennas or cell phones. I'm against bad locations for cell antennas. Please also note that any reference to the need for the antenna for emergency services, calls or safety is a red herring. All cell phone carriers are obligated to transmit emergency calls regardless of the caller specific carrier. For them. This is about keeping customers and making more money, not about anything else. And no, I don't believe that is unwarranted criticism. Cynicism. Director Thomas has questioned how can he deny the antenna when he has approved others that he showed examples of? I again say not all locations are the same. A cell antenna in the business areas of the city is still ugly, but it is different than one in the direct line of sight from a very popular and well used park. Even one building over is different and less visible from the park and less disruptive of the skyline from that park. This will double the size of that elevator shaft, double it in width and in height. To my knowledge, they have not provided renderings from the park, and I think this is because they know what it will look like and it won't be good. While they have added alternatives since the Planning Board decision, most of these alternatives are not meaningful. They know the schools are not options and they use those. And nor is the beach. And now they have added three alternatives that would not fulfill their needs because they either already have antennas there or it is at the end of their stated service gap. I ask you to question the statement excuse me that the antenna cannot be co-located even one building over on 1801 shoreline. I have heard various conflicting reasons. AT&T said that it can't be there because there is no room for the ground equipment, and now it's because the property owner doesn't want it there. It just. It's just not clear to me. AT&T was told that they needed to come here tonight and tell you why none of the other buildings further south worked, including ones like Kitty Hawk and Franciscan Way. They haven't done that. Alameda Municipal Code states that the provisions of the zoning plan shall be held to the minimum are the minimum requirements for the promotion and protection of public safety, health and general welfare. This means that you can go beyond what the Planning Department decided. You can decide that our enjoyment of our open spaces and skylines is part of what adds to our general welfare. You have the authority and discretion to say that based upon the testimony, your own investigation, and upon weighing all the evidence. This is a bad location for the residents of Alameda and other visitors to Riddler Park. Please consider the wishes of the community and use your authority to say that this is a bad location. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Craig's on. And then Sarah Cruz. And Kerry. Sure. Oh. All right. There are crews. And then carry share it. And then Lester Cabral. Speaker 6: You mean Mayor Spencer and council members? Speaker 4: Okay, that. Thank you. Speaker 6: Thank you. Thank you for hearing us tonight. And thank you for postponing your decision until you can get more input. We appreciate we appreciate that. Just a brief history of our experience with AT&T and cell phone towers. I work at myelin. Many of our families here are from myelin. When we found out that AT&T had a cell phone phone tower on myelin, we were concerned. We did some fact finding. Even my students did inquiry because of their concerns. I figured this was a good teachable opportunity to teach navigating technology and inquiry based learning. And the concerns grew not just from our students, but from our parents. We met months and months and months with the school board meeting over a year. It started about a year and a half ago and together we worked with the school board to create this plan. And so I'm I'm asking you that you honor this man that we worked so hard to create based on the concerns of our neighborhood citizens. I question the trustworthiness of AT&T because of our experience with them. They tried saying that our school district was legally binded to them in a contract for 20 to 25 years, when legally the contract could last five years and it was expired. So we had legal precedent to end that contract. I'm concerned about their maps. They seem pretty drastic about a gap in coverage. I wonder if there could be maybe a map from a neutral party to present some fact finding information to you about a gap in coverage. And I could be wrong, but my understanding is that legally they have to prove that this will be a gap in coverage first. But I could be wrong about that. Again, like Jessica said, legally, it's not an issue of public safety. If people need to make a911 call than any other company can put that 911 call through. So all in all, I'm asking you to just respect and honor our students feelings and concerns. I'm not asking you to deny AT&T s proposal, but deny their proposal for 1777 shoreline. It's really a slap in the face to if you're moving it right around the corner from where you're supposed to be taking it off. I feel like that's disrespectful and insulting. The fact that the alternative site analysis was on U.S. schools, too, it's just really disrespectful to me. So I encourage you to encourage them to find someplace further away from schools. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 1: Good evening. My name is. Speaker 6: Elizabeth Kerry, shared by Kerry. Good evening, Mayor Spencer and council members. I don't have too much to add to what Jessica Reed and Sarah Cruz had to say, but I do want to just be here because I currently can. I'm not restricted in my speech by federal, state or local law in being here to say I'm opposed to the proposed installation at 1777 Shoreline. I do appreciate the planning board directors reminders on the restrictions that we have on our speech regarding these types of installations and issues. And I do want to say I appreciate all of the detail that he went into regarding all of the efforts that the planning board has gone through so far in what is something that they do all the time. But just because we do something all the time doesn't mean that it's a good idea. I agree with Jessica in saying location. The location for this is wrong. I agree with Sarah in saying that it's disrespectful to say, Oh, I can't have it in your yard. Well, how about over here? I'll stand right here. It's a not a reasonable way to engage the community. I understand that Awasthi is part of the county and part of the state, not part of the city governance. If the city departments can all work together, please do take into consideration what Awasthi and the county have also come to a conclusion about after input from the community in which we all exist. So I thank you for your time. Speaker 0: You. Lester Carroll. And then Andy Barr leaving. And then Dennis Wong. Speaker 2: Good evening, Mayor. Council Members. Lester Cabral, resident of Alameda, 1538 St Charles. I own the property to the side and to the rear of that particular 80 year old apartment building. Now, there are residents in that building there and I assume some of them there. It has been in the past anyway. Are you through the Housing Authority or section eight program of some type? They live on the third floor up there. Now, T-Mobile has already put in a unit up there. Of course, they didn't notify anybody. They said we don't have to. I guess so. Well, I never heard anything anyway. And on the back side of the building, if you want, if you look at the back side, you'll notice that there's a big chute that runs down the side of the building. And I assume that's the encasement for all the electrical wires. They're running down the building into the basement. Now. I believe we have a real safety issue here. You know, there's an old structure there. You know, there are people that are living there. You know, I know the. Speaker 8: FCC says, hey, trust. Speaker 2: Me, you know, we're going to do a good job here for you. Yeah, right. At the same time saying, look. Speaker 8: We're only going to shoot radio frequency signals. Speaker 2: Well, maybe today, but maybe next week, they may say, hey, now we have to use this type of signal in order to get an even broader base out there. I think we need to have some conditions put here, mainly on the property owner. You're not going to tell AT&T what to do. You know, they're going to do what they're going to do. But the property owner, I believe, you know, he has a business license here in EL. I mean, he just like I do, I rent apartments. He rents apartments. And, you know, I mean, I can't put a a Hoosier in on top of one of my buildings there. Speaker 8: Why should he be able to put a. Speaker 2: You know, a this type of antenna set up on his. You know, I think I think he has a limit and. And a liability to what should be going on there. We shouldn't just allow these guys to pop all around and say, hey, look, you know, we'll give you so many dollars and let us put this up on your roof. No, we need to control it. And the way I see it is through the business license saying, hey, you know, if you rent out apartments in their apartments, they're not for this other use. Anyway, I'm against this. Speaker 8: Hopefully we can. Speaker 2: Come up with something here. It'll benefit everybody. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. And about 11. And then Dennis Wong. Speaker 6: Good evening again. I'm now just speaking on my own behalf and Bartoli Bien. I'm a resident here in Alameda, and I actually attended many, many, many, many of the meetings that went on with our school board related to this same topic. And along the way, I learned a few things and and I didn't speak up at the time because I I've always sort of felt that, you know, when parents are involved with their children, there's a certain level of of. I don't know if respects or sensitivity that I wanted to propose, but I think for one thing that I happened to learn along the way is what many folks don't understand is that the the activity that we have in our own home, our own homes right now, actually exceeds many of what we're at least this is what I've heard. I'm not an expert on. The wireless systems we have in our home is giving off the same thing. And you're much closer and much stronger. One letter that I read that was written by a resident that is an engineer then I thought was fascinating. So that's one way of looking at this, is these antennas have been up for at least the last past ten years. Plus the level of use of of cell phones has increased dramatically in that time and also the type of use with more of the streaming and whatnot. So not only do we have more actual cell phones out there, but the use of them has increased that much of the concern here is related to cancer. And they that if you go back throughout anywhere, there's there's no correlation of an increased rate of cancer. And I know we want to be careful, but there's also a point of wanting to look at the facts. I think the gentleman that spoke previously that is an expert and talked about these things that, again, I try to understand, made it pretty clear that that it really is quite a limited level. Now, should there be a way to find a better place on Shoreline then? I certainly would support that. But I also have noticed a very large change in lifestyle, said many people don't have home phones anymore, they just have their cell phones and that's what they use for their day to day life, day in and day out . So by eliminating an entire area for a specific carrier, you're then putting our local residents in a situation that would be quite difficult. They may not be able to use their phones at all. They may or may not be able to make a change. It may be a costly change to them. So I'll put myself out on the limb and say if there is no other solution with the homework being done that I would support the presentation made. Thank you. Speaker 0: You Dennis Wong. Then that's the last speakership I have on this item. Speaker 2: Good evening, Mayor Council. I actually came here to you to just visit. I'm from out of state. I'm a proud alumni of what? School and also a proud wildcat. The young lady you spoke earlier kind of inspired me as well as AT&T. And I just have a number of questions that I think may be helpful for counsel and for also the citizens. One is there was a comment about discretion. Mr. Thomas made a comment that there is a little bit of discretion. Where where is that discretion? And and again, I I'm I'm coming into this kind of dry, but I don't know if your city attorney actually reserves the federal and also state guidelines to see if you actually have some discretion. I would think that if 18 to G tells you that you need a certain area, you're not required. To go ahead and ratify a specific location. There must be some type of a arrange. And I don't understand why we're spending so much time talking about this if indeed you have no discretion. And I don't understand why they would have a consultant from Sonoma at 830 in the evening and three or four other employees here, if you had no discretion. And I have I also don't understand why. We'll see. Will, what school and the other school would pull their lease and possibly subject themselves to litigation if you had no discretion and there was not a safety issue and I was in Ms.. Ramsey's, I think it was rooms three, three, 16, math, and I can't imagine a parent sending a child to Room 316. It was we'll see what school with a tower right above there. And again, given the number and the volume of cell phone use, and it's going to be increasingly in that magnitude. So what I would suggest is that counsel and the city attorney actually look to see where you have discretion. And I would try to draft actually legislation to kind of put an end to this and say, hey, look, similar to to 90 registrations for sexual offenders, not near children or schools or high density areas, something like that. And find out exactly what that parameter is that allows you to maybe put it in a in a more palatable place. So thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. He was our last speaker on this issue. Council members. I'm ready. Speaker 5: Madam Mayor, I just want to quickly begin by saying, you know, I. I called for review the matter of the 1777 Shoreline Drive item. Not for any particular reason, but because, you know, a member of the rest of the community misread, I believe it was asked for it to be reviewed so that we can get more information and to give them an opportunity. So and also, you know, I think it it saved like $300 or so. So I'm glad that we're having this discussion tonight and the incredible amount of information that we had to go through as part of the reviewing the planning board's analysis. The package alone, I don't know if you saw is like 350 pages. There's more pages on on this thing than what we're dealing with on site. Tonight, it was incredibly large and it's so complex in terms of the science, federal laws and the and the limited space that local governments have on matters like this. And. You know, it's a process has been put in place by the federal government and and the information was put through. And, you know, I think this is a good discussion that we're having tonight. Want to leave it at that for now. Speaker 0: Any other member. Member Ashcraft. Speaker 4: Thank you. Mary Spencer and I also communicated by email with the residents and the teacher, Ms.. Cruz, who communicated with me. And I also arranged the meeting with Joseph Camacho, who is the director of constituent services for our congresswoman Barbara Lee, in her Oakland district office. And he came last week to our library and met with Mr. Thomas and AT&T staff and some of the concerned residents. And I do appreciate everyone's concerns, but I also appreciate the law and the law that applies and the difference just to distinguish for them, for the gentleman, the word school is with regard to, say, sex offenders and not being able to locate near a school or a playground. That's state law. But when we're talking about the Federal Communications Commissions, that's federal, which is another reason that I set up the the meeting with the gentleman from the congresswoman's office, because that deals with federal law. And if laws are to be changed in this type of law, it's going to come from the federal government. But what we're doing is we're considering the appeal of a design review approval from the planning board. And I do not see the criteria from anything we've heard tonight to to overturn what the planning board, I think, very thoroughly considered and also did have their own conditions, which were sound like very reasonable ones. I was told that and I was out of town last week when this meeting occurred, so I didn't get to attend. But I understand from speaking to Mr. Thomas, who was there, that AT&T was to consider a possible alternative location on Shoreline Drive if if both the the site looked feasible in terms of filling that, addressing the coverage gap and also if you had a willing landlord, because those are the criteria that have to be met. And I, I understand that no attempt or no an attempt was made, but the building owner wasn't reached. But yes, I think the mayor would allow. Speaker 0: You to begin the mike. I'm sorry. Speaker 4: She's asking you. Speaker 8: Thank you. Out of the meeting that we had last Thursday, we Verizon's question came up about this is Reed brought up a question of a an apartment complex on Kitty Hawk, about 700 feet to the east of of our proposed site. We've done some evaluation of that site. We were not able to connect with the landlord. So that was one aspect we weren't able to connect with. However, on the analysis, we found that that site would provide 16% less coverage. So a gap of residents who would not be able to get service if we were to locate on that particular site. The other issue that we found and I made quickly in my remarks about the the lack of of space for ground equipment, which could take up, as I mentioned, about three or even four parking spaces. That particular site is very constrained. Just about every inch outside of their their buildings and their inner courtyard is taken up with parking spaces right at the edge of the property. So that's why we with that one. Speaker 4: All right. Well, thank you for that clarification. Okay. So I think we take that one off the table. It doesn't sound feasible. But I also want to go back to what Mr. Thomas mentioned in the beginning, or I guess it's in one of his slides that the. The city is also recommending or staff is recommending for all carriers who wish to locate a cell phone equipment. Sites in our city, that is our city wide site of preferred locations be established because some will surely be less controversial than others and establish standard design and disclosure conditions for wireless facilities. Develop an expedited administrative approval procedure for while wireless facilities on preferred sites, you know, once they've been located. And then I was struck by something that came out of the meeting with Congresswoman Lee's staff. Was that and it was it was reiterated here today from, I think, the teacher, Miss Cruz, and misread that they felt that it was an affront that here they had worked so hard in this committee with the school district to get these antennae off of school roofs, and then they turn around and find it just on an adjacent property. Apparently, there's been a change in the personnel who are working on this issue when it came before the school board, as I understand. But I do think we could use better communication between our school board, among, I will say, for the English teachers in the room among the city, AT&T and the school board. So we should I mean, I would assume that we know where the schools are, but, you know, maybe some other sites where children go, parks or whatever. But it should be in all this city we could in the future, you know, find some some sites that could have some mutual agreement on them. So I know we have a standing committee, right. And a representative of the council. Speaker 0: Seated of. Speaker 1: This council. Speaker 4: Okay. Well, at some point, we when we do, I think this is just an issue that could be an issue for discussion at some point. So that said, I appreciate everyone's input. I think we learn every time we have public input like this. I cannot find a reason to overturn the planning board decision. Thank you, Mayor. Speaker 0: Q Any other member already? Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'll try to be brief. So in the staff report, there was kind of an explanation about the difference between the city in our regulatory role and the school board as a landlord. So that the decision that the school board made was not a regulatory decision. It was a decision they made as a landlord and as a property owner. And my understanding is, if there was an application to put a similar tower on city property, that we'd have similar discretion as a landlord and a property owners would do that as well. So I concur with both Councilmember De Saag and thank him and the mayor for bringing this to the council, because I understand there's been a lot of discussion going on. And I think it's important that those that who were opposed to this had an opportunity to have a public hearing. And I think they appreciate not having to, you know, put up the $300 each. So I thank them for that. And I also want to pretty much echo what my my colleague, Councilmember Ashcroft, said. You know, we look at the design review findings and, you know, one, the proposed design is consistent with the general plan zoning ordinance and our design review manual. And I haven't seen anything in the presentation to show me otherwise. You know, two of the project is compatible and harmonious with the design and use of the surrounding area. You know, one of them is an apartment complex, apartment building in a complex that has these type of of boxes on it, you know, one for the elevator, another building for another tower. And then the St Charles one, you know, there's already a similar structure or box enclosure for antenna, you know, I mean, we could debate whether it should be inside an enclosure or outside. But, you know, I'm not quite sure. You know, I guess it's, you know, whether you think one is more attractive or one is more appealing. And, you know, personally, you know, I don't really want to see a cell tower. I think looking at them is kind of unappealing and I'd rather have them hidden, but that's kind of my thought. And then the third one, the proposed design of the structure and exterior materials are visually compatible with the surrounding development and design elements have been incorporated to ensure the compatibility that goes on and on. And, you know, the fact that it's, you know, it's concealed and it kind of looks like the building, you know, I don't see anything that I've heard today that would make me want to overturn the planning board's decision. Speaker 0: Everyday stuff. Speaker 5: Oh, actually, I think I. Speaker 0: Council member. Vice Mayor. Speaker 2: Yes. I think the most valuable thing we can do out of that of this discussion is exactly what the planning director suggested is to take a strategic look at where. There would be acceptable locations for cell towers because it is a fact of life. And until we all give up our cell phones, regardless of who are carrier is. We can't complain about cell phone towers and cell phone coverage and drop calls at the at the same time or even participate in carrying this little radio device with us. And I agree with council member Otis assessment, having been on the planning board or sitting in a judicial or regulatory role right now and. I don't see the criteria for overturning the Planning Board's decision based on the three conditions that are laid out. And that is because this is a very narrow topic that we're deliberating on tonight. We have to meet those conditions and it is a permit taken by private individuals within the law, regardless of what happened outside, if they followed the law and met the city's criteria. Oh. We don't have discretion, I believe, to deny. Speaker 0: Member data. Speaker 5: Madam Mayor. In terms of my opinion on either of the towers, I think, you know, reading the materials, the 350 pages or so of materials, you know, the thing that crosses my mind is simply that the 1777 Shoreline Drive does not has not prepared a complete application, as a staff report says. The FCC mandates that wireless facility providers conduct radiofrequency electromagnetic RF modeling for each site to ensure compliance with FCC exposure limits. That's in our Starfleet F report. The Planning Board Materials does not have an RF study for 1777 Shoreline Drive. Speaker 1: Um, three. Andrew Do you want to respond to that? Or maybe somebody from AT&T? Speaker 2: It's not. Speaker 8: I'm unclear about what was in your packet, but it was submitted to the city. Speaker 5: Not in the planning work on the website. Speaker 8: He. Was submitted to the city. I don't know why it wasn't in your packet. Speaker 0: And someone look at the package. Speaker 5: What is on the pub or what is on the website is you could be is an RC study or 1801 Shoreline Drive. There is not another study or 1777 shoreline. Speaker 8: I'm not arguing with you. I know we received it. Why? It's not on the website. I don't. Speaker 5: Know. It's not a complete application. Speaker 1: Well, I think there's a difference between a complete application and what was on the agenda. So I think what we're hearing is that it was a complete application, but that it may not have made it into the packet. Speaker 5: Not on what matters. Speaker 8: The the material was submitted to the city of Alameda. What I don't know is what actually went in your packet or what was what is currently posted on the website? I'm not. Speaker 4: And Mr. Thomas, you're saying that that that study was done for 1777, not just eight, you know, one for. Speaker 8: Both. Speaker 4: Of us. Speaker 0: Right. So I'd like to ask, does one of the speakers referred to, does the provider have to prove that there is a gap in coverage in order to add an antenna? They have to prove a gap in coverage. And can we require that that be and if so, can we require that be an independent analysis? Speaker 8: We could, we could hire a third party to evaluate that, I presume? Yes. Speaker 0: Is it something, though, that they have that has to be approved by the cellphone provider in order to have an antenna? No, they're a step. Speaker 8: I believe that we could question a gap analysis and hire a third party to analyze that analysis. In this case, we did not passionate nor hire the third party to evaluate it. Speaker 1: But it was provided. Speaker 8: Oh, it was provided absolutely. Speaker 0: By the. Speaker 5: By. Speaker 0: A third party, though an independent analysis in the city require that the provider provide an independent analysis. Speaker 8: We certainly. Speaker 0: Would in the future require. Speaker 8: The issue. I mean, for future applications, if if we want a if the council says, look, in the future, we want to have the. A third party verify, basically go through and verify each submittal because they are technical. That's certainly something we could do. Speaker 0: It we do as part of either approving either of these applications. Speaker 8: The issue that I'm seeing is just a one of timing. I mean, you can't if you approve it. I guess I guess what I'm trying to get my brain around is if you're saying you don't want to approve it because you want to do the third party analysis, I think what we're going to run into is a time problem both with the shot clock and 13, 1538. But more importantly, I'm thinking about the September deadline because we would have to delay the approval. Then you let's assume that the analysis comes back and verifies the gap. Then we approve it. They need to get the thing up and constructed. They have to submit for building permits. We have to issue the building permits, have to build the thing. And that all has to happen before September. Speaker 0: And that's on the shoreline property. It's a cause that votes on both, but one of them has a longer date. Speaker 8: Yeah, that's I guess what there is on the shoreline property. You have a little bit more time. We all have a little bit more time under the federal regulation deadline. But the real deadline that's on our mind is not the federal regulation deadline, but. The deadline effectively to get these things approved and then built before the September shut down of the existing facilities. We're just concerned about the the the users of these cell phones who are going to lose service in September. I don't know the exact number. So that's what I'm concerned about. Speaker 0: What about requiring a business license to have these antennas because they are making money off of them? Yeah, the. Speaker 8: I'm sorry. Speaker 0: I'm thinking it. I'm thinking maybe it would qualify as a business out of someone's home. It's actually a significant amount of money or off their property. I think it is a it's an interesting. Speaker 1: Well, the interesting it's an interesting business license. The apartment complexes already have a business license. Speaker 8: They have business license. Here's the issue. Federal regulations don't allow us to adopt land use regulations that effectively prevent. The providers from covering the gaps. So let's say we you know, city planner Andrew recommends we say no antennas in residential neighborhoods. Well, if the providers can show. Speaker 0: Right. But that's what I'm asking. I'm asking, can the city charge a fee as as a business license to have a cell phone antenna. Speaker 8: And just. Speaker 0: A no fee. A fee as a business license if you're going to have a cell phone antenna on your private building, because, I mean, they are making money. That's like another third. Speaker 8: Or another unit. Speaker 0: It's actually a significant amount of money. Speaker 6: I don't believe that it's in our current business license tax list of fees. We could certainly look at that and potentially amend bring forward an amendment to do that. But at this point in time, I don't believe it's in there. Speaker 0: Okay. So I understand. So can you tell me how much the property owner what's the monthly amount of money being paid to the property owners on these properties as part of this arrangement? Speaker 4: So I, I just is are we getting I'm just concerned a little bit about the Brown Act and Sunshine and all this good things because I believe it's the design review and those specific criteria that Mr. Thomas listed about the appearance. And so I think, you know, you're raising some valid points, Mary Spencer, but I'm wondering whether that needs to come back to us for, for instance, for consideration of amending our business tax license. But I do think we're getting far afield of the matter before us. Speaker 0: I'm sorry. Sorry. It's not appropriate for you to speak at this time because we already had our public comments. However, I would think that so. So I appreciate that. And I'm not sure if I. That's what I would like to know. If it's something we could do. Speaker 1: We can come back and look at that. Speaker 4: You want staff to do that? Speaker 0: Okay. Another issue that was raised is this. On the St Charles building, there's safety with the existing electronic electrical wires and the impact of having adding this antenna to an old building. Does city staff investigate and ensure that it would not interfere with the existing old wires or old building? Speaker 8: Of these. I'm sorry I keep interrupting you that all these facilities go through the building permit, electrical permit process. Speaker 0: So, yes. So as part of the process of adding the antenna, does that get inspected if it impacts the wires? Speaker 8: Yes, it does. It requires an electrical. Speaker 0: Permit for someone goes up there and sees how it impacted. Okay. Any other questions, comments, and we have two separate resolutions. So we for motion if your if someone wants to move to accept these if we get up two separate motions, one for resolution. Speaker 4: We should do two should. Okay. Speaker 0: So I will. Speaker 4: Start with Charlotte, with Saint Charles. I will move a resolution upholding the Planning Board Resolution PB 15.03 Approving Design Review Application to install telecommunications facilities at 1538 St Charles Street. Speaker 5: Madam Chair, I will second the motion because that application is complete. Speaker 0: All right. Any comments, questions on that one? All those in favor. I. I oppose abstention motion passed unanimously on the St Charles. Second one. Do you have a motion? Speaker 2: I'll make a motion to uphold the Planning Board's decision on 1777 Shoreline Drive. And as part of that motion to have staff come back to us with an analysis of. Preferred cell phone, location sites and other criteria based on the community input and the input that was put forward by the council and the mayor tonight on how we manage that inventory of acceptable locations. Speaker 0: All right. Speaker 3: So I'll second that one. Speaker 0: Or any discussion on that one. Speaker 5: My quick comment is that application is not complete because it lacks a 17 RS report for 1777 Shoreline Drive. There was an RF report for 1801 Shoreline Drive if you bother to read the 350 page report. But that is not the topic at hand. Speaker 0: And I have a question in regards to the motion. I'd prefer I prefer if we separated out the things we're going to be directing staff to do separate from approve the resolution. So that the results of the motion in regards to approving the resolution speaks to this property and that the additional things be separate. Correction. Speaker 6: Are you making a substitute motion? Yes, Madam Mayor. Speaker 4: And this is a major one. Speaker 2: Too long as the wording doesn't change. I'm right. Speaker 0: I think it makes it clearer. And then we can have two separate votes and address. Speaker 2: Sounds good. Speaker 4: All right. So are you making an amended motion? Speaker 2: Yes. I'll amend the motion to split the motion into upholding the planning board decision as one motion. And then I'll wait for the second most. Speaker 0: All right, I'll. Speaker 3: Still second that. Speaker 0: All right. And discussion. And on that one member day. So I could have made some comments in regards to the RF. Model. Your call report. All right, all those in favor. Speaker 2: I, I. Speaker 5: Oppose. Speaker 0: I oppose motion passes. 3 to 2. And then the. Speaker 2: Third motion motion to, as I stated before, to direct staff to come back to us with an inventory of acceptable and preferred cell phone location sites with consideration of the input from the members of the community and the input given at this Council tonight. Speaker 0: As their second. Speaker 3: I'll second that one. Speaker 0: All those in favor. I know that motion carries unanimously. Thank you. Speaker 2: The backstory her. Speaker 0: All right. Next agenda item is very. Speaker 4: We moved a. Speaker 2: 66.

Regular Agenda Item

Public Hearing to Consider an Application for Design Review Approval for a New Enclosure on the Rooftop of an Apartment Building to House 12 New Panel Antennae and Other Associated Equipment for an AT&T Wireless Telecommunication Facility. The project is located within an R-3-PD (Garden Residential Planned Development) zoning district. PLN14-0731 - 1777 Shoreline Drive; and Public Hearing to Consider an Application for Design Review Approval for a New Enclosure on the Rooftop of an Apartment Building to House Nine New Panel Antennae and Other Associated Equipment for an AT&T Wireless Telecommunication Facility. The proposed facility will be collocated with an existing T-Mobile facility. The project is located within an R-4 (Neighborhood Residential) zoning district. PLN14-0729 - 1538 Saint Charles Street. (Community Development 481001)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_05192015_2015-1613

Speaker 2: 66. Speaker 1: E public hearing to consider introduction of ordinance revising the city's sewer service charge. Speaker 0: Okay. Six E. Speaker 6: Yo. Speaker 0: And this is the staff's report. Speaker 1: Good evening, Madam Mayor, Honorable Vice Mayor and members of City Council. My name is Aaron Smith from the Public Works Department. Tonight is a public hearing for a proposed sewer service charge increase of 3% annually for the next five years. I'd like to start with a little bit of history before getting into the specifics of tonight's hearing. Back in February of this year, Council adopted a resolution stating city's intent to revise the sewer service charge based on a report conducted by Bartle and Wells Associates. That rate study is an exhibit to the agenda item tonight. Please note that since February the report has been updated based on council feedback. The figure for which compares sewer service charges across the East Bay collection system agencies was updated to now more appropriately compare the proposed Alameda rates to the current city of Piedmont rate for parcel sized 5000 square feet or less. Otherwise, no other changes have been made to the report since February. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 1: The sewer rate study was tasked with evaluating the sewer program's funding needs and revenue sources in light of the federal consent decree that we will operate under for the next 22 years. Based on the evaluation, the report recommends a drawing down the sewer fund reserves, which are currently higher than recommended levels and a phasing in of a 3% annual increase over over the next five years. This approach allows the city to maintain the recommended reserve levels, meet expenditure needs and avoid any steep rate increases for the duration of the consent decree. Procedures for amending the sewer service charged are contained in specific provisions of the California Constitution, more commonly spoke of as Proposition 218. So following Council's resolution in February, city staff mailed out a notice to property owners informing them of the proposed rate increase tonight's public hearing and protest procedures. That notice is also an exhibit to your agenda item this evening. 9 million protests have been received by the city clerk in advance of the hearing tonight. No written protests have been received this evening. State law requires council to hear and consider all public comments received this evening, but that only written protests are considered in determining a majority protest. Without a majority protest, a majority vote by council tonight can approve the proposed rate increases. The staff report before you tonight contains a typographical errors, saying that a 4/5 vote by council is required. That's not the case. Following tonight's. Speaker 4: Speakers visit. Speaker 1: Simple majority. A simple majority. Thank you. Yes. Following tonight's speakers, I will return to the podium to state on record whether the majority protest was received, thereby closing the public hearing. I am available for questions now and following any of our speakers this evening. Speaker 0: Thank you. We have one. Speaker 1: Speaker. Speaker 0: Ra Alvarado. Speaker 3: I lied. Speaker 1: Ami the highlight of our meeting. Speaker 4: We thought we'd let you go home earlier. Speaker 7: God bless you. You don't know how happy I was when Mr. Otis suggested the move of the agenda item. Rob Righto. Park Street Business Association. You probably didn't think I was going to show up on this one tonight. Speaker 2: And this is not so. Speaker 7: Much a protest to the rate increase outlined in this. Speaker 2: Publication sent out. Speaker 7: What I'm here this evening is to convey a concern of many of my members and many property owners in the downtown area. And that concern is. The flow rates that are being provided to the city of Alameda by East Bay mud. Many of my members believe. Speaker 2: That the data. Speaker 7: That the city of Alameda is receiving is inaccurate. I have one member's for four years of. Speaker 2: Property taxes here. It's a business who the owner believes that. Speaker 7: Their water usage has been. Speaker 2: Fairly consistent. Speaker 7: Over those four. Speaker 2: Years and their sewer service was 3120. 840 770 300. More than double in four years. And this business. Speaker 7: Owner assures me that their water flow has not doubled in those four years. And they're very concerned about that. As I said, I'm not here. Speaker 2: To protest. Speaker 7: The rate increases. But what I am here this evening to do is to ask the council. To instruct your overworked staff. I'm sorry. Speaker 2: To check into the. Speaker 7: Methodology of how this water flow from East Bay mud is being conveyed to the city of Alameda. Speaker 2: It's a very it's obviously a big concern. And as you can well imagine, when you're a business or property owner paying, you know, these kind of fees when they just there just doesn't seem to be. Speaker 7: Any rhyme or reason. Speaker 2: And the property owners and business owners would like some sort of documentation because they're not receiving any now of how the flow rates are being assessed. And is the methodology and is the way that they're determined, you know, in incorrect. Speaker 7: One other item they wanted me to point out this evening, rightly so. Speaker 2: Again, back to this publication. Speaker 7: The property owners and business owners that I represent would have appreciated a chart that showed what the commercial rates. In various city. What was ah, excuse me. What they are. Speaker 2: As opposed to. Speaker 7: Just the residential rates. Speaker 2: It's a minor point, but. Speaker 7: Frankly we had the same problem with the garbage rates. Also, there was an emphasis on residential and not on commercial. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. He was our final speaker on that item first. Speaker 1: So in conclusion, nine written protests have been received. Therefore, a majority protest has not been received. So again, I'm available for questions. If not, we can. Speaker 0: Move over Ashcroft. Speaker 4: Thank you, Mary Spencer. So, Miss Smith, nice job on your report and presentation, as always. Can you tell us. Is. I think when we talked about comparing commercial rates across other cities, the response was that that's difficult to do because the types of businesses vary so much. Is that do you know if that's all businesses? Speaker 1: I don't know if it's necessarily types of businesses. We do volumetric is volumetric rates for our commercial accounts. Speaker 4: Explain what that is for. Speaker 1: So our residential rates are based. It's essentially a flat rate that's based upon an assumed water use. Residential is tend to be more homogenous in terms of their water use. So to avoid the administrative burden of monthly water usage rate and assessment of sewer fees, it's a very common practice among municipalities to do a flat rate for residential that's on an assumed amount of water usage. Commercial, on the other hand, is volumetric. So there's a flat charge for having the sewer service charge. And then for each 730 cubic feet above and beyond that, there's an additional charge. So we could compare. Land use type two, land use type to get a sense it would be very average, certainly not impossible to do. Speaker 4: Thank you. Speaker 0: I. Speaker 4: And I was just going to add that. Yeah. Wrong one. Sorry. And the reason and just so the public I know we've all read our materials, which is the public understands why is it that our rates are going up? What are we what are we going to do with those increased rates? Speaker 1: Sure. So we entered into a federal consent decree this September 2014 that codifies the requirements for our sewer program. Some of those are operational in nature, so we will be cleaning our sewers more routinely condition assessing our our sewers more routinely doing what we would call spot repairs, emergency type service requests more routinely. We also are prescribed an annual replacement rate of our sewers. We have aged lots of clay sewers that require renewal. Will we be doing about three miles per year of replacement? That's a defined cost. We also have 34 pump stations that are on the island, including the base, which is a different funding source that need to be updated and renovated to current standards. Speaker 4: Thank you. Thank you. Speaker 0: And a question to comment. We have a motion. Speaker 2: To move introduction of the ordinance, revising the sewer service charges outlined in the report. Speaker 4: Second, we'll let Mr. Desai. Speaker 0: And Ken Staff follow up on the Speaker's comments. Well, thank you. All those in favor of. Speaker 1: High. Speaker 0: Emotion passes unanimously. Thank you. Now around 6060. Speaker 1: Recommendation toward a contract in the amount of 7.9 million, including contingencies to Alton construction for construction of the Emergency Operation Center and Fire Station three and appropriate anticipated loan proceeds from II bank an appropriate 23 A and B tax allocation unspent bond proceeds.

Regular Agenda Item

Public Hearing to Consider Introduction of Ordinance Revising the City’s Sewer Service Charges. (Public Works 602)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_05192015_2015-1604

Speaker 1: Recommendation toward a contract in the amount of 7.9 million, including contingencies to Alton construction for construction of the Emergency Operation Center and Fire Station three and appropriate anticipated loan proceeds from II bank an appropriate 23 A and B tax allocation unspent bond proceeds. Speaker 7: Good evening, Mayor. Members of the city council. My name is Bob Parnham, the public works director. You have before you now the approval of a construction contract for Fire Station three and the emergency operations center. I'm going to start off with just some basic background geography. We live in an island with somewhat fragile submarine infrastructure, water, sewer, natural gas, communications. All come on to the island underwater. The good news is, is Eastbay has agreed to replace their potable water crossings at the tubes and at the Bay Farm Bridge within five. And that's a significant progress. When I first started here in this position, they were talking 20 years and they've moved substantially. With those two pipes replaced, seismically reinforced, we should have sufficient pressure within the island to meet our needs. What are the risks the islands faces? In addition to earthquakes, tsunamis are the latest challenge that are we. We are actively preparing for with the assistance of the State Office of Emergency Services. Geology. Large areas of the islands are subject to liquefaction, as demonstrated during the Loma Prieta earthquake when we experienced sand boils at Alameda Point in an earthquake. Liquefaction will often cause differential settlement of a building leaning or tripping to one side, making the building unusable and scheduled for demolition. Risks. In addition to earthquakes and tsunamis, we also have concerns with potential flooding. A new flood maps will be before you in July for you to review. Terrorist incidents potentially related to the port cyber attacks that I just attended a seminar on last Friday. Civil unrest and ultimately sea level rise. Again, because of our geography and agile geology, we face additional risks compared to other communities within the Bay Area. The existing emergency operation center and fire station number three. The current EOC is too small to accommodate the 30 to 35 staff members that will be required. Right. Technical difficulties. We had this problem the other night. So there's a dedication plaque, a 1978, 1978. The existing emergency operation center in the basement of the police department was constructed. The current U.S. is too small to accommodate the 30 to 35 staff members that will be required to operate the EOC in the event of an emergency. It has limited capacities for additional communications equipment. Furthermore, the current EOC is used daily by the police and will not be available for the long. Speaker 1: Term. Speaker 0: Or the member already. Speaker 3: I'm sorry, Mr. Honea said. 30 to 35 staff. Can you explain who those 30 to 35 staff members are? Speaker 7: We'll get into that later on presentation. So the current EOC, that's the lineup room for the staff. FEMA requires 50 square foot for a staff member in an EOC or recommends a minimum of 50 square feet per staff. EOC and we can fit 16 staff members in the EOC in compliance with the FEMA recommendations. If you look at those tables, there are six tables, two chairs at each table for 12 people for the police department briefing. Again, the EOC is just not a point in time during the disaster. It is that's one of the primary reasons to respond to the disaster. But it's also going to be a recovery operation following any disaster. It reimbursement for FEMA to put the community back together. This will very much originate from the EOC. Furthermore, the current EOC is used daily by the police and so it's just not suitable for a long term use. As you can see, there's the basement of the police department, the hallway. This is the equipment storage room. So again, when we setting up the is the current EOC in the basement of the police department, we have to pull all the equipment down. The radios, as you can see there, all the stuff out of the things. We also have a storage container out in the parking lot that we have additional supplies in to pull the supplies out and set the room up. Probably takes a couple hours or so to an hour or so to hook up the room and get it working. There's some of the back again in the back area. The roof of the police station is maxed out as far as conduits going up to the roof and also additional capacity for satellite dishes up there on the old fire station. It's seismically unsafe. As you can see, the fire truck barely makes it into that single reinforced bank. That's a very tight. There's the house next door to the fire station. Fire Department is using the kitchen as a workstation area, too, so the kitchen serves both as the kitchen for the firefighters and as workstations for the firefighters. There's the old fire station, the rented house next door that we've rented for approximately 15 years. Proposed ELC. The first floor has breakout rooms or offices in conference rooms on the bottom floor, dedicated datacom room and ADA required elevator electrical rooms and showers for staff. The upstairs of the EOC can be reconfigured. We can have two separate ios's if we so desire. That wall during through the center is a movable wall. To break that down in the event of a large scale disaster, we can occupy the floor room. And the FEMA capacity in that room is 35. The Proposed Operations center and fire station or central structures, which by design will be able to survive a large earthquake on the Hayward fault. They are state of the art facilities that were provide redundant communication systems. And one of the things now, as with many things, the communication systems for iOS, these are migrating to the Internet. So out of the new EOC, we have four redundant systems, including a satellite transmission to Oakland and then two systems within the island, Comcast and our own system. A space for employees and food for disaster workers because the fire at the adjacent fire station has a kitchen. The proposed EOC is not a public safety building. I want to make that clear. It is a facility that will serve the vital needs of the citizens of Alameda in the event of an emergency. During a large scale disaster, the EOC will be fully staffed 24, seven or a week or more. There will be staff to some degree for this for many months after our initial response. The response will take weeks of recovery and with where the first response will take weeks and the recovery will take months or years. The EOC will be actively staffed until all three all recoveries have taken place and will and all every mutual aid has been demobilized. Ordination of a long term disaster in a central and dedicated location is a key to effectively managing, documenting, recovering from the impact of a disaster. These efforts in the event of an emergency need to be coordinated, and that is done in the EOC. The EOC is primarily staffed by the following city staff. The building official to inspect and tag buildings is necessary to protect human life. A public works department to clear debris from the roadways, repair and replace critical infrastructure necessary to get the community up and running as soon as possible. Aluminum municipal power to remove downed power lines, reestablish electrical service as soon as possible. The finance department to ensure that we are properly reimbursed by FEMA based upon records that they will maintain a public information officer to communicate to our citizens the extent of the emergency and what they should do and where they should go for assistance. The Planning Department provides central dual situational awareness of what is occurring throughout the city so that city forces may be deployed to address the prioritized incidents. The Recreation and Parks Department to provide care and sheltering for displaced residents. As an aside to that, the paradigm has changed. American Red Cross will not staff. They will have one representative shelter. It will be contingent upon the city to provide staffing for those shelters on a 24 seven basis, to provide food for those shelters, provide electricity, and get those things going. We estimate 8000 residents in the city of Alameda will be displaced immediately. You know, a large earthquake event. They're the information technology department to ensure our ability to communicate with the county and state uses both to ensure our ability to ask for assistance. And that is primary. The logistics section, which will locate equipment and supplies needed to care for our residents. We have a lot of challenges. We have to get everything onto the island by a barge. We have no seismically safe bridges. Arranging those services is going to be key. If we need large equipment to clear debris, we will have to barge in on to the island. That's a significant challenge. As you know, we built the EOC previously and had a bid protest and staff estimates, we say estimates that we saved approximately a half million dollars by rebuilding the two structures together. The recent bid had three strong pre-qualified bidders, all of whom had prior experience building essential structures. In all, the bids fell within a very close range of cost, which is a compliment to the architect. Saylor Consultants. The project estimate has indicated the rebuilding the project will add additional 10 to 15% to our class. This three year project. Has been through an a community engagement process beginning in 2013, designed through 2014, was a plan of with approvals by the planning board. And bidding to pre pre-fall qualified contractors in 2015. Staff stands ready to implement this project as soon as possible. The time is right to provide the best possible response in the event of a disaster to the citizens of Alameda with the proposed fire station and Emergency Operations Center tonight. These structures benefit the entire community. And as we saw in the recent Napa earthquake, you can quantify the cost to build the structure, but you cannot quantify the risk if we don't. Therefore your police chief. Your fire chief and your public works director. Are stand before you tonight. Recommending the approval of the contract before you. And we stand here to answer any questions you may have. Speaker 0: Council members. If you want to ask questions at this point, do we have any speakers? Speaker 1: We do not. Oh. Speaker 0: Okay. Well, no speakers on this item. And then it's our turn. Speaker 3: And one minor. Speaker 0: Member only. Speaker 3: Had one minor question. Yes. Thank you for the presentation, Mr. Hunt. You mentioned something about FEMA and reimbursement. I mean, is there some. I thought I heard something about the ease of that or not ease of that. If we don't have any or see versus we do or are you able to elaborate on that at all or Speaker 7: . FEMA reimbursement has become very difficult. Okay. FEMA has gotten smart. If you want to say FEMA won't. It used to be if we had a sewer breakage, let's say along Santa Clara or in front of us, they would replace that whole block. Now they will go and we will have to show them the ten feet that actually broke in the disaster and replace that ten feet. Okay. FEMA wants us prepared. We are going through a disaster mitigation plan now. Okay. And Aaron Smith is leading that effort out of the public works department. We know that disaster mitigation is a FEMA document that encourages us to provide as much readiness as possible for any event. And that's the document we develop to prove to FEMA that we are prepared in conjunction with doing that disaster mitigation analysis. We will be having community meetings, meetings with the planning board, meetings with Shrub, meetings with the Mayors Committee on Disability Information on Disability. We will have a series of meetings to gain the community's buy in. Also following that effort, we plan to go through a series of community trainings led by Jim Friends and other members of staff to educate the citizens on disaster preparedness as much as we can educate our citizens to be ready. It's beyond 72 hours now. I think we're talking about a week. It used to be be ready for the first 72 hours. FEMA will give or it will only promise me that they will have water on to the island within 72 hours. FEMA's plan currently is to bring everything on the island by Hellcats. El cats with a large landing craft, the air driven the landing crafts. That's their preferred method to bring supplies onto the island. They we've toured the island with them. We showed them the constraints of the island. We showed them the different bridges. And they agree that we are challenged. We do not specifically get penalized by FEMA for not having an EOC. It is strongly encouraged again, and EOC is recognized by FEMA and nationally as the way to handle disasters efficiently responding, fast, getting quick situational analysis of what's going on. Choices have to be made in an EOC. It's an extremely tense environment as you're making decisions on life and limb. Speaker 3: Thank you. Speaker 0: Vice Mayor. Speaker 2: Could those I assume most of what you said is being done now is building independent. So all of the work that's being done at public works, etc., that can be done where public works currently has its office or actually convene in EOC when that disaster happens. As somebody looked at the alternatives, like we have a very new constructed building right across the street. The main library that has very large conference rooms is wi fi enabled and of. Could accommodate the number of people that you're talking about. Has that been examined? Speaker 7: It has been initially examined. I built the library, saw I'm very familiar with the construction of the library. The library will fall 3.5 inches straight down. It will not have differential differential settlement. A question regarding the library. It would act to be acting as what we refer to as a cold EOC. We would have to reconfigure the area in the library appropriately, hook up the appropriate communications equipment, and also take solar panels off the roof. Off the roof to allow the addition of satellite and radio transmission from the library. I have not gotten into the details to see if in the electrical room or if we have sufficient room down there. I did meet with the librarian on Monday and offered this idea. There is no room in their communication and data area whatsoever. We would have to find a standalone communications and data room which is vital to the operation of any. Speaker 1: I think the other feature of the library is that at some point, you know, for a day or two, once a year or so often, you'd need to shut it down to actually do training there. Because that's one of the things one of the concerns that we have is where is a facility that we can do training ? And I think we want to do the training in the facility where we're actually going to be managing the event. Speaker 2: And the trade off would be one day, $3 million pretty much. And, you know, that's I. Speaker 1: Think that's not the only trade off, but that is one of. Speaker 2: That's one of the considerations. Yes. Speaker 7: Again, during the recovery period, which will extend for a month. Speaker 2: If we have a disaster that's going to have a recovery period that extends for months. You know, I think that that's something that the the use of the library is probably a higher priority of of the EOC than it would be as library conference room. Speaker 1: Also maybe I mean, I'll answer this and maybe the chief wants to answer it, but I mean, it's not a small disaster and a very large it's going to last for a month. Right. There are many things in between. And so, you know, it could be that you're using it more than just, you know, when the disaster actually is occurring. So, I mean, there's there's lots of variations in between on that theme. Speaker 2: I understand that I'm trying to make the most of what we have in front of us. And. I haven't seen the analysis shows the gap is like if the earthquake happened tonight, what is it tomorrow that we can't do? And. I've been asking for that for, for quite some time and I got some up in our packet or I don't know if you got it. We got it emailed to us this week with a rundown, but there's no analysis. Speaker 7: My main question, quite frankly, is it would if would the police station still be functional? The police station was constructed in 1978. It was designed in the early seventies. It wasn't until Northridge. That the earthquake and seismic codes really became evident in the state of California. There was a lot of lessons learned at Northridge. And there is a lot of lessons learned in the Kobe earthquake is regarding liquefaction. This is not all new information since 1977. The police department is a very heavy structure. Okay. It's got the jail below. It's got a lot of concrete in it, which was the theory behind, you know, at that point in time, we literally don't know how the police department will perform. But we're proposing tonight is a building that we know how it will perform as it's been designed to perform that way. And it's a highly regulated. Issue for the state of California. They are guaranteed to perform. Both of these structures will survive a 7.0 earthquake on the Hayward. We have nothing that we can guarantee like that. Not even the library. Speaker 0: Remember Daisuke. Speaker 5: Thank you very much. You listed various departments and personnel who would comprise the 30 to 35 people who are part of the emergency operations center. I think it's important to realize that one person or someone else who needs to be part of that equation is the mayor. And. Largely because that is first and foremost the. Yeah. Responsibility of the mayor under the city charter, section six, dash one. The mayor shall be the official ceremonial head of the city and shall provide at all. Meeting shall be preside at all meetings. The mayor may take command of the police and fire department and govern the city by proclamation proclamation whenever the City Council determines that public danger or emergency requires such action. So there is I think the role of the mayor ought to be considered in the. Emergency Operations Center. Speaker 7: And we have addressed that role. And we've addressed that role not only for the mayor, but for the council. Okay. There is a room in the fire station. There's a conference room in the fire station that is specifically set up for mayor and council. Speaker 5: It's great because in fact, I think it's not in the charter, but I think it's in the somewhere. There is an emergency council, I think, consisting of the city manager and and the and the mayor and some others in the event of incredible emergency. But like you said, you know, the situation what happened in Napa last year underscores that, you know, we're in a region where things can happen and. And you know, I think the message that you and also our chiefs have put out is that first and foremost, the facility, the emergency operating facility that we have right now is inadequate. I think anyone who's been in there, we ought to give the city towards anyone who has been in there, will know how inadequate it is. Moreover, no slap at the at the police department. Anyone who goes into the police department the way that, you know, it's very Byzantine how you go through from one one. So. So it's clearly I think they're I. I don't think I need science to tell me that we need a modern emergency operating center. So. It's not just for the police, it's not just for the fire department. It's just not or public works or anyone else or, you know, the mayor is for the residents of Alameda. Like you said, we need something that's in the center of town that can respond. Thank you. Thank you. Speaker 7: The city of Napa lost both of their elks during the recent Napa earthquake. The county, Napa County, which was in the Board of Supervisors chambers, crashed. The ceiling crashed in and they had to relocate their EOC. Okay. Same thing with the city of Napa in council chambers and they had to relocate their EOC also. Both of those operations delayed their response by 24 hours. The napa earthquake. Speaker 0: Remember Ashcroft? Speaker 4: Well, and what result did that have by delaying their response? Speaker 7: 24 hours, potentially. Those fires on the trailers got out of control, is what they've told me. Speaker 4: Okay. So thank you for your remarks tonight, Mr. Horne. And also, I'll be quick to acknowledge that I spoke to you this afternoon or this morning maybe, and also to both of our chiefs up here. I'm chief long for chief and chief for the three police chief. And first and foremost, I want you to know that I have no dispute with the need for a new fire station three in a new emergency operation center. I have toured both of the existing locations back when we in 2012, when the city placed a sales tax measure on the the ballot within it in an attempt to secure funding to build a new fire station three, an emergency operations center. And at the time, I was asked by then police chief Paul excuse me, I'm looking at Mike Noonan to to endorse the measure. I think I was planning board president and I wasn't on the council. So I'll be quick to state that I didn't love everything about the sales tax measure. I actually thought there was too much in it, and I think maybe that's why it didn't pass. But that's water under the bridge, as they say. But I did go back and take a look at the staff report from March 7th of 2012, because that was when the city council that council voted to place Measure C on the ballot. And I remember it because, again, Mike Noonan had taken me through the EOC and Mike Djerassi had taken the chief fire chief at the time, took me through first station three. And at that time in what's in the staff report is that the the staff report details how outdated and structurally unsafe and inadequate fire station three at 1709 Grande Street is and concludes that for that reason, a new fire station has been proposed and is currently in the design phase at the corner of Buena Vista and Grand Street. So we call that a location in the design phase, sort of a nebulous term. The design calls for an environmentally friendly facility that we can house, that can house apparatus, equipment and personnel and provide the city with a much needed modern EOC on the second floor. So literally, since last October, when John Russo was still our city manager, I've been waving this around saying, But why isn't this adequate? If this was good enough at one time, when did we morph into aa3, not a three story at two different structures on a larger parcel that, you know, is partly Buena Vista in Grand, but goes beyond that over to Hibbard. And then we have the council has seen in their package the recommendations, not the recommendations, but the analysis that, well, if we were to merge those two uses now, we'd be paying even more than we're paying. And I do appreciate that this evening, shortly before this meeting started, the police chief, Chief Hillery, got in touch with now retired chief Noonan. And let me know that apparently I mean, you could answer this, too, but I'll go ahead. And and apparently the concept at the time and I do understand the city didn't go forward with having plans drawn because unless the parcel tax the the sales tax passed, there wasn't going to be the funding to do that when it didn't pass and the city realized it still had these needs. And they started looking and they realized, you know, that site actually isn't big enough. So then it did morph into these two distinct uses. So what I try to apply is my criteria. When ever I'm making a tough decision and this is a tough decision for me is what is best for the city of Alameda, for our citizens, what's the best use of our capital? Because this does come with a hefty price price tag. I do understand there's some grant funding for the EOC and the different sources of funding have been identified, including including some loans. But there's also a debt service of almost over $5 million over the course of 20 years. What I said to Bob Hahn this afternoon when we were talking was that I when I think about resiliency, you have to get this. Does it require an answer? When I consider resiliency and making our community safe, it's all of the things that you listed. We don't know what our disaster is going to be. We don't get much of a warning. But what we do know is that we have aging infrastructure. The last week we finished up our budget hearings in public works, had an outstanding presentation that also detailed that we have old buildings that need to be renovated and some of them replaced and we have streets. Then we have water mains and sewer pipes under those streets and we are going along in a very methodical fashion doing those repairs and replacements. If we had more money in our general fund, we could do more faster. And that's that's something that I, I keep in mind also. But then there's a couple of other things that concern me. One is that I was very distressed when our city withdrew from the Rockefeller grant program a year or so ago because we were selected. It was a prestigious award. We were selected to receive a $1 million grant from the Rockefeller Foundation to be a recipient of this Resilient Cities program. And what was especially attractive besides that six figure number of seven figures was that we had other cities in our region. I think Berkeley, Oakland and San Francisco were also chosen in. I think we can also assume that any disaster does not stop at our city limits for the most part. And so we will need to partner with our neighbors. I would like to see our staff go back and contact the Rockefeller Foundation, see if there's any possibility. We obviously qualified for the criteria at one point, if there's any possibility to get some of that back, because not only is the money attractive, but I think so are some of the, say training opportunities, opportunities to learn from what other communities are doing so we don't have to start from scratch. So that would be something that would be very important to me if I am to support this proposition. And I also think that we need to start our training across these different departments and and areas that Mr. Hahn identified even before shovels are put in the ground or certainly before an EOC is built. And I think that for a number of reasons and again, funding was part of it. We're always, you know, juggling not enough dollars for the things we need and want to do. But I think we need to start now. We've got the buildings out at Alameda Point that we use now for the Sirt training. They can be used for the training for these different departments, and I think there is some use of that. But I just I want to make sure that we are we are making best use of our dollars. I think you've made a pretty convincing case. I, I do understand that this is more than just everyone rushing in with laptops and setting up an emergency command center. This needs to be something where the exercises can be rehearsed in in the actual location. But I also have been concerned over the months and years even that we've been considering this, that it at first it sounded like the EOC was going to be a very sparsely populated, rarely used building. Now, I think we're seeing that we can make it a little more widely used and across a number of different departments. So I'd like some assurances along those lines. And with that, I'll listen to the remarks of the rest of my colleagues. Thank you. Speaker 7: If I may, Madam Mayor, just a few comments. Speaker 2: Yes. Speaker 7: I define resiliency as a slinky. If you take a slinky and you stretch the slinky, if you've kids, you have one kid at each end of the slinky and they pull the slinky slinky. I'll go back. Okay. If they walk outside and they take it outside in the street and they walk 100 feet away from each other , that slinky is not going back. And I'm trying to put the Slinky back after the disaster. And this is what we need. We have started training already. We trained 35 people in this very chamber already. We're going to train another 35 people and another 35 people. We're looking at three shifts of folks to staff the EOC. The main training will occur when the EOC is up and operating because you want to be there, you want to be able to know the screen that you need to look at all the time is right there. Because in the operations when you're coming in, you're replacing somebody. They're going to give you a very brief briefing because they've been working 12 hours straight. And they're going to say, you need to keep your eye on these and these and this and this is important. And you have to have positional awareness of where these screens are. You're making fairly rapid decisions. You're making decisions about sheltering people. You're making decisions about rescuing people. You may have 200 people trapped on this side of the island. You may have 500 people trapped on that side of the island. Where do you go to first? Those are the kind of decisions that will be facing us and requiring us to make these calls fairly rapidly. We want to ensure both that the training occurs. We're beginning already. We're going to continue it through the years course of construction. So staff will be ready when the building is ready. And then we will continue that training, both for staff training and for citizens training within that very structure. Speaker 4: And so my point, if I could, Madam Mayor, is just that I do understand the usage as uses as usages of the EOC. The point about the training is that the disaster could strike tonight as we're leaving city hall or tomorrow or next week. And so we have to be as ready now as we will be with this spiffy new building. That's that's my point. Speaker 7: Surprisingly, a lot of the staff has already been trained on the resiliency question. I'm engaging right now with the resiliency officers of San Francisco, Berkeley and Oakland. I have said meeting meetings with those people. They're very busy, very hard to get an appointment with them. But my strategy is to meet with each one of them, ask how it's going with the Rockefeller Foundation. How's it working? How's the coordination? Is it a good program and kind of get their feedback? And then I don't think after that engagement, if it seems to be going well, we can potentially revisit the Rockefeller Foundation and say , would you reconsider us after this one year hiatus and see what their reception is? Speaker 4: Thank you for that information. Speaker 0: Remember Brody. Speaker 3: Thank you. In a minute or so, we're on comments now or. Speaker 0: Actually, we do have a speaker slip now. Do you mind if I call the speaker? It was just brought to me. Speaker 3: Thank you. Speaker 0: Yeah, we didn't have before. John Spangler, would you like to come up and speak at this point? There is. Speaker 2: Good evening. Thank you, Mr. Spencer, and members of the council and staff. My wife and I just got back from a non-emergency. The Warriors won tonight. 110 two. Our six giants are leading the. Speaker 0: We've been waiting to see. Thank you. Speaker 2: So just in case anybody is worried about the next big emergency, we're okay in those departments. And I want I want to address this project very seriously, though. I was in the room for the moment. Create a quick. I was working in a concrete structure that could have easily gone over with customers underneath heavy old cell heaters that could have fallen out of the ceiling. And some of the h-back stuff did fall and nearly killed one of the three part owners. This is serious business. It is not something I've been happy to see the council delay making a positive decision on for good reasons or not. Delaying is potentially suicidal. Councilmember Ashcroft, you mentioned you said we don't know what kind of disaster is going to hit. It's true. We don't know specifically which one might hit. But the U.S. Geological Survey says the odds are better than 70% by 2030 or 2040 or possibly 2060. We're going to have the ground shake again. And we're sitting on top of not one but three major quake faults here in the East Bay. And as the public works director ably said. In his presentation, which I was watching from home when I found out there were no commenters. This is serious. There will not be bridges. Everything is going to have to come in by barge or by helicopter or if you want us to swim across the estuary, I suppose we could bring them across a first aid kit at a time, but that's a cold swim, and I'm not sure that that's very safe for some people. So we have to do this on our own. I talked to people on this island in the last 15 years who say they're going to just leave the island. They won't be able to go anywhere. That is foolishness. We need a space that is earthquake safe. We need it now. Please approve this project tonight. No more delays. Speaker 0: Thank you. And Brody, where are you going to speak? Speaker 3: Sure. Thank you, Madam Mayor. And thank you for the presentation. And I appreciate my my colleague's thoughtful comments and concerns. You know, I kind of share a lot of those concerns, but like everything else we do here, we kind of have to balance and and weigh, you know, like the vice mayor said, you know, whether, you know , this is worth this or this is worth that. So, you know, I look at the. I guess we kind of have a choice. We could approve this. We could not approve it and give direction to go off and split it off and reconsider that again. And I think if or we could just say no and not do anything. So. I don't think that's where I prefer to do, but I kind of want to address, you know, splitting it off from what I think. Mr. Hong, I talked to you earlier. You mentioned to me that we've spent 700,000 on this already. Is that. Speaker 7: I talked to approximately $700,000, $750,000 on design, community engagement for both the structures. That's absolutely correct. Speaker 3: So that's a sunk cost that we've already already incurred. And then, you know, with your bidding this out together, you know, we've saved 500,000. Speaker 7: Approximately 500,000 by economies of scale, doing the two structures at one time, doing the site at one time. Speaker 3: So if we if if we decide we're going to split these bids or if we decide we're going to, you know, kill this, then, you know, to me, that's another 500,000 that know we're not going to be able to realize. And eventually we're going to have to do this. Speaker 7: You know, that, you know, you're unable to split the bid. It was one single bid. So we're unable to split the bid between the two structures. But we would have to kind of do redesign, split the structures up. I'm almost positive we do have the contractor here that is the awarded contractor that these contractors, these three contractors who appear to be the best essential structure contractors in the Bay Area would not take an opportunity to rebid this project. Speaker 3: But my point was, eventually, in my opinion, we're going to need to replace the fire station and build an emergency operation center. I mean, that, you know, whether it's this year, whether it's in ten years, whether it's in 30 years, I mean, that's going to have to be. Speaker 7: Done, whether it's after an. Speaker 3: Earthquake. And then the sailor you know, the sailor report talked about another 1.5 to 2 million in cost. Right. So, you know, I look at that and I see, you know, adding it up. You know, that's like that's 3 million there. That if we suddenly said. We're going to stop this. It's not money out of our pocket that, you know, we're losing except the 700 and the 500. But it is a lost opportunity cost that if we delay, you know, we're not going to ever be able to recapture. So. To me that that figures into the equation as well. So that was kind of my my question. So if you are correct. Thank you. So in my opinion, so and then further comments, I also appreciate, you know, the hard work of the neighborhood that's gone into the planning. I mean, this has changed since it was, you know, first proposed. You know, that's the process, you know, percolates through the planning process, percolates through the neighbors. The neighbors get their say. And, you know, as far as the design and the esthetics, you know, when we had the discussion on on the Del Monte Project, I mean, the opinion of the neighbors, you know, and the ones that live closest to it was most important to me. And the fact that they've been thoroughly involved in this process and they've come up with a design that they feel blends into their neighborhood and that they can live with, I think is very critical to me. But but the the thing that in a ways overall, in my mind this you said that Mr. Town, this is not this is not a police building. This is not a fire building. This is, you know, not a public safety building. This is where if we have an emergency where the heart of our city's operations, you know, including the mayor and the council, the city manager, you said public works planning building officials, AMP financed the pill Rex and park it. I mean, this is where they're going to function. And in my thoughts, it's not a matter of if we're going to have a disaster. You know, my thoughts are, you know, similar to Mr. Spengler's, we are going to have something and most likely it is an earthquake. You know, we can't predict what it is, but it's going to be an earthquake, tsunami or flood. This will happen. And I think it's our you know, our ultimate responsibility as elected officials and as council members, in my mind, is to protect our citizens, you know, whether it's, you know, making sure that, you know, if their structures get on fire, they get put out. If they call an ambulance that they get taken to the hospital, if they are their property or their lives are in danger from crime, you know, we do that. That's our number one priority. And this, I think, is our utmost responsibility here, especially given the propensity we are to the to the water and the faults. It's our utmost responsibility to be prepared in the event of this emergency that, again, will happen, not might happen, but will happen and probability it will happen sooner rather than later, especially an earthquake on the Hayward fault. So, you know, I feel that if. I guess it's another one of not on my watch comments, you know, not on my watch. Do I want to be the counsel that says we're not going to prepare for this, we're not going to be ready for this. We need to do everything we can to be ready for when this happens. And I appreciate all your hard work on this. And the police chief and the fire chief and you said it best, but I will re re-emphasize it. You know, we can quantify the costs of delaying. We can quantify the cost of debt financing. We can cost quantify the cost of savings, you know, on combining bids or delaying. But we can't quantify. The risk of not doing anything. And that's where I come down on the scale. And I think you can and I'm prepared to support this moving forward. Speaker 0: Member Ashcraft. Speaker 4: Thank you. And. I may be inclined to support this. I just want us to be sure we're going into this with our eyes open. I don't disagree for a minute with Councilmember O.D. that our ultimate responsibility as councilmembers is to protect our citizens. But that takes many different forms. And in a perfect world, we'd be able to replace all of our aging infrastructure and buildings and hire, you know, more personnel that we need and also build these new buildings. So I think we just need to understand there's going to be some trade offs. We are incurring debt. But, you know, we have many we choose to spend it in different ways. And so just so public works, for instance, knows I told Mr. Horne today, I mean, I'd like to wave a magic wand and let you get all your your wish list taken care of, because I think we're better served that way. I. So. I do. I do actually want to report back from the public works director on the air. And I think I also discussed this with the interim city manager about getting back in contact with the Rockefeller Foundation. I just think, you know, maybe they have some hoops for us to jump through, but, you know, everything comes with a price tag. But I definitely think the benefit of partnering with them and availing ourselves of the training and this is something that's going on worldwide. So, you know, really, we should be doing this for our citizens. I, I don't think, you know, this is something that we decide whether it's convenient or not. I want to see this done. Speaker 7: I'm hoping to have something before you before the end of the year. Regarding that item. Speaker 4: You said before. Speaker 7: I said I hope to have something before you before the end of the year regarding that item. Speaker 4: Okay. It's May now. I'd hope it would come a little sooner than that. Speaker 7: Yeah, but I'm going to have to meet with all these first for us, and then I'm going to have to reengage with the Rockefeller Foundation. Right. Speaker 4: It's just that I recall having this conversation, say, six months ago. So I you know, or before you know how I am. Okay. All right. Thank you. Speaker 0: Vice Mayor. Speaker 2: Just a comment. I think as far as Fire Station three goes. Everybody knows the situation at that fire station needs to be replaced. There's enough development, new development on the northern waterfront now and in the future to warrant its operation. And that is without question. The emergency operations center, I still think, needs analysis as there has been. No fine analysis again, either by fire drill or disaster drill that shows what our shortfall is, what our time is. And I'm assuming and I'm glad to hear that there's training going on and I'm glad to hear that there's coordination going on. But I think it'd be very it would have been a very valuable exercise before this started to have that codified. Whatever the shortfalls in the drill were, were codified to point to what's needed. And as I go down the list here, and I would prefer to have that center here in the center where there's the police station, fire station, Park Street and city hall, because all of those players are going to be playing in this in this activity in the emergency operations center. And I think that's the way our our emergency response plan is written, that it can be convened. It's not specified where it's convened. And I'd like to make maximum use of our buildings and other see other options, not just this or that, whether we retrofit, whether we use existing or whether we build new should be laid out. And. And then finally, these are our people driven, and I'm glad we've got the team that we've got here, because I think they're going to execute. But. Out how we put our money in and where we put our money. I think we have to look very carefully at. Speaker 0: I appreciate comments from council members and staff. Your report public not just here but outside here and also emails and whatnot. I have questions in regards to first of all, the are our emergency water supply system. And it's my understanding that in the past there has been discussion of salt water pumps. There has recently been speakers regard to that and letters to the editor and whatnot. And I think at the beginning of today's meeting, Mr. Hahn spoke about it being mad, and then we wouldn't need saltwater pumps, but I don't think we've ever had that discussion. Speaker 7: Okay. We are looking back into getting a. Emergency water supply or the city. We've looked into it in the past and had different options with the different equipment and a large diameter hose and saltwater pumps that would supply those hose in the city. It comes with a very large price tag. We've gone to FEMA and asked about grants to to purchase that. And because we've been so successful in our grant processes before, we have built strong relationships with FEMA. And we've been told and we've received letters that FEMA does not fund projects like this, that we would need to find funding somewhere else. We have reevaluated. We've come up with a plan now with some different options that we're starting to look at as far as having an emergency water supply. Currently, we do have a new fire boat that can supply 2000 gallons a minute through the five inch hose that we carry on our fire engines. So we can do that and pump it up the street or we can just have the fire boat fill up our fire engines that have 500 gallon tanks and shuttle water to where the fires are. We also have relationships with the large tug boats. Down by the BO back buildings that can also supply large supplies of water force for our firefighting efforts. But we are putting a new committee together with community members that have interest in this, to look at ways to to fund this project, because to this point now, there still is no grant funding for such a project. Speaker 0: So it's based upon the letter to the editor. It was back in 2007 that the fire department established a project team to look at this. And at that time, it's my understanding that there were already pumps installed in San Francisco, Vallejo and Berkeley, and that this team did conclude that it would be important to get these saltwater pumps. Is that correct? Speaker 7: That's that's correct. And I still believe that's important to have an emergency water supply. It's a matter of funding. If you'll support it, I'll bring you a proposal tomorrow. Speaker 0: Well, so for me, this is important because we are talking about, if I understand correctly, an emergency center here that so that an emergency operations center, so that in case of an emergency, we have a center, we have fire stations. We're being asked to modernize or improve another fire station. But if we don't have an emergency water supply, water supply if we don't have that. I don't know how prepared we are to respond to any emergency. And it sounds like these other cities have dealt with this and they did it prior to 2007, and we have not prioritized it. And we are going through our budget process. And when I look at what we're being asked to approve tonight, I don't think we're being afforded the opportunity to to determine what is the priority. And I think that's what the budget process is for. Speaker 1: I'd be happy to bring that. I mean, the vice mayor actually has a we have a parking lot of issues that we're going to be bringing back. We can add that to the list. Speaker 0: So I think that's important to add to the list. Speaker 4: And also probably in the list that the interim city manager is going to put together, I believe, because Mr. Chief Long and I met with Ken Laban, who is one of the proponents of the water pump idea. I think we learned that the city of Berkeley actually did a ballot measure. They did. And that's and the citizens of Berkeley voted to tax themselves to buy those pumps. Because I'm, as the chief indicated, they are expensive. So if you're going to look into what other cities have done and certainly the way they funded it would be good to know to. Speaker 0: No, I agree with you on that. Speaker 7: And we've we've looked into various options, whether large cisterns, which are large tanks, could be placed strategically around the city, whether they're under arks. That would be a place where we could draft and supply water to our fire engines. Another possibility is buying large water tankers, which FEMA kind of pointed us in that direction, to look at our rural fire departments that don't have hydrants, how they fight fire, and they use the water tankers generally at least two. So they're shuttling one is at the fire supplying, the other is getting filled up. That would be a start. Because the the above ground system that gets laid on the ground, the large diameter hose in an earthquake or this natural disaster, there may be so much debris in the road that we may not be able to lay that at home and we may need to go zigzag with the tankers to get to where the fires are. But we would like to have in our arsenal different options based on what our our emergency is. So we'll be looking at all those options, finding out what the cost is along with that citizen committee, including Mr. Gottlieb in. Speaker 0: So I appreciate that. And then I have my next question is when I look at the funding sources for the EOC and the fire station of the EOC, it's my understanding that the bonds were already refinanced and the sources are this capital project, 400,000 tax of unspent proceeds from that from the bonds 863 and then the refinancing of the cops. And that was EUR 3 million. So I think that that's covered the financing for that. However, the financing for the fire station. It's not covered that will actually go to the general fund and or 20 years as my guest for oh for 20 years. But we're we're being asked to is this correct? We're being asked tonight to approve a 20 year loan that we repay out of our general fund in order to finance the fire station. Speaker 1: Actually, that actually has been already approved. That right. And the debt service is in the general fund and it's about $200,000 a year. So the funding sources that were listed in the staff report, a lot of them have been approved. And the two funding sources that we are bringing up tonight, the eye bank loan and the proceeds from tax allocation bonds, the tax obligation bonds were already identified as a source, how they or they haven't been appropriated for the staff to spend. So that's why it's included in the staff report to ask for an actual appropriation in terms of. Speaker 0: To continue on that one. What else could those money to be spent on? Speaker 1: Um, I believe it's tax allocation. Bonds is from a redevelopment area which is technically gone, which is now a successor agency. So any proceeds from the tax increment or that were. Speaker 6: Subject to tax increment. Speaker 1: Repayment will have to be approved within the redevelopment area. In that particular case, the fire station is within the redevelopment area and is an appropriate use of the proceeds and it was identified. Correct me if I'm wrong by prior counsel that that is an appropriate use and should be used for that purpose. Is it. Speaker 0: For you? Continue on that money is Alameda Point near the Almeda Point Collaborative part of that area. No one else is in that. But is that do you know what that area is? Speaker 1: It's the B web. It's the it's the old be web. So it's the old it's essentially the northern waterfront area. Speaker 5: By the waterfront. Speaker 4: And just for the sake of alphabet soup avoidance, there. Speaker 5: Is this waterfront improvement project, right? Speaker 1: Water improvement project. Speaker 0: Okay. And in regards to the I bank loan on here, it says an estimated additional debt service anticipated not to exceed 300,000 annually or a total of 5.3 million over the 20 year term. Along with there would be savings of 50,000 a year because you wouldn't need to lease the adjacent house. And then but then there's also additional fees of approximately $1,000,000 on this loan. Speaker 1: So the I bank loan, which was the cheapest for the city after the city actually contacted its financial advisers to find out what would be an appropriate funding source. With. I think their whole purpose of their program is they issued tax exempt bonds and distributed to other agencies such as Alameda in a smaller dollar amount. So the understanding that we have, as I have, is that we've tried to contact our financial advisors and they looked around to see what is available and what can be used for the city. The cheapest way, in essence, to finance this project. There were a number of things considered or looked at by. They certainly advised that this particular option was the best just because it had a very low interest cost. It's mentioned in the staff report it's 2.29%, but they are also charging certain fees and the fee is one time payment of $30,000 when the financing actually occurs. And then they charge a point 3%, I believe, each year. And it's on the outstanding principal, which totals about $96,000 over 20 years. So there's also an interest cost of 2.29%, which is about $1,000,000. So if you spread it up over 20 years overall, it's fairly cheap way to get financing just because it's was made specifically for that particular purpose. And as a matter of fact, both chiefs, the public works director myself, went to Sacramento when this particular loan was considered by the eye bank board and they won that unanimously approved it, and were very encouraged that Alameda is in essence a perfect example of the use of I bank funding because it was in a small dollar amount. It's in essence cheaper than any other financing that we could have gotten because of the small dollar amount and the period of time that we were looking to finance it over. Speaker 0: All right. And that's $250,000 a year for 20 years, which I think is $5 million is what we're talking about when you include your principal. Speaker 1: Is that correct? What's the. I thought the debt service was 200,000. It's about 200,000. The additional, I think a roughly 50,000. It also adds the internal loans that the city is looking forward to take from fund building maintenance fund. So that particular dollar amount was actually included in the proposed budget in anticipation that it might be approved. And so then I bank loan will not actually start require a payment until the construction of the building is actually done. So until then, we're going to actually capitalize the interest. Speaker 0: When do you anticipate that will be? Speaker 1: According to the Public Works director, we believe he believes he should be able to get, once everything is in place, complete the construction within about 12 months period, I think because they tend to be conservative when they provided the estimates expected 12 months plus an additional six months. But that's part of their policy when they did the calculation. Speaker 5: And Amir, quickly. Speaker 0: Yes. Speaker 5: So you quickly reference capitalizing the interest. So we're capitalizing the interest on a loan from ourselves. Speaker 1: Correct? No. From the eye bank. Speaker 5: Oh, from eBay's bank is capitalizing. Speaker 1: Yes. Okay. Sorry. I thought you were specifically referring to my bank rate. Speaker 5: And what that refers to is that you don't necessarily have the revenue stream to pay off the debt service. So so the interest that you don't pay its rolled into the principal that's well capitalized. Speaker 1: Correct. Speaker 0: So in regards to finding which bank to get the loan from. It sounds like we had a consultant. As opposed to just going out and shopping banks and finding that getting offers from banks specifically for this. Speaker 1: That's what our that's what our financial advisor does actually does. Speaker 0: Do shop. Speaker 1: At. Absolutely. It actually, we we got a phone call from former finance director Fred Marsh today saying that we did actually contact at the time Bank of Alameda, which is now Bank of Murrin. So you confirm that? Yep. Speaker 0: Okay. Speaker 1: Two calls to former employees today. Yeah. Speaker 0: Okay. So we don't. So. So. This is not coming through our budget process that we're being asked to approve this prior to looking at our budget. And we do have a multiyear budget that shows the deficit after actually, I think this year these numbers, we have reserves, right? Speaker 1: These numbers are already incorporated in the budget because we assumed that the project was we wanted to make sure we have we did this for everything. We wanted to make sure that it was fully loaded. So all these numbers are included in our not only in our two year, but in our five year projections. Speaker 0: Okay. So is there a reason why this is not why this isn't coming back at the same time that we're approving our budget? Because I know we do have a park parking lot, if you will, of other things to come from the general fund. And this is asking for money from the general fund. Speaker 1: We asked the bid and Bob can talk to this. When we went out to bid, we asked them to hold it for 60 days. That 60 day period ends, I think, at the end of this week. So that's the reason why there is some. And if you recall, when we when we came in, I think it was March, we wanted to go in early spring when the bidding environment was was a good environment. And, you know, in early spring, in the winter, we didn't want to wait until summer. And so that was the reason why that happened. Speaker 5: And just to be clear, the the hodgepodge, the big 5000 feet view of this, the reason why we're driven to the hodgepodge nature of of different revenue sources is because years ago, Measure C, I forgot, did not fail. I did not win at it. One that would have been a more seamless way, you know, it would have been so absent that. City Manager Russo, in conjunction with the then City Council, including myself, looked about it because we believe that there was a need for an EOC. So we so we had to put together this hodgepodge of, of various funding sources and these, you know, these are real, real decisions that are being made because certainly, you know, some is coming from somewhere. But that was a council decision that was made in 2014. So, you know, and as the city manager had indicated right now that the budget that's being contemplated now bakes in a cake, these cost considerations. So that's the background. Speaker 0: So I appreciate I want to respond to that because I appreciate that and I appreciate you actually reminding me because so I see two things here. I see the EOC and the fire station and I see them that they were put together to bid both to say 500,000 is what it sounds like. And the IOC has its own. When you when we talk about why that's so critical and urgent and all of that, I think that those arguments go to the EOC separate from the fire station. And it and the IOC has these funding sources lined up. The fire station does not. The fire station is the one that requires the 20 year loan from the general fund. So so to me, they are separate. I appreciate that they were put together. It's the fire station that requires the loan from the general fund. Right. Well, we're going to be paying it from the general fund, but not for. Speaker 1: The IOC from the general fund, because those cops are general fund funds that are in the general fund. They're paid for the cops, the refunding that we did in 2013, and we withdrew the 3 million for the EOC, that that service is also in the general fund. And I just want to make sure what. Speaker 0: So I fear this is different things because we're taking out another. We already have committed to this. The city has already refinanced the cops. That's correct. So that was already done. The city has not committed to this loan because if we don't proceed with the building, then we won't be responsible for paying the loan. That's true, I think. So those are separate issues. Those are separate financial decisions we're being asked to make. And I think that so so when you look at that, when you look at the EOC, though, the city is already committed to those sources from our general fund. We're not asking for new. That's true. Okay. Okay. Thank you. So then when I'm looking. So to me, they are separate. And do we is it appropriate to put Fire Station three ahead of other issues in our budget? At this point? When we do a two year budget, we have been asking our community to come forward and talk about other things and how we're going to build. And I think we actually have a relatively long list. We had initially suggested to our departments to have a one and a half percent reduction across the board. We came back as a council and we said, okay, we're going to try to look at reserves and other sources to avoid that. And we haven't run those numbers yet. There were at APEC in regards to their living conditions and which buildings we can demolish, if any, if there's any moneys we can set aside to improve the conditions there. I think that's one of the things on the parking this I think we actually put quite a few things on the parking list that our community thinks is important. So a concern I have is. Is there a way to go forward with this EOC and hold off on the fire station until we complete our budget process, which is middle of June? Speaker 1: I'm not the way that we have it right now. We have because the project was bid with both projects. So we would have to reject all bids and then go back out. Speaker 0: Okay. In which case, in regards to the fire station, there was a report in 2009, International City County Management Association Data Assessment, ICM, that suggested closing station three is my understanding on page 43 of this report. Then it also suggests on page 45 that the training center should be adjacent to the administrative headquarters as confirmed. I think the vice mayor's concerns are that was in this report, that report. And then I know and I feel like this has not been discussed where we've actually discussed do we need a fire station three. As regards to looking at these reports. And that report was done in 2009. And then I have another report from 2007, I believe, that says that we need to improve some of our fire stations. And I don't think we've done the analysis. Speaker 4: What was the year of that report? Speaker 0: This report is 27, I believe, twice city gate associate. And then but then after that 2009, another report was done and. And now it seems like we haven't just we're trying to. I think this decision to go forward with Fire Station three based upon the consultant's reports that fire councils have had. The latest report is that it's not appropriate to questions. It actually says recommend recommends closing station three on page 43 of that report. I appreciate that we have competing reports here, but it's like, okay, so when it's so important by spirit. Speaker 2: It gives me a thought on that because you picked a point that I was going to make. One is the cops refinancing. My understanding is if we go back to the people who bought the bonds that can be used for the fire station if they approve it. Is that correct? That's right. And then the second thing is, after I think the council has to consider it's a good point about the ACMA analysis, but what happened in 2012 when the multifamily overlay got laid on the northern waterfront, the number of people who were going to be live that 229 didn't anticipate. If you have 2400 units, which is not even to zoning but it's when our with what's in our land inventory. You could have 6 to 8000 more people living along a place that's true or underutilized. So I'd like us to consider that when we're talking about fire station number three and the future of development on the northern shore of of our city. Speaker 4: And I would just also add that I think in the intervening years, we closed a fire station, added Alameda point. And I concur with the vice mayor that we we have more development now in the northern waterfront and we have more property leased out at Alameda point in those businesses and residents too including Alameda Point Co collaborative . What I think I'd be very vulnerable without fire station three. Speaker 0: And I want to let police chief. I'm sorry, fire chief respond. Thank you. Speaker 7: Okay. You're referring to the ACMA report that was done in 2007. Speaker 4: What does that stand for? Speaker 7: International City County Management Association. Prior to that, there was a report done by Rayland Research and. Then there was City Gate, which I provided you today. Speaker 1: This one. Speaker 7: And then there was ICMP. And then there was another report done by trade data. All except the ACMA report were fairly consistent showing that basically what we're doing we have about the correct staffing model which shouldn't be cut. The City Gate report shows that at the time that it was done, we had the five stations fully staffed. They said we could adequately, adequately respond to a fire on the second floor of a structure. And that was really about it recommended that we couldn't go. Any further down without reducing any companies. We've done that by closing station five, so we've gone below their recommendation. The ACMA report was very contrary to any of those other reports that their staffing models said that we should really only have two fire stations for the whole city. Reading through it really didn't make a whole lot of sense. They counted on office staff to jump on the fire engines and. And respond when needed. And it. We found. It just didn't make sense. We didn't see really how it applied to the city. What we found was that. I see Emma was more or less called out across cities across the country, specifically in Michigan and Oklahoma, for basically having a boilerplate template report that they were charging cities for. It came to a head in 2009 in Lake Havasu, Arizona, where. The report that they provided to the council actually still had city of Alameda Fire Department on it. So they. The reports have been very discredited and that kind of goes to show why it really didn't line up with the other reports for staffing in the city. I think I can I can leave it at that for ICM. Speaker 0: I appreciate that. So thank you. On the emergency water supply, do we have a commitment from East Bay Med that we will have that working and by 2020? And is that? Is that we will not require any salt water pumps if we have that. Speaker 7: If if he's been about replaces those two pipes, he's favored but guarantees me that they should be able to pressurize the island to a sufficient extent for firefighting purposes and potable water purposes. Okay. They have made a verbal commitment to me on that. They will reinforce that commitment in our rescheduled May meeting. Madam Mayor, that you and I have with these families coming up. Speaker 0: And does that cover they farm island as well as the main island. Speaker 7: Bay Farm Island. It is less of a concern because the pipes are actually coming through. That's not a water crossing. Okay. Again, the water crossings are our our challenges. A bay farm island is a pipe that's typically buried in the earth, actually performs fairly well in an earthquake. Okay. I mean, yes, there's instances. And if there's a fault line, there were a specific grade. But generally, as with tunnels, they tend to move with their earthquake. Speaker 4: I'd just like to add that I'd like to see commitments in writing. Speaker 7: Excuse me? Speaker 4: I'd like to see commitments in writing. Speaker 7: Oh, I will definitely get it. Speaker 2: Thank you. Speaker 7: As a commitment in writing, we are waiting for the mayor and I had a previously scheduled meeting that we had to cancel. And so once we get that meeting with the higher level of respect. Speaker 0: That's because of protests in Oakland. Speaker 1: Oh, okay. Speaker 4: I think isn't easy, but going to do a presentation for the council to. Speaker 7: The East Bay. But it's going to be really doing a presentation on the council, I believe the next council meeting June 2nd. 10th and June 10th regarding our water usage and the savings that we've read. Speaker 1: Sorry, it is the second one, Laura, saying that it's. Speaker 7: Yes. The second staff told me it was the second. Speaker 0: So we're approaching 1030. We need a motion to consider the remaining items, which is 60 of PSI, a sum. Speaker 4: Of. Speaker 0: Four votes. Speaker 2: I know. Speaker 0: All those in favor. Speaker 3: I. Speaker 0: I'm going to pose for 4 to 1 motion passes. Um. Okay, so another question I have on the fire station. So we went out there and we visited it. And it's my understanding when the when the firefighters get dressed to come out or something, that there's some reason why you can't get dressed inside on the second floor where the rooms are. And you discuss that. Speaker 7: Of research is showing that the turnout gear that we that we wear, the black firefighting outfits, they get contaminated with the products of combustion. When we go into to fires, it actually gets absorbed into the material. And then in farther because of you're sweating the steam, the water that you're around. And when you get back to the firehouse, even after they've been cleaned, they do what they call off gassing, which is toxic gases which have been found to cause cancer. So what we've implemented is that we do not allow wearing of turnouts within the living quarters of the firehouses anymore. So at our other firehouses, the crews wear shorts and when they get a call, they go out to their the fire apparatus and the apparatus from the garage, basically, and their turnout gear is sitting there for them. They change their they step in, they go on the call, they come back, they get out of that gear and it stays outside of the living quarters. The problem with fire station three is we have two separate buildings. They need to leave their living quarters and go to another building to respond. So. Basically, especially at night, they almost need to get up, get dressed, go next door. Get dressed again and we have a delay in response and in inclement weather. That's a problem also. It's an additional delay in response. We're also dealing with the stairs that you saw, which are are kind of an accident waiting to happen. They're steep or they're not level. That firehouse also doesn't have the amenities of of being a fire station. It doesn't have adequate space to for storage of extra ozone equipment, places to to clean, soiled EMS equipment like like water vomit out of suction units. There's other firehouses have. Large things outside of the stations. So that's another delay for Station three, because in order for them to clean their equipment, they need to go out of their district to another station, clean their gear. And while they're doing that. Their district is basically unprotected. Hmm. Speaker 0: And the new fire station will address this issue so that the firefighters then that changed in a garage or somewhere where it's not out on the grass or front of the building. Speaker 7: They'll just go right from their living quarters out through a door into the apparatus room where their gear and there are engines. Speaker 0: So this is an issue for me in that there's a female firefighter there that I understand has to run out, get changed in the front yard and then go to the fire engine. That's correct. That aside, I think it was described. Speaker 7: That's that's how she said it when we were there. Well, I don't think she. But she she doesn't she doesn't change in the front yard. But she says she does. Speaker 4: You may have spectators. Speaker 1: Or boxers. Speaker 0: She got. So actually, this is what she described. And this was. Disconcerting to me. And it actually suggests I wonder if there is some possible liability in regards to having our firefighters in the moment, especially going out to the front yard in her boxers to get ready. Speaker 4: They're in pretty darn good shape. But isn't this actually an argument for why we need to replace Fire Station three? Speaker 0: That's what I am speaking to this. I actually think it's important to share with our community why these? Because this is this is a lot of money. And we've talked about a lot of different things to the EOC. Personally, I can say it's more it's easier for me to support that than a new fire station at this point. I would have preferred having the fire station come to us later when we look at all the other budget things that come from the general fund. But that's not the way it's brought to us. So that's why I brought that up. I think it's important for the community that it's urgent. Any other comments? Speaker 5: Madame Mayor, I think there's a recommendation by staff that's before us to move forward with staff recommendation. And I think I heard a desire to report back on the on looking into. Speaker 4: The Rockefeller. Speaker 5: Rockefeller. Speaker 4: Resilience that. Speaker 5: He's going and see. Speaker 3: And the emergency. Speaker 1: Hoses. Speaker 5: And emergency water supply. So, Admiral, I think I think the staff has earned a yeoman's job in terms of providing the information. It's been a long time in the making. The public understands what what the situation is. And I think I'm ready to make a decision and I would like to make a move. Staff's recommendation, including the recommendation with regard to Rockefeller grant and the. Speaker 4: Emergency water. Speaker 5: Emergency water supplies. Speaker 4: Supply. Speaker 0: Pumps. And I have another question in regards to staffing. Does this preclude the council at some point? Does that impact our staffing levels at all? Speaker 1: Not at all. This is just a replacement of an existing facility. Speaker 0: Thank you. I'd. Remember Ashcroft. Speaker 4: I was just going to say, I think especially Chief Long coming back up and and giving us the explanation. I know you're the fire chief, but it does make me realize that, you know, fires are one emergency that can happen just on their own. But they also happen in the course of something like an explosion or an earthquake. And so I think listening to all of you and Miss Adair, you still hear a really good job explaining the financing aspects of all this. So while I am never I don't spend the city's money easily. But on the other hand. I think it's time for us to get up to date on our safety and emergency preparedness for this city. So I'm willing to a second councilmember designation and then. Speaker 0: But the concern about the salt, the emergency water and trying to work with our team, our community members and moving forward with the plan, because I don't think it's appropriate for us to have to not address that issue. Speaker 4: Already happening? Yeah. Yeah. Mr. Horn said. Speaker 0: I want to make sure. Speaker 6: Okay. Speaker 3: So out of. Speaker 0: You in there. All right. We have a brochure. Do you have a second? Speaker 4: Yes, I can. Speaker 0: All right. All those in favor. Speaker 2: I. Speaker 0: I suppose. Speaker 2: Most. Speaker 0: Motion passes 4 to 1. Thank you. Speaker 3: Madam. I request is short. Speaker 0: And we will take a short recess. Thank you. And if I had my wallet back. My mother. We are now resuming. Speaker 1: And we're on. Speaker 0: Thank you. And our last item is remember me on our 6060. That is report on site, a. Speaker 1: Joint. Speaker 0: Development at Alameda Point. Speaker 1: Including presentation on city council approval process, financing plan and fiscal impact analysis. And we're putting up the presentation.

Regular Agenda Item

Recommendation to Award a Contract in the Amount of $7,960,608, Including Contingencies, to Alten Construction for Construction of the Emergency Operations Center, No. P.W. 06-14-23 and Fire Station 3, No. P.W. 12-14-18; to Appropriate Anticipated Loan Proceeds from IBank and to Appropriate 2003 A&B Tax Allocation Bonds Unspent Bond Proceeds. (Public Works 319)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_05122015_2015-1650

Speaker 0: Recruitment and staff is here today to hear your recommendation. I have a question. Could we. How does the an internal if we have candidates that are from within the organization, can we have an internal process that goes to them first or or the separate from this? Is there a separate process? Speaker 4: Because this is this is one of the positions. Speaker 0: That you get to pick. Speaker 4: Whoever you like. So if you want to do an internal recruitment. Speaker 0: You may do, though. Remember, Audie. Speaker 5: QUESTION Does staff have a preference? I mean, not on internal but on on whether Avery versus Mr. Murray. Speaker 0: Staff picked a. Speaker 4: Number of firms to show you their brochures. Speaker 0: Because they were very. Speaker 4: Experienced and frankly. Speaker 7: We would be happy working with any of them. And so it really is up. Speaker 4: To your. Speaker 7: It's a matter of fit, we think. Speaker 0: And so I really. Speaker 4: Look to your judgment on who. Speaker 7: You think you. Speaker 0: Would like to work with. Vice mayor. But we have a speaker actually from a non agenda item that yes, we want to continue this first if you want me to call the speaker. Real quick. Speaker 3: Yeah. Maybe start before we start the deliberation. It's an off agenda item, right? No, that's not it. Speaker 0: Right. Speaker 6: Okay. That's right. That man, Mayor? Speaker 0: Yes. Speaker 6: Vice, continue. Thank you for clearing that up. I. Speaker 3: I think. Speaker 7: After. Speaker 3: That we were going to hear this when? Public Speaker. Speaker 6: After I thought it was after. Speaker 3: Yeah. Speaker 4: Okay. Speaker 6: Okay. Speaker 0: Mm hmm. I smell. Speaker 6: I don't hear. So I do. I'm going to say that both firms, I think, are top notch, but I lean toward Bob Maureen, Associates. Associates, Associates. For two reasons. One is that. He flagged that he worked with a city that was known to be difficult on city managers. And not saying that meat is difficult on city managers, but I think in looking at our history. I think someone else doesn't know aluminum. I think. I think that and I. Understand is the reason he said that. And. I think it speaks to his favor or his firm's favor in the second, and it's a small item. But even he flagged that he knew the difference between Park Street and Webster. So I think he did his homework. Again, I'm looking for differences between two top firms. And that just pushes me there. There are fees. There costs. The total costs are virtually the same. So my vote is for or my of. Yeah, my vote is for Bob Marine. Speaker 0: And my understanding is that the ones that presented second. I'm sorry. They're the ones that presented second. Yes. Speaker 5: Yes, correct. Speaker 0: Their comments. And Brody. Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam Mayor. No. I kind of echo part of what the vice mayor said. You know, I kind of felt that both were were very qualified and that both would do a fine job. I felt a stronger comfort level with Mr. Chmura from Avery. I don't know what it was about it, but, you know, we're going to be spending a lot of time with with the individual that. That manages the process. And I just felt this is more of a gut level, comfort level with Mr. Cameron. And, you know, I probably put him a little bit ahead of Mr. Murray, but I thought both of them were very well qualified. I like the fact that not to be too parochial about this, but you know, I liked having Avery being from the Bay Area. I think we have unique challenges here that are different than than city managers, say, in the valley or in Southern California or even in in the Sacramento area. Speaker 0: Remember they suck. Speaker 1: A thank you. First off, thank you very much to stephanie grant sierra. For bringing two exceptionally qualified firms. So I really appreciate that. And, you know, in the big picture of things, at roughly $25,000, I mean, I think even for them, this probably isn't a big contract, but but it is nonetheless important. The thing that really stuck, I'm looking at my notes from the meeting and the thing that really stuck strikes me is I thought Mr. Kimura gave a little more. A discussion that had more depth when it came to community involvement. My notes just seem to be more about that. So I think on that, that's to me, that's a tie breaker in the direction of Mr. Kimura. So either way it will be a good selection. Speaker 0: Amber Ashcraft. Speaker 3: Thank you. Mary Spencer I'm just going to pull up my notes from when we interviewed the two candidates on April the 29th. And as my iPad cooperates. Okay. So I also thank Stephanie for Miss Grant Sierra for bringing us these two qualified firms. And I enjoyed hearing from both of them. I do find myself leaning toward Mr. Chmura in his firm for a couple of reasons. One is that his firm is the only Bay Area based recruitment firm, and he emphasized that they have an extensive record of selecting city managers, so they have a strong database. And he also I like the the the use of behavioral interviewing wanting to have input from the community as the city council, of course, will direct and with Mr.. But that said, I would also want to make sure if this is the the firm that we choose, that it is specified in the contract that it is indeed . Mr. Chmura, we're working with the Vice Mayor, and I have had a little history and experience selecting consulting firms. And you, you know, you interview a principal and you get the feel and that's the, you know, the direction you want to go. So then you want to make sure when all is said and done, that's who you're working for. So I would look to staff to take care of that for us. And then with regard to Mr. Murray. Speaker 7: He well. Speaker 3: I, he does work in a lot of different places, including other states. He's based in Southern California, I think. Speaker 4: Roseville. Speaker 3: Roseville. Okay. But he does work in all over the state. But also he talked about Arizona and Dallas and Phenix and Tucson. And I, I think I like someone with a lot of focus in California. And the one thing that gave me pause was when he he called Alameda one of California California's jewels. That didn't give me pause. I like that. But he also chose Coronado, California, as the most similar city to to Alameda. And that was because of the strong military presence. Well, Coronado is lovely and an island and all those good things, but the military presence would be San Diego that does still have a functioning naval base. We haven't for quite some time. I mean, to say that we have a strong military presence is is a bit outdated. So, again, I think that we had two great candidates for the reasons that I stated. I leaned toward Mr. Kimura as our selection. Thank you. Speaker 0: I personally would prefer if we start with an internal search and not hire a firm at this point. The estimated costs are approximately $25,000. I think we have a good possibility of hiring someone internally for this position. All right. I guess I should be clear. Speaker 6: Conducting the search internally or hiring a person who currently works here internally. I'm not understanding which her. Speaker 0: I would prefer that we go through an internal process first and determine whether or not we have any candidate from within that we would send an offer to before we commit to hiring a firm for $25,000, approximately. I just went through this process recently with the school district level and. We did end up hiring someone from within. And I just didn't start there. Yes. Speaker 3: And I think that there is nothing to preclude an internal candidate from applying through the the system that we would employ if we hire an independent search firm. And I think that for a number of reasons, this is a very important position at a very important juncture in our city's existence. And I think that we should not limit ourselves. I think time is of the essence, and I think we can accomplish the goals that you that the mayor is is speaking of with a search firm, with a with a professionally conducted search. And I just wouldn't want to limit our options. And it may well be that we ended up choosing someone internally, but at least we would know that we made a well informed decision and exercised all of our options. Thanks. Speaker 0: Everyday sound. Speaker 1: Yes, I am ready to move forward. I think for several weeks now we've been kind of honing it down this track. I appreciate what you're saying, Madumere, but we have been honing down this track and I do see that if there is an internal person who is interested in this, that having either Mr. Chmura or Mr. from the other organization Murray as the person facilitating the process is a benefit and and benefit or vetting. On our behalf, either an internal candidate or vetting on our behalf, you know, someone from the outside. I think it's practical to do it all at once. Speaker 0: Well, your emotion. Speaker 1: Sure. I'm ready to move forward. I'll move forward. I'm going to move a recommendation with that. Well, actually, I think that council member, as he Ashcraft said it well, in terms of Mr. Chmura, so if you have a motion to make. Speaker 3: I'll make the motion. I move that council select Paul Chmura as our professional search firm to conduct the city manager search. Speaker 5: A second. Speaker 0: All those or any discussion. Speaker 6: Although it was be with the assumption that his. Speaker 3: With the specification. Speaker 6: Specification. Speaker 3: Yes. That he indeed be they the principle that we deal with. Okay. And there was a second. Speaker 7: Energy. Speaker 0: Tony. And all those in favor. I oppose. Speaker 6: No. Speaker 0: Oppose. Motion passes, 3 to 2. Terrific. Thank you. W are right now are we have a speaker, chris anderson. You may approach this. Please proceed. Speaker 5: I apologize in advance. This is a little bit verbose. It's about a minute and a half over 3 minutes without me. Speaker 0: Well, if you could try to do it as close to three as possible. Speaker 5: I'll try. Thank you. We have till six. I wanted to get a lot of detail. Speaker 0: You know, I don't. If you heard member o d he said we have till six. Go ahead. Speaker 5: Good evening. Mayor Spencer, vice mayor of Matariki B Manager. I'd like to address the council tonight regarding a small waterfront businesses caught in the bureaucracy of the city. My name is Chris Anderson. I represent the Anderson family ownership in Grand Marina. Anderson family developed the Graham Ring in 1985, restoring an unknown, usable, toxic site at the foot of Grand Street. The toxic material in the water and land was removed by the Anderson family, so the public now enjoys the waterfront, access and landscaping. Currently, the Grand Marina is considered among the nicest in Alameda. Several new residential neighborhoods have been developed to enjoy landscaping and public pathways installed and maintained by the Grand Marina. Prior to Grand Marina from 67 to 85, the Anderson family owned and operated the Alameda Yacht Harbor, which is now known as Fortman Marina. Both marinas utilize tidal and submerged lease land to operate their maritime operations. Anderson Family has never missed a rent payment, nor has created any problems for the city in the 48 years of history. Beginning in 2005 and foreseeing a necessary necessity to make substantial maintenance repairs to the city owned structures, the Grand Marina leases. Graham GREENE approached the city to renew its tidelands lease. The current lease will expire in 2029, but Graham Marina wanted to secure a long term lease so that conventional financing would be available to make improvements to the property's buildings and wharfs. Because the city has been unwilling to prioritize these efforts for a new lease, the wharfs and buildings have deteriorated exponentially. The cost of repairs turned into cost of replacement in the current lease. The responsibility of major construction is not that of the lessee, but in good faith and what was thought to be in good standing with the city. The marina was willing to rebuild, retrofit failing structures using its own assets if long term financing were achievable. Over many years, Graham Arena has met with the changing administrations of economic development, community development, city management, city attorney and the third party consultants such as PM Realty and now Cushman Wakefield. With each new administration, the interpretation of a new lease would contradict the previous and create new requirements for Graham Arena. The latest proposed by the city would increase our yearly rent by more than 20 times. Graham Arena certainly understands rent will increase with a new lease. But it should be economically reasonable and reasonable. By ignoring Graham Ring in around 2005, the city has potentially lost hundreds of thousands of dollars in rent. The marina has 14 years left on its current lease. This could be potentially a loss to the city of nearly $2 million. As a resident of Alameda and knowing the tough economic times that we've been through and may face in the near future, I question the basic understanding of economics and the city staff. I wonder how many other leases or assets are being ignored? As an. Speaker 0: Its continue. Speaker 5: As an officer of this corporation, I've fiduciary duty to the shareholders to protect assets and revenues. Graham Arena has been given the runaround from the city for so long and I would have to suppose that the city does not have any interest to renew the lease and that the Graham Marina should start planning for such an event . The time has come to realize that the city owned structures are failing and almost beyond reasonable repair. If there isn't something done to retrofit or reconstruct the buildings, there have become an unreasonable asset for the city quickly turning into a liability. Graham Arena does not own all the land, but owns many of the shoreline parcels and fee as well as the floating docks. Theoretic Theory. Ethically, if a favorable lease cannot be negotiated with the Graham Marina, it's possible to relocate to a more business friendly environment. Because of the Bccdc Bay feel restrictions, the city or a private developer would not be able to rebuild another marina in the same location. Waterfront landscaping and pathways would no longer be maintained, nor would the two public restrooms. The city would be left with 24,000 square feet of aging building and no parking or access. A condemned and condemned 10,000 square foot wharf with no marina, no commerce from the 400 marina tenants, not only with the city not realizing an increase in rent, but potentially no rent at all. I hope that this information would urge the Council to urge the staff to take the lease negotiations more seriously with Graham Marina. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. And staff look into that it shouldn't have. Dr. Council, thank you so much. All right. So we'll be taking a short recess. Our budget item supposed to begin at 6:00. Thank you. Thank you. Speaker 3: Keep your sandwiches. Oh. Speaker 5: Oh. Speaker 4: Well, we're. Speaker 0: We're going to read. Thank you, everyone. We're going to resume with the budget. Speaker 5: Item. Speaker 0: Three B. Speaker 2: Receive presentations from non-German, French departments and programs on the proposed budget for. Speaker 3: Fiscal year. Speaker 4: 2015, 16 and 1617.

Regular Agenda Item

Recommendation to Provide Direction on the Selection of an Executive Search Firm for the City Manager Recruitment Process. (Human Resources 2510)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_05122015_2015-1655

Speaker 7: Whether you're going to call. Speaker 0: The speaker and we have one more speaker, I'm going to call first, Rob Prado. Speaker 6: At that point. Ira Pardo, executive director of Park Street Business Association. And I'd like to thank the mayor and the rest of the council for letting me go first this evening, because if you didn't, we'd be in for a Rob Rando snore fest later in the evening, and that's never any fun. I just want to I just have a few brief comments. I actually did read all of the presentations by all the departments online this afternoon, and no, I didn't fall asleep. I was it was very interesting. And I really like the new way it's being done. Last week and this week, two things caught my eye. You know, they're all great departments. We love them all. But the two things that caught my eye was as a. X Air or and as an x cruzi call. And I wish Mr. Kearney was here because Mr. Kearney and I, back in 1967 were members of the Midget League Championship Team from Cruzi from Cruzi Park. And I see that the new rec center at Crazy Park is in this budget. And trust me, that building needed to be replaced back in 1967. So I proved. Speaker 3: More so after you and Kevin. Yeah. Speaker 6: Oh, absolutely. Absolutely. So I certainly hope that that goes forward. And of course, I threatened all of you a number of weeks ago that every time you talked about the community development budget, that I would come here and speak in favor of the facade grant program, which again is the best program this city has had in a long time for small businesses in this town. And as a matter of fact, I happened to talk to the staff person who used to administer it. Her name is Sue Russell. Some of you know her. She's alive and well and living in Asheville, North Carolina. And when I talked to her this morning and I said I was coming here tonight, she said, well, you tell them I'm all in favor of putting that program back together also. So I certainly hope you will give it all the consideration it deserves. And we'll move forward and we'll get some better looking facades on Park Street and Webster Street and any other place that is going to be included in the new program. And, of course, my organization and myself are happy to work with staff to put it back together in any way that the city believes it should be. And we'll just move forward and help those small businesses improve their facades. And I'd love to stick around for kids, but I'm leaving behind. Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. Now we'll proceed with the presentation. Speaker 2: Okay. Just a quick introduction, Madam Mayor and council members tonight, you have the fifth of six budget budget presentations tonight. We are conducting what we call the majority other funds. So that means the funds, the departments that are not funded by the general fund primarily. So some of the departments, for example, Rec and Park and Library do get some general fund funding. But but mostly it's folks that the departments that have other sources of funding. And so that's sort of how we characterize these last two. This one and the one before budget session. So again, this is the fifth of six meetings. And with that, I'll turn it over to Ms. Wooldridge, who's going to take on her hat, put on her hat as the rec and park director. Speaker 4: Good evening, Mayor and Council Amy Wooldridge, Recreation and Park Director. And. Here to overview the budget for you for recreation and parks. So to start with what we do, it's kind of an overwhelming and impressive list. We have basically three divisions. One is park maintenance. Our overall mission in park maintenance clearly is to maintain clean and safe parks, facilities and fields. I'm not going to list all of them, but you see before you the sheer volume of facilities and this doesn't even list quite all of them, but we have 19 overall 19 parks and 14 additional facilities. So we maintain all of those. We are all just put aside, not working hard with the drought to meet to and you'll hear more about that at upcoming meetings. But with those parks comes a big responsibility right now to to make sure we're being water efficient. Our second division. Well, actually, let me back up. So in Park Maintenance, staffing wise, we have one park manager and we have ten park maintenance workers and 12 part time staff in our recreation services division. With that, we provide recreation activities and programs for all ages, all families, all you know, we're we serve all residents with that . We provide classes, camps, aquatic programs at the swim centers, sports community wide events. Also under there's park monitors, which is a new program that was added last year. And they are out in force on in parks on the weekends to root to do everything from helping, make sure trash is empty from one picnic rental to the next to also checking and answering questions. Just being a friendly face in the park, checking permits, things like that. It's really been a huge help and we've gotten a lot of positive feedback on that program. Within that division, we have one recreation manager, three recreation specialists and 187 currently fluctuates anywhere between 150 to 250 part time stuff. Our third main division is Mastic Senior Center and we provide services and activities for adults 50 and over a does include boomers now. And so that includes we have we have a lot at mastec with you know you heard a presentation last week we have about 3500 members trips, classes, meals, a lot of different support services. And there's fundraising that the board does to help support those services. With that program, we have one recreation manager, one recreation specialist and 11 part time staff. So as you can see, we manage a very large part time staff and have for the size of our programs are pretty small, full time staff complement. Then we have it's not a separate division, but I wanted to call it out because we have our general administration for our PD and so that myself we have an account TEC. We have as one senior clerk and one office assistance assistant. And so that's doing all of the personnel management, all the financial management grant, administration seeking grants and other types of funding project management. And that's all under our administration. We've a couple of new initiatives that are in this budget. One is to create a project manager for our parks. You'll see at the end of my presentation I'll get into what some of our upcoming projects are you're probably familiar with. Most, if not all of them. This is a new position that would be housed under public works within their project manager division. However, Parks would we would fund 75% of it for the next two year budget cycle. Public works would fund some 25%. Therefore, we get 75% of their time. Many of the large projects in particular Jean Sweeney, Open Space Park and Estuary Park. I got the ball rolling in the last few years for those projects, but now we're at a point where it really takes a full time project manager to manage all of the details of the design. The construction management and the way that would work is I would still recreation and parks would essentially still be the user. And so we'd I'd be working very closely in tandem with that project manager, but they'd be managing all the daily details on those types of projects. And so the cost for that 1516 is 160,000 172,016 17. It's fully funded by the projects. And so there is no impact on the general fund. Another new initiative is we are looking to restructure our park maintenance staffing program. Basically right now, as I mentioned, we have one parks manager, we have ten park maintenance workers. One of those technically is an equipment operator classification. We're hiring that out right now. And over time, due to cuts, our staffing for that division has become very flat. So we have a park manager up here with that skill set. And then we have the park maintenance workers who do all of the daily work at the parks. So we're missing a we're missing an element of skill set in between. And there's no room for growth within the department. So we know we have, for example, retirements coming up in the next few years. And if we're going to bring in younger people, there's nowhere for them to there's no enticement for them to grow within the division. We've had two full time staff vacancies in that division since December. As I mentioned, we're working. Fill one of them right now. The next one is coming down the pike. What we did in this. In this budget is are proposing to take one of our park, one of those vacant park maintenance workers, and turn it into a four person position so that we'd have then a park manager, a four person. And, you know, as we can start stretching the organization, create a more dynamic staffing complement. So and I'll give you a couple quick examples. Irrigation, there's there's times a couple months ago, my park manager, you know, who's paid at a high level, high skill level to manage projects, that's where he should staffing. That's where he should be. Yet had to spend 4 hours out in the field on his knees helping us teach his staff how to how to fix an irrigation problem and that or managing smaller going out and talking to neighbors about tree issues or fence issues. Those should be managed by a four person or someone on a little bit of a lower level than our parks manager. So that's what we're trying to bring back is is those levels. Speaker 0: Before you move on. And can you can you confirm that you would not have to let a current park maintenance worker go? In order to do this, you would just through attrition, essentially, or you have a vacancy? We have. Speaker 4: A vacancy. We we have a vacancy in a park maintenance worker position. And we are taking that vacancy and turning it into a four person position. We would recruit if we received this, we would recruit as a four person position classification next year, next fiscal year. Speaker 0: And are there trainings that a current park maintenance worker or current employee could participate in in order to be eligible for this or person? Or do you anticipate having to hire from outside? Speaker 4: It would be an open recruitment. I can't really anticipate one way or the other who would actually get hired, but we have been putting our current staff through trainings. They were all required just recently, a couple of months ago to go through the stop waste, very friendly landscape training, for example. We've sent several of them to specific irrigation trainings. We've been actually really pushing training in the last year or so. Speaker 0: Wonderful. Thank you. You're welcome. Comments before she moves on. Nebraska. Speaker 3: I was just going to do some overall comments at the end of her presentation. So we let her go. Yeah, but thank you. Speaker 4: All right. Thanks. So some previous cuts, a ten year history of cuts to LAPD, Alameda Recreation and park department you have before you contractual service, park maintenance, contractual services and part time staff overall was reduced by 130,000. Mainly what that was is a lot of our passive parks. And by passive parks we mean parks like Jackson Park, where there's not actually athletic fields and playgrounds, but really it's just more where people are walking around and hanging out. Those used to be contracted out to kind of mow and blow services, so to speak. And at one point that was cut and that was put as an additional burden on our existing staff at the time. We did eliminated a total of six full time staff, three in park maintenance and four in rec services. And in fact, this is where I'm trying to get back to the structure. We used to have two of the park, two of the three you see in parks used to be lead persons. And that is similar to the four person that we're we're requesting to bring back. We had a number of community events that were eliminated, several we have replaced. And so they do still continue. The scramble is still around, for example, but we've had to go out and replace them with outside funding from Rotary and East Bay regional and organizations like that. Back in, I believe, 1112, we transferred four or 15,000 of costs from the general fund to the rec fund. So what that did is it? We took that burden off and now put it under our expenses in the rec fund and use our fees for service to try and help and to to start covering that. We also reduced our free parks and playground sites from 10 to 5 a number of years, ten sites to five sites a number of years ago. This is our overall expenditure budget. You can see our. Yes, I'm. Speaker 3: Sorry. And this will just going to take you back to that last slide, the last bullet reducing free parks and playground sites from 10 to 5. What does that mean? Speaker 4: We used to offer ten parks. We had free parks and playgrounds and we now offered at five parks. Speaker 3: Is there a program? Parks and playgrounds. Speaker 4: I'm sorry. Yes, I'm sorry. Parks and playground. Speaker 3: Translate have. Speaker 4: You? Right. Let me try and thank you for the clarification. So we offer two types of afterschool and summer programs for kids. One is our rap, which is recreation after school. That's a paid program. We walk the kids from school to our sites and then wow is our standard world of wonder during the summer, our summer camp . For those who may not be able to afford it, we are actually one of the actually the only city that I know of in at least Alameda Contra Costa plus area of of cities that still offer free programs such as this. So we now we still offer at five sites after school care every day after school until five and then all day in summer. And then we've complemented that last year with our free parks, baseball summer baseball league and brought that back as well. Speaker 2: And Mayor, if you mind, I mean, could you clarify the transfer costs from general fund to the rec fund with that? Did that go with the revenue as well or was it just the cost? Speaker 4: I believe it was just the cost, but I would need to go back and double check that. That was just the cost because then that was just the cost, the revenue that was prior to when we consolidated everything into the rec fund and that's when the revenue came over. So as you can see, our park maintenance budget is is just over $2 million. That continues. That goes up each fiscal year a little bit. Really primarily due to staffing costs and. Primarily due to staffing costs. The recreation fund is going up as well. Primarily due to personnel. You will see that it dips down slightly from 1516 to 1617. And the reason is, is because and I'll get into this a little bit more in a minute is the the Mastic Senior Center Advisory Board. A little over a year ago was brought in under the IRA as a sub fund, under the recreation fund. And over the next two fiscal years, they're doing some capital, some maintenance improvement projects, and they're drawing down their fund balance, which is over 500,000. And so that's within this. And and so that's what brings it down. Not that we're spending less on services, but because of those improvement costs. Speaker 0: Can you clarify the funds from Mastic? Are they kept separate? So they have to keep those funds separate even though they're falling under this recreation fund? Speaker 4: Well, Mastic, there's a couple of places where mastic is mastic is accounted for as a division within the recreation fund. So there's the recreation fund as a whole. Under the rec fund, there's a couple sub funds. One is the golf fund. One is the Mastic Senior Center Advisory Board. So that's just the advisory board there, fundraising activities and programs. And then there's mastic donations, which is donations that that and because that come to the center. Speaker 0: But when people make those donations or they raise their funds, they're kept. Keep track of that money separately. Have received a couple of concerns. Oh, absolutely. Speaker 4: We have. That's the bequeath. So that we have amassed six donations. Sub Fund. Yes. Mm hmm. Absolutely. And it lives within the wrecks on the golf. And I'll get into details on that in a minute. And then we have some other funds, such as the hard ball field, which is the College of Amino hard ball field are the maintenance we do at the swim centers. The ALMA Unified School District swim centers. And we have a couple of parks that are assessment districts at Marina Cove and Bayport. This is more detail on our park maintenance. As you can see, we're a little over half staff costs. The remaining really is contractual services. So that would be things that our staff really can't do, such as tree trimming and significant bush trimming and pathway repairs, fencing, repairs, things like that. We also have a cost allocation of almost 10%. The other maintenance funds. So we do maintenance at Alamo Unified School District and Arsenal Swim Center and the Hudson Swim Center. So it's the cost of that. The hardball field is going down over the next few years. Because of that, we've entered into a contract with Alameda, Babe Ruth's baseball, and they are now fully maintaining that field . But to help them with the transition, it's a five year contract that is declining in the amounts that we pay them each year. So this year was 40,000. What's budgeted for the next two years? Next year's 30,016. 17, it's 20,000. And then Marine and Bayport are both parks that we maintain but are funded through assessment districts. So the recreation fund itself, as you can see, it's mostly through fees for service. And those those that user fee schedule comes before you as a body every November. With those fees change, any changes in fees start January 1st because that's what works better for our programing. We really are careful to. Ensure that fees are raised incrementally and very thoughtfully with the approach of balancing keeping. Programs affordable for the residents, but also making sure we're keeping track of rising costs. So we're a little over 60% right now in terms of cost recovery for our recreation programs. So within this are you you've heard me mentioned before the mastic senior center advisory boards doing some projects are doing things like painting the exterior of the building, putting in fitness equipment on the interior, adding benches, adding tables. They're doing a new landscape plan, that's all. Be friendly, drought tolerant, drip. So with those. That those total costs for those projects are 230,000 in 1516 and 115,000, 16, 17. So what I am proud to say is that given that the rec fund is now at a slight surplus of 44,000 in 1516 and 47,000 1617, it's the first time that that's happened in a number of years. So we finally were able to balance our fees and bring down the expenditures over the last few years so that we're able to get it from when I came in, from $500,000 in the red to now at at a healthy budget. The other thing you'll notice is the cost allocation. It's at 13% and it increased significantly from 1415 to 1516. The reason is that really it was just trued up to what it should have been. And in order to compensate for that large jump, the general fund transfer, which the rec fund gets a set amount, that's a general fund transfer each year that was increased the exact same amount to compensate for the increase in the cost allocation to truist. In addition, in this budget cycle, we built in a to 2% cost of CPI increase. That now will increase the general fund transfer each year with the theory that that general fund transfer was was for programs that used to live in the general fund. So for example, Mastec used to have half their program budget in the general fund and half their program in the REC Fund. So we had staff that were in the general fund. So it made sense that the general fund transfer would continue to slowly increase by the cost of living each year because that was a burden we took off the general fund in terms of staffing, but we're having to maintain those increasing staff costs. Oh, let me back up one more thing. Leases, we have 4% leases and those least revenues are generated primarily from cell towers. We have a cell tower at mastic. When it Lydecker won it, cruising into it, the golf course, all of those fee revenues remain in the recreation fund and they're all used for one time maintenance items . You'll see projects when the CIP comes up. But it's it's things like light EC or tennis court lights, replacement, complete resurfacing of the Washington basketball courts, pathway lighting and a couple of parks those types of and for emergencies. So the golf fund is revenue is 100% leases. Most of that is Greenway Golf. Part of it is also gyms on the course food and beverage service. The expenditures. Particularly in services and supplies really vary in this in this upcoming budget. And the reason is, is that we currently cities currently in negotiations with gyms on the course we anticipate to bring those lease changes to you by this fall the end of this calendar year. And in the current lease, the city pays all utilities for that restaurant. And we anticipate that will take that burden off the city and that the the lessee would then take on utility costs. And there would be other ways to balance that, to make sure it's equitable. But in anticipation of that, we took out the utility costs in this budget. Speaker 0: Regarding leases, can you explain the increase fiscal year 1617? Speaker 4: Yes, absolutely. Thank you. That was my next Segway. So the difference, 1617 is that we're in a long term lease with Greenway Golf. The first four years, they had a set revenue payment of $75,000 a year with the theory that with the thought that they're doing significant capital improvements right now, they're renovating the entire south course. It's currently closed, anticipated to open end of 2016. A lot of capital money. So therefore we gave them that rent offset starting in 1617. That's when the formula changes per the lease and they and it goes to 5% of gross revenue with a minimum of $300,000. So we know at minimum we'll go from 75 to 300000, and that's reflected in this. In this budget. And just to point out to because I get this question sometimes that all golf revenues that come in do remain in the recreation fund. And they are all dedicated to capital projects at the golf course and at parks. Or will be when we have some. Speaker 0: And I'd like to add that I'm hearing good, good comments about how the rates are being maintained at the golf course. Speaker 4: Great. Thank you. Yes, I've gotten great feedback as well. People are very happy with the Greens out there. This shows you for 15, 16 doesn't change a whole lot for 1617, our breakdown of revenues and expenditures. The General fund is it says general fund transfer, but really is general fund. So the 4.23 million. That's all of the park maintenance, that's the general fund transfer. And that you saw previously. The two and a half million is what our fee what we generate from fees for service in the recreation fund. As these charts combine all of the funds you saw previously and then on the expenditure side showing that the recreation fund really is the bulk of our expenditures, followed closely by followed by park maintenance. And this is 16. 17, which is. Fairly similar. So major capital projects coming up. We have the Jean Sweeney Open Space Park. We're anticipating it's a very rough number still, but we're anticipating it to cost roughly $10 million. We currently have $4.52 million, and that is through the $2 million from the developer's agreement with tuneless communities. And the remainder is through the active transportation program, which is state and federal funds. I have another pending grant of $2 million as well with the Land and Water Conservation Fund. One thing that I want to make sure is clear to the community is the and the council has the estimated annual maintenance costs. Those are being considered as we're building these parks. It's a critical component as we're building and renovating parks. So Jean Sweeney, Open Space Park in particular, it's 22 acres. It'll our largest park currently is Washington Park, which is 14 acres. So this is by far our largest park. So we anticipate it will cost an estimated $250,000 to maintain. Staff is working through concepts on how and we'll bring that back to Council on options on how to fund that. But that is something that that we should all be aware of as we're building this new park. Speaker 0: Nebraska. Speaker 3: Was that an annual number? The two, yes. Okay. I'll catch my breath in just a minute. Thank you. Speaker 4: Well, for 22 acres, it's about two full time staff. So I don't know if I've said it in this body, but one of my favorite statistics is at Upper Washington Park alone. That's only Upper Washington. We have 57 trash cans to empty daily, and in the summer we empty them twice daily. So that takes staff and that's only upper Washington. So four times that number of trashcans for Sweeny Park. Asbury Park, we're estimated at 6.2 million. We're almost done with the detailed design and construction documents on that. We currently have two and a half million funds of those funds identified through a housing related parks grant. That was 201,000. We received a $1 million grant from the Housing Authority. We have $400,000 grant from Catullus or donation from Catullus. Several of our youth sports organizations have stepped up and are helping to assist. We have 400 500,000 for Measure, WW, East Bay Regional Park District and some remaining dwelling unit tax proceeds to close out that fund that we anticipate will cost roughly 100,000 to maintain. However, I'm quite confident in doing the numbers on that, that it'll be fully funded by our field rental fees because that will be a premium field as a lighted synthetic field. And so we can charge currently only charge $2 an hour, which is extremely low and we'll be able to charge significantly more than that. And I've talked to all the user groups that are aware of that, and they're fine with it. It's really more of a premier player, high end, you know, player games at that kind of facility and. Speaker 5: BRODY Which is going to which you're finished to. What is the estimated completion on the estuary park? Speaker 4: Well, we're not going to start it until we have the full funding for phase one and that funding. Right. Now, I'll get the engineer's estimate quite soon, but we're anticipating to be 3.7 million. So the remainder will be funded by development impact fees. So I expect to start construction in about a year. Speaker 5: Okay. And then how long before it gets? I guess the bottom line is, when are we going to see our all-weather field? Speaker 4: When do we get to run around and play on it? Construction would be about 9 to 12 months. Speaker 5: About two years from now. Yeah. Okay. Speaker 2: You talk a little bit about the development impact phase and how that works. Speaker 4: Sure. The development impact fees. Whenever housing. Whenever any type. Whenever housing is built, there's a formula for single family units, multi-family units, and there's a component of those development. So they pay development impact fees to offset costs for streets, for sewers, for police, for fire, for library, and also for parks. And so there's. So whether it's single family, there's one formula number and multifamily, there's a different formula number. And so for each unit that goes into a fund that's held specifically to build parks, new parks, and there's an approved list of projects of which these are all on. Also internal boat ramp redesign. We received a grant from the Department of Boating and Waterways under the California Department of Parks and Rec, and it was a $300,000 grant. We're funding the $83,000, which is for the project manager out of the recreation fund. This is only to design will then be going back to boating and waterways for construction funds. And Rob's favorite projects, the Crazy Park Recreation Center. It's been a long time coming and it's fully funded by Measure WW East Bay Regional Park District, and we're completely redesigning that as a prefabricated building and anticipate bringing that forward to council within the next six months or so. Speaker 0: And that's on that one, the 25,000 funded by rentals and program fees. Are there are those current program fees or will those be new fees? Speaker 4: There are current fees in our fee structure. So we have a set fee already for to rent any of our recreation centers such as Bayport, Washington. Lydecker. So the Harrison Center, those are the ones we currently rent out. We expect this will be, you know, of a level, it'll have a kitchen, and so we'll be able to rent it as well. But the cost will be the same. Speaker 0: Thank you. Welcome. Speaker 4: One thing I wanted to add just briefly is we also under under capital projects have a number of park maintenance projects. And one that I'm excited about is is our animal annual playground replacement project. So in this next step will be replacing the playgrounds at Godfrey Park and at Woodstock Parks. And actually, within the next month, we're replacing the playground at Longfellow Park. Speaker 0: Nebraska. Speaker 3: Thank you. Thank you for that nice report. Ms. WOOLDRIDGE. And I just want to say, in looking over this budget, I feel that this is money well spent because it helps us create a healthy community to have good parks and recreation facilities. And it also there's there's kind of a tough to define an account for benefit of providing constructive activities for for all ages really. But we often hear that there's that the most dangerous time of the day is between three and 5 p.m. or three and 6 p.m. when the kids are out of school and you know, might be it at loose ends, but it's great to have these programs in the parks and abilities for young people and actually people of all ages to engage in healthy activities and stay fit. And we also are providing a lot of employment opportunities for especially for young people. When I think of your part timers and a long, long time ago, I was one of them. And I, you know, I worked at the day camps. I worked as a park director. And it was just an exciting opportunity to get training, great training, meet other young people from across the city and show up at City Hall twice a month to pick up my paycheck. And I want to commend Ms. Wooldridge, who has been really a grant application and receiving machine. We are, you know, very fortunate can do more with the grant revenue that we've received. So thank you. And the last point I just want to bring up, and I made note of this in a number of the reports, is that we all know we're in a drought and we've been asked by the governor and it's been said who supplies our water to conserve. So is there a plan underway with recreation department that to say replace toilets with some of the newer models that have? You can choose how much water you're going to flush and that sort of thing, at least as toilets need to be replaced. Speaker 4: We have not yet identified funding for toilets. We have to be honest. So many of them, we've really focused our funding on on on actual irrigation systems and planting and replacing turf areas and passive use areas with drought tolerant plants and irrigation. And in our active areas, buying irrigation controllers, which then we can, you know, be more sophisticated and up to date on how we manage our water. Speaker 3: So would it be possible to consider at least when a toilet needs, you know, maybe when you come to the choice between a repair that might be costly and just replacing it and, you know, saving substantial money and water at the same time. Speaker 4: Yes. I will say that the our office building, we were just certified as a green business. And so we did replace the toilets there with the low flow toilets. So, yes, as we replace toilets, we intend to replace it with low flow. Thank you. Speaker 0: In other comments. Vice Mayor. Speaker 6: I just had a question on this project manager at that is say you view that as. Driven by Sweeney Park and Estuary Park. Speaker 4: Primarily. It's primarily driven by three projects Asbury Park, Sweeney, Open Space Park and the internal boat ramp redesign. Speaker 6: Is there any consideration to making this a either a contract position or a temporary position and evaluating the need for a project manager once those projects are delivered? Speaker 4: We we looked at a contract position. We can certainly look at that some more. I did quite a bit of research, and it's really difficult to find contract project managers that have the expertize in parks. That's something that we can find more in in a staffed project manager, and that's what we were looking at. Speaker 0: I remember de. Speaker 1: Sac on that for. You envision the this position also working on the recreation facility outfit as planned for Alameda point. Speaker 4: What I envision this position is is budgeting it for these two years and really will be working with public works. We're going to need it for more than two years. Yes. I mean, we have a number of projects out at Alameda Point. Sweeney Park is going to take more than two years. Estuary Park is going to take more than two years. And. So what we can do is work with public works to adjust that percentage of how we're funding it, how we're each using it. Over the next, probably 5 to 10 years, we're going to have park projects that need park manager. A project manager. Speaker 0: Brody. Speaker 5: Thank you for the presentation. Just a couple of quick questions. I was going back to the the capital budget, the exhibit two of our packet today. So. The Sweeney Park is estimated to be completed by 2021. According to that plan, right? Speaker 4: Yes. As an estimate. Speaker 5: It looked like it was about was it close to half? Where do you anticipate finding the additional funds for both the Sweeney Park and the Estuary Park? Speaker 4: Estuary Park? I expect to be funded the remainder funded by a combination of development impact fees and and grants. There's the Land Water Conservation Fund that I've mentioned. It's through the department, California Department of Parks and Rec. They're very excited about both Sweeney Open Space Park and Estuary Park. So it didn't it wasn't a good fit for the athletic field side, but for the community park side, it is. So once we're under a plan to go out for construction for that, I'll be applying for grants with them. We're positioned well for a grant with them for Jean Sweeney, Open Space Park. We'll actually hear about that in the next couple of months. But they're the same agency that recommended us as the top two projects to the National Park Service for a grant. So they do have eyes on on the Sweeney Park Project. The remainder of Sweeney Park will be through development impact fees and grants. Speaker 5: Then the other question I saw that there's a a dog park at Bay Farm Island that will be to construct it. And I mean, how far along is that? Do we know where that's going to be? Speaker 4: We're still looking to identify locations. Speaker 5: Okay. Because that's something that a lot of people ask me about is that they don't have one out there. Speaker 6: Mm hmm. Speaker 4: And actually, that brings up another point. Estuary Park. We're also planning on putting a dog park on the community side. Speaker 0: Four days. Speaker 1: Two points. Two and a half points. The first point is, members, since I play tennis regularly, members who are participating in the competition, I guess there's teams I don't play on a team but but they pay a fee and all that. So one of the members asked me to to ask about the whether their fees that they pay are put into a specified budget account that then helps pay for tennis specific issues like for example, the lights if a light goes out, I mean, how does that work? Speaker 4: It's not drilled down to that specific, no. So those tennis fees would be considered program fees. And so those go into the recreation services side of the budget, those fees for services of two and a half million. If a light goes out that comes out of the park maintenance budget or other cell tower revenues or those types of funding streams. Yeah. Speaker 1: Okay. Now, the other issue is so you've got the general fund portion of the Parks and Rec, mainly recreation, but then there's also some general fund transfers that go to like recreation fund and and that's like $1.6 million projected for 1516. And $155,000 for the other maintenance funds. So that's roughly 1.6 million, $1.7 million. So I think this is more of a legal question in the legal question and something to think about and not necessarily have a definitive thing. But, you know, we've talked about increasing possibly the UUT is it ever possible to increase revenue center like a UUT at first to pay for X capital costs like closing whatever gap or the Jean Sweeney and then keep keep them. But once that's closed then. Of that same source of revenue, then pay for operations. I mean, that's a legal question. I don't know if you know, but because that way we can then perhaps then backfill the general fund dollars that are going on top of the usual general fund, but backfill the. Other general fund other maintenance fund backfill that with possibly that and then free that up to help pay for. I mean, it's I know that would work. Speaker 2: It really depends on how you met Amir. It depends on how you specify the language in the ballot. Right. So if you if you if it's a general tax, which it is currently, then you can use it however you want. But if you specify it, then and you know that that takes a two thirds, if you specify how the money is going to be used, then you can't you have no you have no ability to change how you're going to use it in the future. Speaker 4: And to clarify, because you were pointing out 155,000 in the transfer that separate those are for for for operational costs which is separate from the capital cost for the for Sweeney Park, for example. Speaker 1: Okay. Great. Thank you. Speaker 0: I have a question in regards to the skate park. I've been asked to look into having lights there. You hear that there aren't any activities for young adults and people that use that and there is security out there currently. So we could consider getting some lights. I think that that would expand the opportunities. Speaker 2: I'd like to ask Miss Ott, who I know is probably wasn't listening, but lights at the skatepark. Is that a least tern issue? Speaker 4: No, we've. They scared me to answer that. Speaker 2: The light. Speaker 4: We've looked into the Eastern issue in lighting because the skate park is where the sports complex would go. And so we've already looked into lighting because we would expect a sports complex and fields to be lighted. So we've we've done that lighting analysis. Speaker 7: Jennifer Short Chief Operating Officer There are restrictions in that area, as Amy said, that are all in very specific about what kind of lighting there can be, how tall the poles can be. In some areas, they're actually restricted for having nighttime lighting at all. So it's something we could look into, but we'd have it would be unless you know for sure that we couldn't do it, but it'd be difficult. We'd have to follow all the biological restrictions related to that. Speaker 0: So maybe they could be low. But I do know, you know, we have a very active community. In fact, all ages are out there. And if there is a way to add lighting and since we have security out there anywhere. Speaker 2: We can. Speaker 0: Take a look at look into it. That lovely. Speaker 4: Yes, we can look into it. Regarding the lease terms we've done with with Jen's Jennifer's lighting expert, you know, we've looked at the the lumens and how lights now are athletic. Lights are pretty targeted. So we can really focus it where we need it. Part of my goal with the sports complex is to is to expand on that skate park and also add BMX behind it. And so so that is a long term goal. And so the lighting may be part of that. Speaker 1: On the topic of targeting lighting for sure that that's true because that and I mean this in a humorous way at the group I was playing on the tennis cruisy park tennis courts last week on Thursday, and it was an evening. And we noticed that because there are three courts, the lights are on each side, so they're not in the front and the back but on each side. So a light goes from one or goes to the second and third court, but it doesn't hit the first court. It was going. Speaker 8: Why is this court so dark? Speaker 1: And we we looked up, we realized, oh, the lights. So anyways. Speaker 4: So that's good feedback. The point. Speaker 1: Is that lights are targeted as well. Speaker 4: Indicated. Right. And another good point on that just briefly, is that part of the cell tower revenues were we're adding pathway lighting. There's currently no pathway lighting at Cruisy Park. So if you're playing tennis, you're in the lights until 10:00 and then you have to walk in the dark to your car. So we're adding pathway lighting to make it more safe for residents. Speaker 1: Thank you. Speaker 0: Which will be low. Right. Speaker 4: They'll be just like all the other pathway lighting. Correct. Speaker 0: Any other question, vice mayor. Speaker 6: What happens if you don't get your position? You're asking for. Speaker 4: The the project manager specifically. Speaker 6: And both of them. Speaker 4: The other piece is the for the park for person position. We would then be hiring as a park park maintenance worker instead, which is our existing structure. And what's the impact of that? Speaker 6: Yes. Speaker 4: The impact of that is so our parks are our parks are old. You know, Jackson Park was built in 1903. We have very old infrastructure. That's the wonderful thing about our parks is the history. And but for us from a maintenance side, it's also the challenge of our parks. Little John is a fantastic example we struggle with. It took us. We had a leak there last summer, a water break. And in the irrigation, it took us almost four weeks to find it because it's 3 to 4 or five feet deep, because we keep adding soil on top of it as we keep fixing the dirt and fixing this the lawn. And we don't have plans for a lot of our parks because things were built before plans got lost or it's just so old and there's such deferred maintenance. So what would happen is we we've struggled this past year to especially with our two vacant positions, we've backfilled with a lot of part time work . So we would aim to maintain where we're at. But if we keep maintaining work, we're quickly getting past the point of being able to to keep the parks at that level without doing some some deferred maintenance to really get it up. So if we get a four person, they can start doing projects and have bring in an expertize, for example, on irrigation, which a lot of our current guys don't have. And if we bring in a four person, we can get irrigation more efficient, we can get it more up to speed of of where we're currently at with the technology and we're so far behind it. Speaker 0: Staff looking for direction on kind of item. I think like feedback from yes. Speaker 2: We would and I think you know we're presenting these the budget to you and and we'll listen to your feedback and then we'll be bring we'll bring back the final next on Januar on June 2nd. So if you do have comments, we'd like to hear them tonight in my speech. Speaker 6: And the purpose of my question is not to tell you how to. How to do it is more of a what. What happens if we approve a budget but said no new positions? They where we are. Speaker 4: In the parks you would start if we start lose if we can't fill our existing classifications that are vacant. You will. Speaker 6: See that's a different I'm talking well. Speaker 0: That's before person. Speaker 4: Is not a new it's not. Speaker 6: It's it's. Speaker 4: Not a new body. Speaker 6: It's an it's a it's it's same position. But you've upgraded it, right? Speaker 4: It's a different classification. Speaker 6: It's an understand. Speaker 4: Right, right. It's a different class. It's a it's a bumped up classification. Speaker 6: And I think you gave a reasonable explanation of what happens if we don't. And that's that's all I'm looking for. I'm not looking for a solution. That's your job. Right. But the idea is to if we've got a position, it's like the project manager position. What happens if you don't hire the project manager? Speaker 4: We and we consult. We get consultants and we do it. And what it means is it's more on my plate in terms of of what I'm trying to balance with running a department and managing projects. So, for example, with Cruzi Park, I have a consultant on board a project, manage that and it's been pulling teeth. It's taken a lot of my time, even just a project manager, because she has other priorities. We're not necessarily her priority. This project isn't her priority. Speaker 6: Thank you, Madam Chair. Speaker 2: I also would like to say something about the project managers. I think we're going to hear again in public works about the project managers in the last three years. I have noticed, particularly in the capital improvement program, which is this document that you that you have in your packet, we have had projects on our books for a long time that we have not been able to get to. And frankly, one of the one of my comments was, why would we give you money if you can't do the projects that, you know, we we give you money, but you can't complete the project. And I think what you're seeing now from both recreation as well as public works, is an attempt to actually get those projects done. We have a lot of things that we need to get done. We just didn't have the manpower to do it. And so this is our opportunity to actually get those bodies here to actually finish some of those projects. And I think this is an example of that. Speaker 4: And a tag off of that. One more very concrete example is Cruisy Park Recreation Center. So we, my predecessor, chose to manage that project himself. He didn't and I don't have the skill set to do that. So what happened is we spent $250,000 of measure WW developing those plans. We went out to bid it was 40% overbid because it was not realistic, because it wasn't managed by a person who knew what they were doing. I can't really manage something like Sweeney Park to the level of the way it needs to be managed and really do it properly because I don't have the skill set. So that's a very real example of of why you need the right people managing projects. Speaker 0: You want to finish, vice mayor? Speaker 6: There was. I just have a follow on. Is that. And this is maybe a topic for. Kind of the wrap up, the overall on the high level are things that are transient, that are one time, because once the recreation center is built, I'm sure there's other projects, but there's a certain amount of work that no longer has to be done because it's built. There's another type of work that happens. So and then for deferred maintenance, it's the same thing that there there are certain projects that are basically rebuilds, but once it's done, then it's operations. So. I don't expect us to figure that out tonight, but I'm just trying to make sure I keep in my mind what are what each of those buckets are. Speaker 2: Right. And I think also, Madam Vice Vice Mayor, the public works director, is also going to be showing bringing to you tonight. We are they actually contracted with a firm to look at all of our deferred maintenance of all of our buildings. And it's a pretty extent well, it's not done yet. I'll come back to you in the fall, but it's going to be a pretty extensive list. So I think they're going to be plenty of projects in the future for us to to work on. Speaker 3: Member Ashcraft Thank you, Madam Mayor. I think the question the Vice Mayor asks is a good one, and I would appreciate every department here that's presenting to always look at that. For instance, we talked about it and the question came up, do you outsource i.t. I've talked to a number of people from other organizations since we had that meeting about the pitfalls of excuse me outsourcing i.t. But we're not talking about that tonight, but it's good to at least consider the question and give us the reasons. As I always tell you, make your case. And I think we all look to you for the expertize and the guidance, but we do need to ask those questions when we come to considering adding extra bodies at the same time in recreation, we are adding some new recreational facilities and it's really exciting. But Jean Sweeney in Estuary Park, the install boat ramp and eventually we'll have Alameda point on line two. So I think it would be unrealistic to think that we can stay the same size as our staff, especially a staff that has already experienced attrition and yet effectively manage these resources. And it's not unlike managing your own house. I live in one that was built in 1881 and there's always a project and if you leave them go for too long. We all know that you end up paying and you probably end up paying more. So I really appreciate the the analysis you've done. And, and I will look to you for guidance and to keep those grant applications coming. Thank you. Speaker 0: And Brody. Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam Mayor. So. Looking at the list of the CFP projects like the Sweeney Open Space is supposed to be finished in 2021, right? So I guess I'm still also a little unclear. Now, after we've done Estuary Park, Jeanne Sweeney, it's another boat ramp. Some of these public works projects that, you know, in the next five years, you know, what is the project manager going to be responsible for after that? Speaker 4: A couple of things. One is we still have Enterprise Park out at a later point. We still have a sports complex. But the discussion with public works has also been that they also have a strong in. You'll hear about the need for public for project managers so we can start shifting that maybe it becomes 25% parks and 75% public works. We can shift the funding and shift the priorities of the types of projects they're working on. It doesn't have to always be parks. Speaker 5: Is that? I kind of share the vice players concern. Interested in hearing if that's alleviated or he still has those concerns. Speaker 0: I'd like to. You mind if we continue? Okay. Speaker 4: I just. Speaker 5: I'm still not quite, quite there yet. Speaker 6: Later, I think, when we finish the presentations tonight, I. I have also some homework, which is along the same lines from the last meeting. And I wanted to talk about our general fund reserve. $30 million and how it might apply to some of the things that are being presented now. Some of those things that are. Again, I'm trying to shift in my mind what is the short term activity and what's an operational activity one time in short term or relative terms? Because you just listed a series of projects like five or six years and in the end we have the employee. And are there going to be other projects at some at some point? That that's either going to end or continue on and. That, I think. Well, when we talk about a project manager. Again. That's why I ask the question does it make sense to do that with a contract that goes with the project and maybe get the right person? Or does it make sense to hire an individual who's a project manager who has expertize in parks but now is going to be working for public works eventually? We? Speaker 0: Mr. Honest. Speaker 6: Yeah. My name is Bob Haun, Public Works Director. The assumption was, is the project manager that has been kind of allocated towards Parks and Recreation would be absorbed by the public works department at the end of the two year budget cycle and less still needed by the parks. Again, we can titrate that might be 5050 or something like that. I think you're going to see, especially when we bring the list of facility improvements back in the fall, that there's a significant amount of work to do. I'm starting off the project management group at a very slow pace. Okay. So we're we have a project manager three now we're asking for a two in our budget and a one in our budget to kind of get the full range. And the assumption was, is in a couple of years when this too has completed the parks projects, they would be reabsorbed into the public works department. I would be comfortable with the skill set. I mean, any project manager is going to have a project management skill set that I'm really looking for as opposed to a specific expertize . And well, I only do parks or I only do buildings or something like that. There's a component of project management that they're going to manage a project and their job is to get it done as quickly as possible, as cheaply as possible, and move on to the next project and get that going. And I think this is what I'm trying to build within public works, is this ability to get these projects done quickly and move on to the next one. And so the assumption was and part of the reason we are keeping 25% of this individual in public works is a there's an educational component in public works. They're going to be I mean, they're going to be educated about project management. They're going to be educated about contract issues, general condition issues. As state law changes, we have to incorporate that into the project management group. And so. They're going to be kind of working for public works 25% now. So they're going to get a flavor of public works. I don't think you're going to find somebody that exclusively parks because they're just not out there. There isn't a project manager that just does parks. We could certainly in part of the recruitment process, we're going to be asking the question, listing your project management experience. And one of those questions will be parks experience. And we're using that as kind of a way to zero in that particular individual. Speaker 0: Thank you. Member day. Speaker 1: So thank you. I hear the concern being raised about positions that have specific tasks and that their positions then continue even after the tasks finish. In listening to the presentation and I think what helps me is the fact that the particular position that we're talking about, the project manager position that we know for sure in this coming fiscal year and the next fiscal year, that it's that it's not general funded, it's not part of the general fund. There's no impact on the general fund. And I suspect that the nature of the work. Immediately beyond 16. 17 is not dramatically different than what is contemplated for 1516 and 1617 that it is still going to be dealing with these large park projects or anything similar to it. Meaning that perhaps in 1718 it will still not be part of the general fund and maybe even a. Into 18, 19, I mean. Well, certainly that might be a realm of speculation for sure. We know that in the 15, 16 and 16, 17, the project manager position being discussed is not subject to the general fund. It says so right there in the presentation. So that that's the saving grace. Speaker 0: And we're. Oh. Speaker 5: I'm sorry. So I didn't really give an idea and direction I'm willing to give half right now. So I think the the four person position is important to do. And, you know, I'd like to again wait to the end before we talk about the project manager, before I can give an opinion on that one. Speaker 3: Nebraska is a clarification question regarding Councilmember de SACS comment about no impact to the general fund. I understand that this would come out of recreation budget and somewhat shared by public works, but what about the cost of benefits and retirement, that sort of thing? Speaker 4: That's all included. Speaker 3: Or included in and none of that touches the general fund. Speaker 4: And correct me if I'm wrong. Even public public works most of that's not just most of public works is not funded by general fund. So project managers are funded by the the project. Speaker 0: And Ingrid? Speaker 6: Yes. As you are well aware, most of our projects are funded by outside sources. Okay. Very few of the public works projects, the traditional street sewers, stormwater is completely funded from outside sources. Okay. We don't expect the only impact that we would have on the general fund. Eventually, if you decide to go there is this facilities assessment that we will be completing and bringing back to you in the fall. It's going to be up to you because that's a general fund item and it'll be up to you to decide what level. You want to address on those facilities, but we're kind of getting involved in the works right now. An American. Speaker 0: Vice mayor. Speaker 6: Just a reality check here. We've run through one department, 705. Speaker 7: So I'd like to be able to comment. Speaker 6: I just wanted to, too. And I wasn't targeting you with that, but I just want to. Speaker 3: Pick up the pace. Speaker 6: And pick up the pace. Sorry. Speaker 0: Thank you. And on that note, I'd like to say that I actually fully support both of these positions. One of your slides showed significant previous cuts in the last ten years to our parks. I think Rec and parks is extremely important to Alamitos. I think we take great pride in them and we want them maintained. And I think you're doing a terrific job, especially with all these cuts that have included six full time staff in the past ten years. Unfortunate, I think, what I've seen from the presentations last week. Was that some departments were able to access over time. Others access consultants, others access part time employees. Some overextend salaried employees to address the situation of these vacancies. I personally would rather fill the vacancies. I fully support your suggestion of replacing a park maintenance worker with a four person position. I like training from within so that they are qualified to promote from within, if at all possible. But I, I think that at the end of a term that was used last time was phantom savings in some departments and fairness and equity to all of our departments and providing what's important and not overextending our staff. I think I personally will support these vacancies probably. Speaker 7: All. Speaker 0: Throughout the budget. Whatever you guys recommend. My summary. Speaker 3: Yeah. And I want to see the analysis looking at it from both directions, but. Speaker 0: Well heard. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. All right, so let's finish up this presentation. Thank you very much. And we'll move on to the next one. Thank you. Next is library. Is that correct? Speaker 2: That's correct. Speaker 7: It evening, Mayor Spencer and members of the City Council. I'm Jen Psaki, library director. And I'm pleased to be here this evening to tell you about our library and present our recommendation for the budget. Okay. How does this thing work? Forward and back. But what if I pointed at. Speaker 2: Something. Speaker 7: Technology. You got to love it or not. Right now. All right. Who we are. We are a relatively small organization. We have a main library and two neighborhood libraries. We have five divisions within our library system. Technical Services is kind of an old school term in libraries for the ordering and cataloging of the materials. And over the last probably 12 years or so, it's also the division that has taken on the information technology, the computers and things like that. Children's Services is really the meat and potatoes of any library system. They are the most well attended program and the hardest working division within the library. I think circulation is very straightforward. It's the check in, check out maintenance of the collection, getting things back on the shelves after it's been returned. Adult services includes teen services, and our supervisor of adult services also manages the two branch libraries. So that's why you've got the little tree under that supervising librarian. She oversees both branch libraries, as well as the adult services division at the main library. You know, the one thing I forgot to say about that is when we moved into the new main library in 2006, we moved into a facility three times the size of the interim facility without adding any full time staff members at the time. The thought was, well, you can manage with what you have. And we did. We made do with what we have, but we can only do so much with that number. Our fire, our four divisions, our library administration, which handles personnel and accounts payable, and all the things you see on the list. Administration consists of one library director, myself, an executive assistant, a full time custodian, and 1.1 part time maintenance assistant. Library operations is the meat and potatoes. Most of our money goes into that division. Almost all of our employees are in that division. That's the division that does the programs that the public attends. It's the division that maintains all the hardware that's in our building. It's the division that purchases, catalogs, processes all the materials that are in the collection and does all those special programs that you see the library out there with. There's four supervisors, one for each of those main divisions from the previous slide. Three senior librarians. One at the main, one at each neighborhood library. One librarian. He's our teen librarian. And then seven library technicians that are spread among the divisions. Then we have approximately 40 part time employees. We could not operate without our part time employees. Even the hours that we have at only the main library could not be done with just the full time component that we have. When the library is asked to reduce the budget, it always means cutting hours, which always means cutting part time people. Our theory has always been we'd rather keep the body and cut the number of hours they work and they like the work environment so much. Most of the part timers agree to working fewer hours so that they can have a job, so that if the good times come back, they can have the job and add their hours back. But that hasn't happened. Speaker 0: Hey, before you move on, we have 40 part time employees and that is because you don't have the funds to extend the hours or that those used to be. Speaker 7: They were never full time. Speaker 0: So do any of them receive benefits? Speaker 7: No. Speaker 0: So is this one of our departments that are high on the part time employees that don't receive benefits? Speaker 7: Yes. I believe we're right behind recreation with having a lot of part time employees and none of ours are seasonal. Speaker 0: Some of these I'm sorry to interrupt, but I think that is a difference. It's rec and parks, seasonal because they have programs during the summer, for instance. Speaker 2: I think some of the maybe Miss Wooldridge can answer this, but I think some of the rec are year round. But there are a good number of seasonal. We're talking about part time employees. Do you have year round, part time employees or just seasonal? Speaker 4: We have both because we have folks, for example, who may work in our after school program from 3 to 5 roughly, and then also may choose to work in our summer program. Speaker 0: So this is an issue for me in regards to having part time employees that we don't pay benefits to. That seems to be a practice to limit costs. And I bring this up because there has been discussion from this council in regards to investing in Wal Mart whether or not we're having our funds be invested somehow in Wal-Mart. Whereas to me, the issue is much closer to home. I would like to look at. The savings are how we do business in regards to having how close are they being 30 hours a week or what is the cutoff? What type of employer is this? Is the city. So I would like staff to report back on that. Speaker 7: Okay. None of our part time employees work more than 27 hours. We do have employees who work two Sundays a month, so they may only work 10 hours a month. And then we have some that work the full 20, 27 hours a week. And so it varies. Almost all of my part time employees work other jobs, so their availability isn't exactly what we need from one individual. So that's why we have so many. Speaker 0: And I appreciate that. My concern is whether or not we are. The type of employer that we don't want to be. Thank you. Yes. Member Ashcroft. Speaker 3: So just changed his tune on a larger issue because, of course, we don't want to favor one department over the other. Are you suggesting we should maybe do away with part time employment? Speaker 0: I don't believe I said that. What I said was that I'd like to look at part time employees. In fact, I would actually want to look at them across all of our departments. I am very concerned when we sit up here and we talk about not investing in Wal-Mart because they keep their employees supposedly under a certain mark and don't pay benefits. I don't want us to be in that position. Speaker 3: All right. Speaker 0: It doesn't speak to employees that want to work only Sundays and whatnot. But if we have a practice of keeping employees below whatever that number is and don't is at 28, is that when do we pay benefits or 30? When does the city. Speaker 7: Well, I don't know about the city, but we always run with 27, so it just kind of works with the way our scheduling works. Speaker 0: So rather so for me personally, I'm not as concerned about investing in Wal Mart as an investment. I'm much more concerned about how we treat our employees as a practice. Speaker 3: So I would just make a distinction. There was Wal Mart. I think their profit margin is probably greater than the city's. But, you know, we're going to go through these budget discussions and we know there's only so much money to go around. So but that's a fair question to consider. Speaker 5: And I don't think we're we're intentionally keeping people under a certain limit to deprive them of benefits either. I hope that that was not the accusation that came from the middle chair. Speaker 0: What I'm saying is I'd like to look at that if, in fact, we have if we pay if the city pays benefits at 28 hours and we have quite a few employees at 27, I don't think that number is just arbitrary. Speaker 2: The number is actually 30. Speaker 0: All right. So whatever the number is. But I actually want to look, we can. Speaker 2: Take a look at that. I think the other thing is. Speaker 0: You know, I actually don't think it's necessary to suggest that that's not an issue to be looked at. I think it is important. And I'd rather just proceed with the question and have staff respond to it. Thank you. Is there any at this point? Let's continue. Thank you. Speaker 7: Thank you. And our other two divisions in the budget is adult literacy. Adult literacy is two part time employees and about 30 or 40 volunteers monthly. It's our program with the State Library to train people to be tutors for low, low level reading skills. Although our program MM Reads has far exceeded just teaching reading, they teach life skill classes, public speaking, writing. They hope next year, with their 35th anniversary of existence, to publish a book of some of their learners writings. So they do a lot. And it's all funded by the State Library, except for the two part time employees. That's the part that comes from the city, and they're housed in the veterans building. So that's part of our match back to the State Library. That funding was cut out of the state budget. We're hoping Thursday with the May revised from the governor that he put the literacy funding back in. That was the big push from the libraries across the state this year. The memorial fund is really a fund that receives monetary donations to the library from individuals, organizations or as support groups. It's very straightforward. We don't pay personnel out of that fund because it ebbs and flows. Some years we receive more donations than others, and some years we don't receive. At all. So. That's how that fund works. We have three library support groups. The library board is a chartered board. There are five volunteer citizens appointed by the mayor. It's four year terms. They can be reappointed for an additional four year term. They act as stewards for the library. They advise on matters of policy. They go over any new policy that the library has. They had their big work in the last few years in working with the library building team, in building the new main library and the renovations of the two branch libraries. And now they've had a chance to go over our strategic plan and do an update on the strategic plan. And we're going to have two new members coming up. You'll see an appointment coming your way, Madam Mayor. And so they meet every other month on the odd number of months. The Library Foundation was formed in 1998. They provide support for both long and short term needs. They have established an endowment. They receive donations from individuals. They solicit donations from larger organizations, corporations. And they sponsor events at the library of a cultural nature. Educational programs. The Friends of the Library was formed in 1973. They originally formed to try and get a new main library built. They're there to increase public awareness of libraries. They support the library by fundraising for all our special programs. They have the twice a year book sale at the club, and thanks to the rec department, the cost of using that space is very low. They also run Dewey's cafe that you see pictured there. It's all volunteer run. We set it up with the construction of the library and they handle all their staffing, all their purchasing, all their banking. And it's been great. Originally I was told that would work for two years and the volunteers would all walk away. And here we are coming up on nine years and they're still going strong. It's one of the most beloved corners of our building. Over the years, over the last five years. The friends have donated about $180,000 to the library. That money is primarily for the special programs. The puppet shows the printing of fliers, paying for refreshments for various programs that you attend. Without the friends, we wouldn't have any of those special programs. The foundation has given the library about 145,000, almost 146,000, including the 50,000 for our materials collection that we received last December. And the two organizations are currently in talks to possibly merge into one. That's not finalized. We'll get a report on that later this week to the library board. So it's a possibility we'll have one support group, but both are highly valued by the staff and they have done great work for us. Speaker 0: Or move on. If anyone is interested in serving on the library board, please submit your application to our city clerk. Yes. Thank you. Speaker 7: We're a fun group for a library group. Some people think libraries are boring. Speaker 0: But we don't. Speaker 7: Well, good, because I don't think libraries are boring either. We have a couple of large initiatives coming up. We are looking to purchase a new integrated library system. It's the software that manages everything the library does from check out cash handling or online catalog ordering. It does everything for us until we actually pick something we don't have. Across the ballpark would be 250,000. If we were to pick something that's open source, but that would require a lot more care and feeding on our end and people with the expertize to manage it to possibly 500,000. But we do have the funds in the remaining measure o account or fund measure. So was the money used to help construct the new main library and do the renovations on the two neighborhood libraries? We're using it for capital expenditures and the previous finance director, Fred Marsh, confirmed that the purchase of an ELC would qualify as a capital purchase and certainly the release of the RFP and the selection of the car to us. What's the word? Bringing the contract would come to the Council for approval. The other really big initiative for us is the state library's high speed broadband initiative that they call lighting up libraries. At the last budget session. Our IT division reported that the library has upgraded our wireless, which is true. We completed that project about three months ago and we have upgraded our thin clients. So that it would work a little bit better. Currently, the speed of our system is 18 megs, which is faster than you would have at home. But it's not very fast, especially when you have that many users on. With this project, we would have one gigabyte of speed at each library location. So we'd go from 18 to 1000, so 20 times as fast as we are now. This is made possible through the State Library, through an organization called Scenic. Scenic is the Corporation for Education Network Initiatives in California. They currently have most schools and universities in California on their high speed backbone, and it was only with a lot of work from libraries for us to say, hey, public libraries should be on this too. And so the state decided to put a couple million dollars into the budget for the State Library to work with. We did get in on the first round. It cost approximately 30,000 to start up, but we received 24,000 from the State Library as grant funding to help with that startup cost. We hope by the end of the calendar year that we will have that up and running. There was also a comment that memory sticks don't work in the thin clients and they do. The project was completed in January. We have not had a complaint that was logged by staff that a memory stick has not worked in the thin clients and it's hard to know that it's a new thin client because we didn't replace the screen. We just replaced the client that attaches to the back of the screen. We're also working on our lead certification. Our current building is LEED Silver for new construction, and here we are several years down the road. So we're looking at our lead classification again and we're currently submitting our application for LEED for existing buildings. We've submitted the application wants to go for LEED Gold and we're currently working on the response to the credits that were not approved. We hope to have the lead project completed by June, so we'll see how that goes. Our consultant that we have through Stop Waste is very optimistic that we will achieve gold status. Having a lead building is very expensive as we went through this process, part of it parallel but separate. We two became an Alameda County Green business. We've changed all the aerators on all our sinks and we've adjusted the flush rates on our toilets. But buying toilet paper that is LEED approved buying hand soap that is green certified is very expensive. We went from like $50 for four gallons of pink hand soap to $100 for four gallons of yellow hand soap. But it's LEED approved. And so if you want to have a lead building, you have to be prepared to spend more money on it. Speaker 0: Thank you for clarifying that, because it's not just the construction, it's the clean supplies and everything else. Speaker 7: You have to maintain your building. You can't just have it and continue to say your lead because things change over time. The mechanicals may not function to the level they were when you first opened and things like that. Continue on. Our other two big initiatives is our words on we'll library book bike. That's what it looks like. It's a handmade Hailie tricycle. They're made in Philadelphia and they open up to have shelves. We are going to have a wireless hotspot with it. The rider will also have an iPad or some sort of tablet that will come back through our aisles system and be able to offer library cards, answer reference questions, checkout materials. So we're envisioning this not to just write in the 4th of July parade, but on a sunny day, maybe go down to the beach and offer a beach reading at the Earth Day Festival. Go go down to the festival with books on Green Living. We would use it to go to the head starts that we already go to during the summer, out to the parks for our teddy bear and teddy bear picnic readings. We're really looking forward to having it. And our big plan is we're going to write it into the council chambers when it gets here. We've been informed that it was. Speaker 2: Supposed to be a surprise. Speaker 7: It will be because it hasn't arrived yet. They finished construction. They put the last coat of paint on it, so they should get it on a train to us soon. Shipping by train was less expensive. It was purchased with grants from Target and the Rotary Club, including all the safety equipment and the collection. So we're really looking forward to having it. If there was ever a town that should have a library on wheels, it should be Alameda. And then we're doing a thousand books for kindergarten. It was a pilot program about a year and a half ago, and now it's a full blown program that we run. Parents sign their children up before they're in kindergarten and they see how long it takes them to get to having read a thousand books to them. It preps them for kindergarten. These are two of our graduates, our first two, as a matter of fact, of our thousand books before kindergarten program. And I think we have about a half dozen kids that have finished. They receive a book bag and a little magnet picture frame, but it's been a lot of fun to see them. The kids have a good time picking out their books when they come. Then other things the library does without going into a whole lot of detail. We have a school resource services program as part of our children's department. We have one part time person who is a liaison back to the schools she visits, the schools she put together. She puts together boxes of materials for a teacher's request on a subject so that they can come pick up the one box and it'll have books and websites and other things that they could use for whatever topic they're working on. Storywalk is going to be a program we're doing in cooperation with parks. We will be blowing up picture books, stories on large signs that will go on, signs similar to the realtor signs, and they'll be placed along walkways in the park so that you walk the trail and you read a page from the book and you walk the trail a little further and you get a little more. See, it helps the community get out and exercise a little bit and read a story along the way and hopefully they get through the whole thing and we will change the books out periodically. So during the summer we're hoping to launch that. We have a teen advisory board put together by our teen librarian. And the picture up on top is a mural that the teens there on the board requested from the library board to be able to paint in the teen room. They made their presentation to the library board. They got all their own supplies. They found a mentor to work them through the project. And with Mat's assistance, they got the mural painted and I believe they made a presentation to council about their project. They also put together the programs that are offered for teenagers in our library, and they've been a very big help to that. Library Outdoors is a new program that we're just applying for a state library pitcher grant. We have a pilot backpack right now available from the main library that has trail maps. A small first aid kit, binoculars, a ranger drawing books and stuff. And someone can check it out and go out to a park and have their trail maps and be able to look at things and it'll help them with their walk out again. Another thing to get the community outdoors, because at Ratliff, our adult services supervisor has met with East Bay Regional, California Parks, and she's meeting with National Parks next week. And they're all on board with putting together their materials to give to the library at no cost to include in the backpacks. When this grant comes through because pitch grant, you make a phone call to the State Library and if they like it, they invite you to do full application. And we were invited to continue. We'll have three backpacks at each library, one for each level of park, the local parks, the state parks and the national parks, so that people can check them out and see how that goes. Made in Alameda is a design thinking project. It's already morphed a couple different times from what it started out, but made in Alameda. Two of my part time librarians are working on this pilot project, things that are made in Alameda. They're going to try and get the word out about them. Everything from beverages on spirit alley to. Pineapple sales. Who does those sales? And if you tour their facility, you see that they use the foxholes in the ground so they don't have to drag the heavy sail material up on top of a sewing table. Everything stays at ground level and they stand in the foxhole. All kinds of things that are made in Alameda. They've been meeting with several people out in the community to find out if this would be a great project. We were looking for something to bring the thirties and forties somethings in to make the library their third place. And this seems to have hit on something that everybody's excited about. And naturally the library has book discussion groups for all ages. We have beginning intermediate and advanced for children. We have a team book group, we have two adult book groups and we have an LGBTQ book group as well. And our biggie is the summer reading programs which will start right after school lets out. We have summer reading programs for children, teens and adults. Children's. When I started in Alameda, we were lucky if we got about 150 kids to sign up for summer reading. Now we have well over 2000, so it's a really big program. So those are some of the other things that we do and we do a lot more than that. Over the years, mostly over the last nine years, we've had a reduction in our library materials budget from about 370000 to 177000. The materials budget is kind of the easy pickings when asked to reduce. We had already reduced office supplies and cut training out of the budget and travel reimbursement and that kind of stuff has all been cut long ago. So you either cut hours or you cut materials, and it's usually a combination of both. As far as service hours goes, we have 146 service hours that we used to have across the three libraries, and now we're down to 112 per week and that's at all three locations. We've had the same number of service hours for the last four years and though we would appreciate having more hours, the cost to open more hours is not just keeping the doors open, but also have the funding for the activities that happen inside the building. And just to make the building function, because it's not just the cost of the part time people who work there, it's also the cost of the utilities, the janitorial supplies. And then, as I said, the activities that occur, the materials budget is a little bit more important to us because it is shrinking so much. When you don't purchase something and it goes out of print, it's very hard to catch up your collection. And yes, print still exists in many, many homes and in many, many hands. It's not all the Internet and it's not all e-books, although that's an important component of what we have. This is what our budget looks like. And because everybody at the library works everywhere, it's kind of hard to pigeonhole it as administration operations. Literacy is easy and memorial fund. So rather than look too close at this particular slide, it's better to look at it this way. We do have a general fund transfer. It's about 51% of our budget and it's fairly stable in that it's been 51% over the last several years. We receive a small portion of property tax. It's 46% of our budget and then about 2% are from other sources, other sources being the memorial fund and grant projects and things like that. Personnel services, you can see, is at close 61, 62% of our budget over the next two years. The increase is primarily the rise in the minimum wage because we do have a handful of minimum women, a handful, we have a lot of minimum wage people, and that's going to increase in the coming fiscal years. Supplies and services, we have a bump up because last year the council was gracious enough to give us $100,000. One time. What was it called? Revenue. Surplus and we haven't spent it all. So we're asking for it to be reappropriated to us so we can still spend it. Cost allocation is that magic number that appears. I don't really know what the increases are for that other than the increased costs. Speaker 0: And Brody. Speaker 5: Thanks, Matt. So just a quick question. So are you proposing any increase in service hours or any increase in materials? Speaker 7: No, I'm not proposing an increase in either. I'm proposing we hold the line. When we reduced our hours, we didn't actually reduce services per say. We didn't cut anything out. I guess that's the way to say it. We just did everything a little bit less. So we still do class visits. This is a good example, but we don't do as many of them because we're only open to weekday mornings when the kids are in school and people don't really want to come with their class on a Friday. If we were open Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday mornings, we would do more classes. But we were very strategic when we cut the hours in the first place because we had more groups that needed to use the library in the evening. So that's why we have three evenings and then we have the rest days and closed in the evening and materials. Speaker 5: Are you asking for an increase of materials? Speaker 7: Yeah, it would be nice. Speaker 5: But it's not in these numbers. Speaker 7: No, it's not in these numbers. Um. Yeah. Speaker 0: Vice Mayor. Speaker 6: And how does the materials budget coincide with the 28,000 that we heard about last session? Speaker 2: That was just if she was being asked to reduce by the 1.4, that was the $28,000 in materials. Yes. So that was a reduction. That was if we were going to ask all the departments to cut across the board. Speaker 0: Amber Ashcraft. Speaker 3: Thank you and thank you for that presentation. Couple of questions. I we hear from time to time about the limited hours of the computer lab. But I also think I've heard you mentioned that that's a different funding source. No, no. Speaker 7: The computer lab is 21 computers. They are full computers, not thin clients. And yes, we do not like to have it open unattended because we've had gum and disk drives because it has a disk drive, the mouse balls disappear, they unscrew them and then you're in there to work and you don't have a mouse ball in your mouse. And we're not going to put wireless mice in the lab. The lab actually hosts about 22 classes a month. We do offer Open Lab on Mondays and Wednesdays, as was stated oftentimes in conjunction with the class where it's not disruptive for it to also be open lab. But some classes, it's very difficult. Have people come in and use the lab when the instructor is teaching specifically when are Alameda? Reed's learners are in there. They need everything to go a little bit more slowly for them to be able to follow what's going on. And it's very difficult when they have other people in there using the lab. So it's not open as much as open labs could be, but the lab is getting used. I mean, 22 uses in one month is quite a bit. Speaker 3: Yeah. And that adult literacy program is wonderful by the way, as are all your programs. And then ah how much funding are we getting from the State Library these days? Speaker 7: Zero. Speaker 0: Thanks. Speaker 3: I think that for. Speaker 7: E he the governor had put library funding back in the budget and we got a smidge for the literacy programs. We received 15,000 last year for literacy. And then he took it out. So unless something changes when the May revise is released, we are not expecting to receive any funding from the State Library. The State Library can offer grants to us because the state is required to have the federal funds available to us, and they're the ones who filter that back down to the individual libraries. Speaker 3: Thank you. That's. That's disappointing to hear. Speaker 0: Up. Speaker 7: Yeah, quickly. These are the graphical presentations of the previous slide that just show how much is our property tax and how much is the general fund and the other sources and then the expenditures of the same. Speaker 0: Thank you. Any other comments? Questions. And, Brody. Speaker 5: I'd just like to see if we could find more. It doesn't have to be, you know, huge sums of money. But to increase the materials budget modestly. Speaker 7: We would appreciate that. Thank you. Speaker 0: Any other member comments? QUESTION Thank you. Thank you very much. Oh, yes. And you have one speaker, Carol Goldstein. Speaker 8: Hello everyone. Carol Gladstone, Alameda resident and frequent user of the libraries on the West End of the main. Thanks for the great presentation. I have to give gold stars to all the library staff and the director. They're very responsive to any issues we raise or any questions we ask. There are a lot of improvements. We now get 2 hours to work on the library terminals instead of just one a few years ago. One problem, actually, I really appreciate the explanation about the thin client stuff because I now think I know the difference between a thin client and I guess Wikipedia calls them fat clients. The boxes in the computer lab room don't ever get rid of all the fat clients because those are the only place we have CD ROM Access and people still walk in to the library and ask, where can I stick my desk? And unless that room is open, there's no place to put it that I know of. I know if you order your medical chart now, sometimes you get just a disk in the mail and that's the only way you can look at it. So they're still going to be useful in the future? I'm still not entirely clear why. Like the West End. Well, there's only four terminals there for the adults, and every time I go in, ones out of order, I want yesterday and I counted 15 to 20 seconds between the time that I click on the mouse and the time something happens on the screen. And they have thin clients stuck on the back of them. I don't know what the relationship of that is to performance and. It's still true that on Tuesdays and Thursdays and many and Saturdays that computer lab is locked up. Nobody's using it. Not for a private class. Not that I have seen. And those computers, they're just wonderful. And anybody who's used both types of computers in the same library has to be wondering, well, why isn't everything working as fast as the computers in the lab room? They even have the old boxes, and they're still lightning fast compared to all the ones on the thin client side of the library and all the computers at Mastic, I would say they're all better than the general, thin, quiet, used ones are much faster and they do not ever lose your data or or stop working altogether. And and the computer lab room is just a hair better than the rest, but the math are outstanding anyway. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. A follow up question. Can can staff share how many terminals are at the different libraries? Speaker 7: We have. Speaker 0: How many are available all the time. When someone walks in. They can use. Speaker 7: We have 43 at the main library and. Eight at the West End Library and four at the Bay Farm Library. And then there are catalog computers that are not Internet accessible. There are 21 computers in the computer lab. Speaker 0: And that's at the main library. Speaker 7: And that's at the main library only. Speed is an issue at the two branch libraries. Comcast hasn't been able to get the speed up as fast as we would like. It is not a function of the hardware. It's a function of the Internet connection that things don't come up as quickly as we would like it. We would hope that would be corrected when we get on this broadband backbone. As far as disk drives go, I've asked staff to have one of the portable disk drives available at the reference desk that can be plugged into the thin client unit if someone needs to read a disk. Speaker 0: In the slot at each library. Speaker 7: Right now it's just at the main because we'd have to buy additional portable disk drives. We don't have many floating around our building. We have one for staff to use, but that's going to go out to the desk. Speaker 0: So then I would request that we obtain a portable disk drive for each of our libraries. We can. Speaker 7: Do that. Speaker 0: Now because I'm sure we all know the these computers are the only computers that are available to many, so many of our residents, they don't have access at home. Speaker 7: We'll also have to find out if the appropriate software is on because you may be able to read something, but if someone puts in a movie, there may not be a movie player attached. So we'd have to make sure we have the right software. So it may not appear like tomorrow, but we'll see what we can do about getting it at all three locations. Speaker 0: Thank you so much. Other comments? All right, then. That's the end of that presentation. And now we're on to public works. Speaker 5: Madam Mayor, members of the City Council. Good evening. I am Liam Garland with the Public Works Department. I have three goals for tonight. One is to provide an overview of the department and some context for the work it does. The second is to walk through our operating budget. And the third is to discuss our capital budget. And the capital budget was one of the attachments to tonight's agenda. And these slides are covering both the operating budget and the capital budget. So without further ado, there is a streetscape in front of us. This is an imaginary street in Alameda. And we are going to walk through different parts of the public infrastructure and describe a bit about what public works does. So first, not surprisingly, streets are involved in what we maintain. There's about 125 miles of street. I'm going to talk a little bit about the resurfacing program for that street and some of the potholes we we fill related to our streets. We also maintain 87 signalized intersections throughout the city. We maintain about 211, 211 sewer and storm drains. And my my colleagues behind me just cringe that I combine those two because they're actually separate systems. But it's about 211, 211 total miles of of sewer and storm drains. Tonight, we're going to talk a little bit more about the storm drains. The sewers get a lot of attention. I have received a lot of attention. And tonight, hopefully by the end of it, you'll hear more about storm drains. The other part of the public infrastructure we maintain is sidewalks. About 260 miles of sidewalk. You've heard me talk with you about the. Oh, I'm sorry. I missed one. That last arrow went to these city, street, street trees. That's more than 19,000 street trees. There's a reason Alameda is called Alameda. It's a lot of trees to be maintained. And then the contract. Oh, am I missing an arrow? I apologize. So the of the contract we have with Alameda County Industries to essentially make sure all the garbage and recycling collected at local businesses and residents gets to the right place. That's about 3 million pickups per year. The largest contract that the city has entered into. And finally, there's what we hear less about, and that's an arrow pointing toward City Hall West, where public works is headquartered. And there what folks maybe don't know as much is that there's 5000 maintenance requests per year that come into public works. About 2000 of those requests are from members of the public, and another 3000 of those requests are from client departments. And so that's a lot of requests coming in to one department. The other part that that building represents is our facility maintenance. There's 35 city buildings to maintain. And then finally, there's a city fleet. Not pictured here is a city garage where we maintain about 300 vehicles and various pieces of equipment. So that gives an overall perspective on the different assets we maintain. Now we're going to talk a little bit about the headwinds that this department, like other departments in the city, has faced over the past few years, and that's primarily around staffing. We'll see if this works. Speaker 4: Oh. Speaker 5: 45,001 service requests. Speaker 3: What will add that to the budget? Speaker 5: Yes. Speaker 6: Here we go. Speaker 5: Back to what this what this bar graph shows is over the last 15 years, the reduction in positions at public works going from about 92 to 72. So that's 20 positions reduced. Those have come primarily from our maintenance division and our engineering division. They've equally shared in the burden of those cuts. The next few slides are about public works, his operating budget. And before we go into the slide, I just want to explain the context, which is we're going to see the generally funded portions of our operation budget and then we're going to see the non generally funded portions. And let me just get to the bottom line. Much more of our work is non generally funded about four times as much of our operations budget comes from non general funds. And of course I missed that. So let me actually come back to the new operating initiatives on that operating budget for the General Fund for fiscal year 1516, it's about $4 million in general. Funds are coming into public works for our various work. That is going to a few places. If you focus on this these sub totals here for just a moment and I want you to focus right there. That's one almost $1.5 million that's coming through. Our general administrative costs are maintenance of street trees and medians and then our streets and sidewalks. And these are primarily funding positions and they total about $1.5 million. Next, if you look down there at that, 2.5 to $6 million are just roughly 2.5 million for five, 15, 16. This is how much general funding is coming in for our facilities and our fleet maintenance. To sum those numbers up and you get that $4 million figure for total general funds coming into our operating budget, very similar number, 4.1 million for fiscal year 1617. Now I want to show you the next slide which is from the non generally funded amounts. And remember $4 million versus nine general funds is a little bit over 16 million. So quadruple the amount of funds coming from non general funds. And here there's a laundry list of programs and I'm not going to go through each one, but I'm just going to hit a few to explain. So if you look at the top, that's the the program that takes in the or through which we incur the most expense, and that is the sewer program. So in fiscal year 1516, we're looking at about $4.7 million on sewer maintenance and operations. This funds a staff of about 11. It funds obviously, a portion of this is cost allocation. A significant portion also funds a purchase of some pumps and equipment related to the sewer program. If you look to the next line, the engineering line, this is an interesting one because this and it's relevant to the discussion of project managers. The project management unit would be within this engineering program, and the engineering program builds to projects. And so this is this program really receives revenue from that building and then the expense and staff salaries hits it. So it's, I believe, 95% in personnel. And the key point there is all of that personnel cost or most of it is coming through the building to projects that are mostly non generally funded. I we'll talk a little bit more about that when we get to the Special District Budget. You'll see the next three programs have a little star next to them. And that's because we're proposing to add a maintenance worker position shared between these three programs. And the main reason is actually about new responsibilities and new revenues. We've got new maintenance districts that are coming at Alameda Landing. Actually, that one just founded. Also Marina Cove two, also known as Marina Shores, may have one coming from Del Monte. Those are special districts that are founded in which property owners pay those enhanced maintenance costs through a yearly assessment. We now assume as public works that maintenance responsibility. And so with that revenue, that's additional work, the additional responsibility that a portion of that maintenance worker position will help offset that new responsibility. It'll also come with that new revenue coming from the new special districts on storm drain. Here, we're facing increased regulation. So the water board is requiring that by 2022, we'll essentially eliminate trash from our storm drain storm drain system. And that's a that's going to be a big challenge for us. It means we're installing these things called full trash capture devices. Within our storm drain system. They require maintenance. There is no way to get around the fact that we need to get the trash that's collected and those devices out. Otherwise, we might face flooding or other other problems with the stormwater not flowing through that storm drain system. An integrated waste. We're facing more and more reliance on our staff to go to city and city events where recycling and composting are provided. And, you know, there's those what I would consider attractive composting and recycling containers that actually takes work to both stage that get all those get all the material together stage and then out to these various events. And so we're proposing that that maintenance worker position be shared among those programs. With that. I'm actually going to go back a few slides and talk about those new operating initiatives. And so this is going to sound slightly internal, and I apologize for that in advance. It's just something we're pretty excited about and taking very seriously. One of the things we're going to accomplish in the next 2 to 3 years is gaining the American Public Works Associations Agency accreditation. Essentially, this is a top to bottom review of our organization by professionals from across the country. This is about those professionals coming in to check. We have check that we have policies, practices and procedures and numerous categories and ensuring that we are operating at a really high level. About 100 public works departments today across the country have this accreditation and we want to be in the next ten or 20 over the next 2 to 3 years. This is a little bit like a Good Housekeeping seal of approval on the work that we are doing. The second operating initiative is around our staff, which is getting three quarters of our staff on track to gain the highest training or credit credentialing in the field. Again, a lot of our work goes out of public view and so it'll help folks sitting in your seats and others to know that the public works professionals that are serving the public here. They're all on track to gain the highest training and credentialing in the field. The American Public Works Association provide some of this credentialing, as do other agencies. For example, with traffic signals, you can get a traffic signal, level one, level two, level three, level four. So part of that work is lining up all of those trainings and making sure our staff are working through them. The third operating initiative is around our Project Management Management Unit. I'll just add one note on that that hasn't been covered yet is part of the reason for project managers is also to free up our current engineers. What engineers really do well and I'm not sure if this is a fence or not. Engineers is they design well. And so part of the purpose of the project management management unit is to take the projects after that design. And that way the engineers don't have to think about them. They can know that once that project designed that, our project manager would take it all the way through to construction in the field . Now I'm going to get back on track and move on to the capital budget. Speaker 0: Before you move on, I actually want to commend you for these initiatives. I actually I think that that's wonderful. You're taking that on. And personally, when you're encouraging your staff to gain the highest training and or credentialing that field, that can only benefit our meetings. And I appreciate your staff taking that on. That's extra work. Speaker 5: Thank you. So here we're looking at the capital budget. We've moved away from operations. Operations is mostly about funding positions and people, and now we're looking at bigger expenses into the capital and infrastructure. The total capital budget proposed for the next two years is $55 million. If you look to your left, you'll see a pie chart there that breaks down where that $55 million is going. It's about $29 million into rehabilitation projects. And I'll explain a little bit more about what those are in a moment. $7 million into parks and then $19 million in transportation. I'll obviously be focusing most of what guys I report on tonight in rehabilitation and transportation. This capital budget reflects a lot of input from a lot of staff members starting back in November of 2014, all the way through to the last few weeks. It also has been approved by the Transportation Commission. It's been approved by the Recreation and Parks Commission. It has been approved by the Planning Board. I'm sorry, determined. Consistent with a general plan by the planning board. This is a requirement of state law. And as a reminder, this is where the project manager positions come into play. Because of the $55 million in this capital budget, these project managers are the ones finally responsible for getting the projects completed on time and under budget. One quick clarification, given the discussion earlier is that that one project manager two position that is at in in concert with an elimination of a currently vacant position. So the budget we're likely to bring back on June 2nd will be one brand new one. One additional headcount in terms of a project manager with the cooperation of Parks and Rec and Public Works. And then one project manager position, which is through that the elimination of a currently vacant position. Now we're going to get into the nuts and bolts of the rehab projects in the in the capital budget. This is a page from the capital budget itself. That's why it looks a little a little stretched out on the middle to left are are the assets that I talked about at the beginning of this presentation. I'd like to focus actually on the right hand column, because this is what we're hoping to do in the next two years. We want to make 1600 sidewalk repairs. We want to rehabilitate six miles of sanitary sewer pipe, along with nine sanitary sewer pump stations. We want to trim almost 7000 trees throughout Alameda. I want to make dozens of critical improvements to the city's facilities. And I mentioned we might be talking about stormwater. We want to finalize stormwater master plans, replace six storm drain outfalls, rehabilitate culverts at four intersections and install 50 more of those full trash capture devices I I spoke about earlier on on that note, here's a list of the rehabilitation projects and the total approximate cost of those or a project budget for those. And I'd like to focus in on that storm drain line in there, about $5.4 million in funds for that. Most of that is going toward an Arbor Street pump station which needs replacement. We also have a plan to return to you within two years or sooner where we're able to take the master planning that we want to do around stormwater, take the new requirements we're getting from the water board in regards to pulling trash out of the storm drain system and then look at how we fund that plan. Right now we've got a stormwater fee that it's about $50 per residence and it's been flat, meaning no increases whatsoever in 12 or 13 years. And so there may be an opportunity within the next couple of years for public works to come back to present how that that fee might be increased, to be able to adjust as in order to fund that storm drain plan. And as we spoke about, I think about six weeks ago, start making a dent into the approximate $45 million in deferred maintenance around our storm drains. I want to hit on two more projects here. The very bottom is city building. And you see it's a little bit above $1.5 million over the two year period. Again, as my venerable boss has said, we are due in the middle of a facility condition assessment. Right now, we're actually coming back to council on May 19th to request an amendment to our current contract so that we can do the rest of the city's buildings and then come back to the council with a full facilities condition assessment in the fall or winter that we again we match to the funding we have, which is currently it's about $750,000 per year and figure out what that current level of funding, what our buildings will look like five or ten years down the line, or if we might want to make adjustments to that that funding. The third. The third area I'd like to cover right now is around sidewalks. Speaker 0: So I saw you move on. Domestic donation on here. Is that does that go to the Mastic Center? Speaker 5: It does. I believe it's for painting of mastic. Is that correct? Speaker 0: Right. Thank you. Speaker 5: So with sidewalks, we've got a backlog of sidewalk repairs throughout the city. A couple notes about this. On the lower right hand side, you see a tree that through its roots is probably lifting that sidewalk. These are only repairs that are attributable to a city maintained tree. So of this 7000 that universe. Is it attributable to a city maintained tree? Note that property owners, the adjacent property owners, they're responsible both under state law and our municipal code for maintenance and repair of those sidewalks. However, the city's practice has been where that city maintained tree is causing a lift that we will make the repair . If you look at the left side of that screen, you see the history of sidewalk repair spending. I'd estimate that it would take about $750,000 per year for us to be able to make the repairs that we already know we're going to come up every year. In other words, to start making a dent in the backlog, you have to spend more than $750,000 per year. You can see in 2014 and in this current fiscal year, we're doing that. So the good news is we're starting to make a dent and we will continue to do that in this proposed budget with about $1.5 million each year in sidewalk repairs. I'm going to shift now to transportation projects. Speaker 1: Oh, you know, but before you go there, I just want to say, I mean, I think it's a great idea. I think there's roughly in the visual, you have roughly 1.2, $1.3 million program for sidewalk repair in 2015, and $1 million was programed for 2014 in FY 2014. I think the great news was that relative to previous years, I mean, that's a significant increase. And I think these are the type of things that residents definitely want, want to, you know, track, be able to see because it's literally right in front of their house or home. Oh, thank you. Speaker 5: Right. Speaker 0: It's a safety issue. Speaker 1: That, too. Speaker 5: So now we're going to the transportation chunk of about $19 million. And like I discussed before, this is about streets, about those signalized intersections in other parts of the transportation infrastructure. Here are the list of transportation projects. I am going to briefly describe each one in some of the kind of high level points about them. The Pavement Management Project is really our street resurfacing program. And what we're proposing is nine miles resurfaced over the next two years. That's quite a bump over the last several years. And I'll talk about the impacts on our pavement condition index on that in just a minute. Also, our complete STS CIP. And this is about maintaining about five miles of bike lanes and bike paths, completing two complete streets proposals, updating the bicycle, the master bicycle plan and updating the master pedestrian plan, the signals striping and system CIP, that is. There are two new signalized intersections we want to construct. One is at Central Taylor and third. Another is at Harbor Bay Parkway, where it intersects with the North and South Loop. And then the next two are the cross Alameda Trail portion. So that's about 1.5 miles of the cross Alameda Trail. That's quite a chunk of to be constructed over the next couple of years or at least part of this CIP budget approval. The McCartney Rhode Island Drive Intersection Improvements. We're looking to improve an update on that intersection. And then finally, the parking slip, this CIP. Again, this might sound familiar in the context of the the single spaced smart parking meters that the council voted to approve to go citywide. The the next question it begs is what we do about the current kiosks on Park Street. And so that'll be something that'll be tackled to this. C I see. I P And my money is programed into to make those replacements if that is what the stakeholders do recommend and what this Council authorizes. In addition, in the Civic Center parking structure, we have some outdated kiosks just on the first floor and we want to add some kiosks up the floor. And with that, that gets us to the total of a little over $19 million in transportation projects. And I will end and open it up for questions. Oh, no, I apologize. Let me just walk through this chart, because this shows the significant difference that Measure B has made. What you're looking at is the pavement condition index for the city of Alameda and the blue line, while it doesn't look like it represents great news, is really great news. That shows our pavement condition index at 67 or 68 for the next ten years. That's assuming that what we're proposing for the next two years, we can keep up for ten, which I think is a safe assumption. And what that means is that according to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, that our our streets will be in fair condition, the upper level of fair condition. If you look on the lower left part of that chart, you see that compares pretty favorably with some of our neighbors and the the purplish darker line that's heading downwards. That's what would have happened without Measure B, we would have ended up in 2025 with streets out a pavement condition index of 53. Those are at risk. It costs even more money in order to to rehabilitate streets at that point. And here, unless you have questions, I won't cover the parks projects. I believe we discussed each of these through Amy's presentation. I'm happy to answer any questions that might come up. And here's a map that is imperfect but is a start. This has been requested several times from public works, and it maps out some it maps out not 100%, but many of the projects that we seek to accomplish in the next two years. There are some. Full disclosure and disclosure. There are some errors in this map. They're going to be corrected by the June 2nd submission. And with that. Happy to answer any questions you may have. We also have some public works staff here in case those questions are beyond my expertize. Speaker 0: Ashcraft. Speaker 3: Thank you. Thank you for that nice report, Mr. Garland. And thank you to whoever. And I imagine it was more than one individual put together exhibit to the capital improvement plan. But it was that you? Speaker 5: I played a large role. The public work staff played a large role, and we had the support of a designer as well. So, yes, well, I. Speaker 3: I was especially impressed by how well-written but user friendly for someone who is a layperson. But you you set out some pretty sophisticated information. Love the table of contents. Love the wording. And the title might have caused an English teacher to cringe that dangling participle. No, just kidding. It was so well written and illustrated in city staff. I would love you to take a page from Public Works Playbook here, and it's a great way to present information to counsel and I think our other residents. And so there were a couple of things that I didn't hear you touch on, and I just wanted to ask specifically that specifically on the this is on page 19 of the CFPB budget and the title of that page is. Well, I don't know. We're talking about traffic signals and improving intersections. So there is by the way, there is a reference to replacing the pavement lights at certain intersections with these rectangular rapid flash beacons. I think those are terrific. The one I'm familiar with is in the vicinity of Otis School, Crissy Park on Otis Drive there. But they're on the other column that talks about traffic signals that are being the following. Intersections are proposed to have their signalization updated before 2025. And I'm wondering if you could tell us what is updating Signalization mean. Speaker 5: So for unfortunately, our transportation engineer is not here tonight. What I understand this to mean is that oh four Oak and Clement and Park and Pacific, those would be new signals constructed at those intersections. And I believe that for the rest, that is about essentially swapping out the existing equipment for more updated equipment. That's how I understand that. Speaker 3: So the one thank you for that. And the one that caught my eye was the intersection at Otis and Grand. In addition to updating updated Signalization, and I understand that you're saying the engineer in charge isn't here but is public works looking at ways to make that intersection safer for pedestrians and bicyclists. I think those of you who are familiar with it right there by Riddler Park, it's a very wide intersection. It's a bus route. Speeds are sometimes fast. And unfortunately, there there was a fatality last year in December. And I know I've had more than one resident contact me and say I was crossing that street in broad daylight and almost got hit by a car making a left turn. And I you know, I'm not a traffic engineer and I'm not sure why it is. But even from for me, I ride my bike and I walk that intersection and drive at it. Just when you're walking or on a bike, it does feel kind of vulnerable and and exposed. Speaker 5: So I can I can share an answer back with you. Speaker 3: I appreciate and I'm sure the council would like to hear that, too. And then I will bring up what I brought up in regard to the parks and recreation facilities in our city owned buildings. And by the way, I love the graphic. We have 35 city owned buildings and they were 35 little city halls. And given the water shortage, are we contemplating replacing toilets? And I don't mean just to replace fixtures, just to be replacing, but when they come to the end of their useful life, to be replacing them with low flow and regulated flow toilets. Speaker 5: The short answer is yes and the like. And two things are going on. One is, in the last mid-cycle update of the budget, a capital project was approved to replace toilets with low flow toilets. And that's all in support of reducing water. It's also in support of green certifying every city department. We're not there yet, but we want to get there within the next year or so. Speaker 3: Right. Thank you. And then and quickly, because I know we want to move through this quickly. Oh, okay. So the on page 20, which is the larger transportation projects likely to be funded by a combination of grants, Measure B and development impact fee. There is on the right hand column the long term projects ranging or taking place from 2021 to 2025. The third one there is the Fruitvale or Miller's Sweeney Bridge. Lifeline City Match would be $10 Million Emergency Lifeline for Alameda to ensure that it functions after a major earthquake. And my question on this is, given the importance of that lifeline for Alameda, is there any way this project could be moved up to a faster project date than 2021 to 2025? Speaker 6: Mr. HAHN Bob Hahn, Public Works Director The county is contributing $20 million for that project. We're contributing $10 million to that project, and the balance is on funding. It's about a $60,000 project. The county is applying for 60 million. 60 million. Speaker 3: Yes. If we get to the 60,000 tonight. Speaker 6: 60 million. Yeah. And so the county is actively applying for a grant for that additional 30 million. Additionally, kind of by luck, I was able to provide a tour to FEMA staff from the state of California. And so they're aware now that we are an island. They weren't aware of that before. And so that's also moved up. So we will be gaining a letter of support from FEMA on that bridge, but we're working very actively to make that a lifeline bridge. Speaker 3: Okay. Very good to look forward to hearing back more from you on that. All right. Great. And see your wrapping up. Okay. Two things. The on page 25 of this lovely report at the bottom of the page that is talking about environmental benefits of a lot of things that are being done with this money is a little box with a great photograph of our Plowshares nursery out at the Army two point collaborative. And I just want to share for those who are watching, did you know that more than 90% of almeida's new tree plantings come from Plowshares, a local nonprofit providing job training for low income and formerly homeless residents? And it's a really attractive, wonderful nursery. Obviously, they're growing plants and trees and whatnot that are appropriate for this growing zone. I've got a fig tree in my backyard that's doing really well from that came from plowshares. So good work city staff for for using plowshares. It's a really very nice partnership. And finally on page. Page 36. This is just wrapping up. It's talking about the rehabilitation projects and the brief project description is to maintain and improve Alameda City buildings and facilities by completing necessary improvements. The the little box in the lower right hand corner notes that the city's buildings have years of deferred maintenance, which leads to the need for more building repairs. These facility investment start to cut into that deferred maintenance, but not by much. With a more significant investment, building conditions could improve and the city would save money on having to make fewer repairs. So my question is. How much more would it take to improve the conditions of these buildings? Address the deferred maintenance to save the city money in the long run? And I think you may tell me at the council that that answer depends on the study that's being conducted or something else. Speaker 5: That's exactly right. So the the the study is being conducted is by third party experts in these facility condition assessments. And they'll be able to share with this body exactly what the cost benefit of those investments versus the return on those investments through reduced repairs. Speaker 3: Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Speaker 0: Ben Brody. Speaker 5: Thank you and thank you for the presentation. Not too often do we have presentations that are page turners and and the CIPA budget to me was also a page turner. Maybe that's a little nerdy, but that is the way it is. I guess. So I just I first want to, you know, thank public works for including, you know, on page 41, the McCartney and the Island Drive Intersection Improvements and the Belmont crosswalk traffic calming. So I appreciate that that those are in there and that we're we're paying some attention to our residents and our pedestrians and bicyclists over on Bay Farm. So I wanted to focus you back on on page 19 that my colleague, Councilmember Ashcraft was was talking about, just has a few quick questions. So the first item under short term is the opposite of Parkway Multimodal and Bus Rapid Transit. That is that $10 million that the entire cost of that. I'm going to defer to Gail Payne, our transportation coordinator on that. Oh. Who exactly in the. Speaker 3: Pitch. Speaker 5: 1919. The one you you'll remember earlier. Speaker 7: Our chief operating officer on point. So I'm working closely with Gail and staff to prepare a tiger grant. This this particular piece of this is actually funded through measure B b, okay. And so we have had we're talking about dedicated lanes between Webster and Main Street that would be funded through Measure B, B, and then the developer side would be funded all the way to Periphery Point. But yes, we are. That's our current estimate. We think because it's dedicated lanes where I reconfiguring that entire street, it's going to be expensive. If we if it doesn't use all that money, then we'll be able to use that elsewhere to help facilitate access to BART. But the measure B B is access to BART. Speaker 5: And the council has given has has made it as our stated policy that we want to seek this 10 million from Measure B to finance the bus rapid transit on opposite, is that correct? Speaker 7: The measure the measure B B talks about BRT to to BART or to Fruitvale BART. And this would be the initial from I mean, from a growth from Alameda point. And so that is this is the kind of first leg and most importantly of that. And so this is implementing an access study that was done and and that was what was in the description for the Measure B funding. Speaker 5: So but it's so it stated a city policy to be supportive of this project. Speaker 7: When, when the Council took a policy, a resolution to support the measure b b funds, that was the description that was in there was essentially improvement BRT improvements to Fruitvale, BART Okay. Speaker 5: And the Stargell Avenue Q jump lanes and class one trail that bus quarter what's that's a $4.75 million at the top of the second column there. Right what's the source funding on that one. Speaker 7: So that would that'll be the target. So the measure B B funds would be used as a match for the Tiger grant, the Federal Transportation Grant. And that we're submitting in June, you know, June of this I mean, next month. So if we're successful, it'll be the tiger. If we're not successful, then it's unfunded. Speaker 5: So it's also stated council policy to be supportive of the Stargell Avenue jump lanes in class one. Speaker 7: Is included as part of the Environmental Impact Report for Alameda Point. It was part of the master infrastructure plan. Offsite requirements for element point would be to to to make these improvements. Speaker 3: May I just ask a clarifying question? Speaker 0: Yes, please. Speaker 3: Thank you. So the Tiger grants MRT, that's federal funding. And do we apply for those through or with the assistance of the Alameda County Transportation Commission? Speaker 7: Only in that the match is essentially the measure b b funds. So we have coordinated very closely with them in providing sufficient evidence that the Measure B B funds are available as matched. In order to demonstrate readiness, we need to have their cooperation. Speaker 3: So coordinating with the Alameda County Transportation Commission to get this application to the to the feds. Thank you. Speaker 5: And they're the coordinating agency that distributes these funds. Is that the. Speaker 7: Sector that would get this the Tiger Fund. Speaker 5: Or the the measure b b. Speaker 7: Yes. Speaker 5: Right. So administer. Speaker 7: Those funds. Speaker 5: Okay. Thank you. And then the last item, I just want to focus on the fourth one on the list of long term projects, the AT&T, Broadway, Jackson Multi-Modal Transportation and Circulation Improvements 75 million. Speaker 7: Going to defer to public works on that. Speaker 5: So. Just a couple of questions on that. You know, what's the status of that, that project? Speaker 6: The status of that project is my understanding that the city of Oakland is still doing the Broadway transportation study within Oakland. That's part of their thing. So. As you may know, that we have a negotiated agreement with A.C.T. and the city of Oakland, and we will be looking very closely at that agreement within the next three years or the next two years and taking appropriate action if, in fact, we do not have an environmental impact report ready by the end of those three years for the Broadway Jackson interchange. Speaker 5: And what's the ultimate goal of these improvements? Speaker 6: The ultimate goal of those improvements is to increase the flow of the traffic through the tubes. Speaker 5: So basically decreased traffic time and reduced the backup of traffic that's. Speaker 6: Going through the traffic. Essentially, as we all know, the drive through the tube, a lot of the impediment in getting through the tube is the right turn with the red light right there where you come out of the turn. And it's very evident and it's a continual problem. It's a continual problem on the and, you know, the antiques fair once a month to the issue there. And we've been trying to work very diligently with Oakland on that. But the issue there, if you have a pad standing there, you have a yellow light, you have a conscientious driver, they're going to stop for that pad. The pads already push the button. They cross the street on the yellow light because you have another conscientious driver next to them. The pad crossed the intersection. Light turns red after the pad crosses the intersection. So now you have additional conscientious drivers. There's the sign Turn on red and they're stopping there for no reason whatsoever. Then the light cycles through and the traffic moves. That's the largest impediment right there. That's small issue. But the further it's a large project at Broadway Junction, incorporating a lot of players, including, you know, the Warehouse District of Oakland. There's a lot of people involved in that. But we do have a negotiated settlement or a three year timeline. You get an environmental impact report for that intersection. Speaker 5: And the $75 million which the source of that $75 million. Speaker 6: $75 million, I believe, just off the top of my head, it's, you know, some combination of measure B, B money and some state funding. I'm not exactly sure. Speaker 5: And it's the stated policy of this council to be supportive of the 880 Broadway Jackson Multi-Modal Transportation and Circulation Improvement Project. Speaker 6: Absolutely, 100%. Speaker 5: So, you know, I have one more question. I'll kind of preface it with a little background. In my day job, I'm professional, public servant, like all of you. So I interact with with a number of people. And I had a conversation with a high level executive staffer over at the ICTSI, and it was conveyed to me that our representative to the act said that she didn't want the bus rapid transit and didn't want the Broadway Jackson. Is that communication to the person that acts contrary to stated council policy? Speaker 6: Appears to be. Speaker 5: Okay. Thank you. Speaker 0: Okay. So I think it's appropriate for me to respond. I think the actually it appropriate for you to have I'm the representative. I don't know what conversation you're referring to. However, I really would encourage that in the future if you want to have that conversation that we start off. I personally don't believe that this has been a topic other than this. This topic does come up at AC transit meetings, of which I believe I've actually been supportive of. All right. I mean, of course, if you want to do business this way, that's what your choices. But I think is very inappropriate. So at this point, I'd like to call on other members. Speaker 5: Oh. Speaker 0: Member de SAC. Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam Chair. Now, you know, this has always been a longstanding concern, but Cyprus, particularly in the past several months, westend resident, good advocate on a whole host of issues. Steve Grizzle, I'm sure, has reminded not just myself, but other council members and staff persons to try to get data on a geographic level. So one of the things I certainly want to do is if if we can prepare, I don't I don't really need a whole slew of data just but particularly for streets and sidewalks to kind of break it down in terms of the upcoming upcoming budget. Break it down by, you know, program projects that are being contemplated for the two fiscal years ahead of us that are west of Grand Street or or whatever geographic areas you think are fit. But the three that come to mind is west of Grand Street, east of Grand Street, and the third being Hervey Bay, four mile. If you could just get kind of, you know, what are the street sips that are here as well as sidewalks? The apps. I recognize, by the way, that staff has also pointed out that different areas have different needs based upon, you know, age, etc.. So certainly make sure to caveat whatever information data that you put together that would be very helpful. Speaker 6: One clarification on the streets again. We do a variety of pavement repairs on the streets. We do a slurry seal. We do so. Do you look are you looking for street resurfacing as the classic? You go in and take the whole thing out? Speaker 1: Oh, actually, that's a good point. Maybe on the streets, if you could just exactly divide it by I mean, is there slurry seals versus, you know, redoing the whole streets? And maybe if you can divide the street, work by those, what is it, three or four type of treatments that you guys have? Yeah. Speaker 6: Okay. We'll divide that up. Yes. Speaker 1: Okay. Appreciate that. Speaker 3: Member Ashcroft, just before you leave, Mr. Hyde, just to clarify and question when you're going through and doing the triage list or whatever it is you do have, you know, the streets and sidewalks to be repaired. Is there a geographical consideration given? Do you try to go? Speaker 6: There's really not geographical considerations. This is how the considerations are given. Number one consideration for street is the street pavement. The pavement condition index, the PCI, we're driven by the PCI is we monitor those all the time. And so that's really the primary driver for streets. In addition to that, we're also looking at sewer replacement. As you know, we have a large program of sewer replacement. So we're trying to coordinate the sewer replacement, work with the streets that need to be resurfaced. Speaker 3: Third item I was just going to say on the sewer replacement, that was a really smart point that was brought out in the report that the city public works is looking to see where these sewer replacements and repairs have already been done because the last thing you want to do is a nice resurface or repair of a street and then have another agency. So you're coordinating across other agencies. Speaker 6: Involved with that because I believe we have a whole video now. But we finally and this is very exciting for Aaron Smith and myself that we finally have a full video of all of our sewers. This is the first time we ever had that. Speaker 3: Sort of slow Saturday night. Speaker 6: Oh, no, this is this is exciting. The smell sewer, not copy. What it does is it gives us the ability to have to look at the inside of those pipes and figure out what needs to be replaced. Speaker 3: Great technology. Speaker 6: It's very evidently. So this is a program you've seen all those trucks around town, all you know, for the past couple of months, and that's what they were doing. And that's going to be a valuable asset for us because that's all geotagged now. So we can look at that video, hit a button and find out exactly where that that defect is in the sewer. So that's part of the larger thing of all the asset surveys. We're trying to we're surveying the buildings. We're going to do the same thing with the storm drains. We're trying to get a solid, reliable, accurate picture of what needs to be done and a program to get it done. But first, we have to identify what needs to be done. Previously, there's just kind of been a number pulled out of the air regarding the amount four streets or something like that. We're really trying to categorize those. And on buildings, on the facilities, we're also looking at giving you a long range projection. One is the roof on the library need to be replaced. One, does the roof on the city hall need to be replaced. So you council will have the benefit of looking well in 2042. We need to budget this inflated number for replacing the roof on whatever facility we're looking at. And that gives you kind of a long range, you know, multiyear outlook about what's going. Speaker 1: Anymore. Speaker 0: I swear. Speaker 6: Yes. And along those lines, I'm hoping that when this prioritization comes back, we look at the projected fund balance that are necessary to do this, because I see a large amount of cash there. And I know in the past there's been either reluctance or inability to spend that cash. To. Take a project from start to finish to avoid repairing the street versus replacing the street, etc.. So that's what I look forward to in the future. I think the budget makes sense. I'd like to get whatever was referenced in this measure. B Broadway. Jackson I'd like to get that resolved so that we. Pursue Broadway. JACKSON At least don't hold it up from our heart, because that has been a long, long standing open item. And I'd also like to look at approving this budget with a timeline that keeps us in compliance with the consent decree as far as the sewers go. And if there's a way we can get ahead of the curve, save some money on that, because I know there's a mandated schedule. If there is a way that we can relieve that schedule with putting money expenditures upfront. I'd like us to do it. That's one of the things on on that album is that we're doing three miles per year. We're only required to do 2.6 miles per year. So we have a little bit of a float every year and it's a three year rolling average. Okay. On, on, you know, so we wanted that flexibility. And in case we have a hiccup, we open up the street. Something was radically wrong. We didn't expect it's going to take us longer to do that, if we certainly can. Part of the problem is just managing the crews out there and, you know, you have sewer crews, I mean, sewer replacement crews all over. So we can't have more than one crew working on the island at one time. Okay. Speaker 0: So in regards to the Army, the County Transportation Commission, they have staff that creates lists of projects that are county wide and they prioritize based upon understanding is. What they think is most urgent, as well as what projects have been submitted and everything that they've been able to research and allocate funds for that way. But they do have a county perspective and another issue in regards to Broadway Jackson. It's not simply pushing cars through the tube as quickly as possible. It's also protecting the pedestrians on the Oakland side. And there has been injuries and my understanding is at least one fatality. So being good partners with neighboring cities is is is a consideration for the commission in its entirety. Every day. Speaker 1: So I thank you. Actually, I just have one more point to add a quick comment. One additional point is, you know, in going over the budget that's prepared by the city manager's staff, a council is fulfilling among a variety of charter responsibilities. Two specific ones, one particular related to positions, because that's a specific responsibility enumerated 3-7 within the charter. Another responsibility within the charter that's intimately tied to the budget process is the organization of departments. It's spelled out that the council. One of the things that we I love to have your thoughts on, if not tonight, you know, spelled out perhaps, you know, it's a memo or email is the thought about a specific transportation traffic transit department or however because it just seemed like such a big, big part of our life right now. And a lot of it is certainly within the public works department, whether it's almost or at a point it sounds like seems like where, you know, the residents themselves would like to be able to have some kind of structure in place where they not only see the different solutions in place, but have some kind of organization. I don't know. But if if staff can give some thought to that, maybe, maybe we can't have a transportation, maybe that's not the best idea. But, you know, whatever thoughts and suggestions you have. Speaker 6: My recommendation would be to go with the transportation study, look at that transportation study when we receive that, and then look at implementation and see what the study. That's one question that we will put in the transportation study about recommendations for additional staffing. And it you know, if we if it comes back, then I think that's the appropriate time. We're going to have a fresh study. We're all going to look at that, say, okay, how do we carry this forward? And I think that's the appropriate time to just start talking about that position on November. Speaker 3: Ashcraft Actually, Mr. Horn took the words out of my mouth and actually said that much more eloquently than I would. But I think when we get the results of that study that we approved back, we will be in a better position to take the next steps. Speaker 6: Thank you. Thank you. Speaker 0: All right. Speaker 1: So I want to say one thing real quickly. It is good note. Several weeks ago, residents had come up to me at my office hours, you know, concerned about the Lincoln Avenue between Webster Street and Grand Street. It's great to see now that it's nicely smooth and paved. So I know the residents will be happy when they drive down that street. Thank you. Speaker 6: One more comment on that. I'm done is we're going to a great effort to make sure that everything gets in the street before we repave the street. Okay. So we again, with these long range plans that we are developing, we're sharing those with PGE, with and with everybody with the East Bay mud and telling them to jump into the pool. I may be back before you in a couple of years to make that a little bit more enforceable in that if somebody didn't take that opportunity and it's not an emergency repair, they may have to spend ten, $10 a square foot to open up that street to give them a little bit more serious consideration about opening up our streets. That's a good. Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. Now we're going to move on to community development. Debbie Potter. Speaker 4: Good evening. I'm Debbie Potter, the city's community development director. I'm actually going to be presenting on three departments this evening. So in the interest of time, I am if it works for the council, I can run through all three of the presentations and then I can take questions on whichever department you want to ask about. So if that works, that's the way I'll set that up. Okay. So who is the Community Development Department? A I'm going to have the same problem. Do your dance over here. All right. It's this one. Oh, wait, wait, wait back. Okay. Okay. All right. Oh. Oh. Okay. I'd like to trigger happier. Okay. Okay. So who. Who is Community Development Department? We are building and code enforcement planning. Economic development, real estate, property management. And the Social Service. Human Relations Board. And the Alameda Collaborative for Children. Youth and Their Families. What do we do? So code enforcement ensures a structurally sound, safe and accessible community through effective permit processing, inspection and code enforcement activities. In 2014, the fiscal year, we are on track to issue 4500 permits. Typically, we do between 22 and 25,000 inspections a year and we resolve between 250 and 300 code enforcement cases each year. This is an interesting graph that shows you over the last 12 years our permit history in terms of the number of permits issued and permit valuation. You can see between 2005 and 2007, those were our highest volume years. That was primarily due to the Bayport project. Bayport was pretty much built out during that time frame. And at that time, during this time, we had the building community development at this time was a building and planning department, and then we had a development services department and in 2012, those two departments were merged into one. We'll talk a little bit more about that as we go forward. But at the time, the building and Planning Department had 38 staff people. Today in 2014, between the planning and code enforcement and building, we have about 20 employees dedicated to to our permitting, our permit center , our code enforcement and our inspection activity. We are on track probably in 2015. We are projecting that we will probably issue permits valued at over $100 million. So you can see clearly when the recession hit and when in 2012, we started to come back up out of the recession and given staffing levels, we are crazy busy at the permit center and we expect that to continue in. And then if just to kind of shed a light on who our customers are, we serve as primarily homeowners and their contractors. 60% of the people coming into the permit counter are really affiliated with remodels for existing homeowners, and another 16% are existing business owners. So taken together, about 75% of our customers are existing homeowners and businesses in the city of Alameda. It's a little snapshot about what we do at the permit center. So what is planning? Do planning assist you as the city council in managing our the growth and development of the city and the framework documents that we rely on for supporting the Council in those key decisions about our built environment are the city's general plan. The housing element is clearly a key element of our general plan and our zoning ordinance. We also support several other boards and commissions a planning board, the Historical Advisor Advisory Board and the Public Art Commission. We process development applications and planning as well as applicant building permits, which the building department division does. So on the planning side, in this current fiscal year, we have issued over 750 planning permits. We have assisted over 2400 people who walk into the permit center, and we have served over 1600 people who call in to City Hall . Economic development you received last month a pretty comprehensive presentation on our economic development division. But just to highlight that, I mean, the key task of economic development is to provide business retention, expansion and recruitment services with the goal of really growing the city's tax base so we can fund those essential services you heard about earlier today, Parks and Recreation, the library, what you heard about last week, police and fire. So that's really the focus of economic development. And then we have a workforce component where we are really working to support the residents of Alameda in terms of employment and meeting the needs of employers. And it's really part of our larger mission about improving the city's jobs housing balance here in Alameda. In the last 16 months, the economic development staff met with over 300 businesses and business associations. Some of the key businesses who were attracted to Alameda in the last year include Selah Nanotechnologies, right Speed Maguire and Hester is coming this upcoming year. And Concrete Works is a new use that has moved into the allied manufacturing site at the foot of Park Street. We have assisted major employers out at the Harbor Bay Business Park with their expansions in the past year Penumbra VF Outdoor and AB Optical. And you'll see both with the new businesses we've attracted and those that we have help retain. These are really in growth industries of green technologies, the biomedical field. These are high wage, high skilled jobs. And we that's really a target of a lot of what we work on. And then we placed 21 separate ads in local, regional and national publications promoting Alameda as a great place to do business as well as visit and live. We have a real estate and property management initiative in this in the department where we provide leasing and property management services for city owned commercial properties. We manage over 75 leases with over $2 million in annual revenue, and that is outside of Alameda Point. So this is for mostly our tidelands properties and some of the other city owned assets that we have. And then I talked earlier about the Social Services Human Relations Board is a city chartered board, and its mission is to foster mutual understanding, respect and equality among people. And the Alameda Collaborative for Children, Youth and Their Families really works with our nonprofit community and the school district to promote Alameda as a great place for children and families. And some of their some of the accomplishments of these two. Efforts or initiatives. We last year the associate RB be did its first homeless count. They had 60 volunteers who participated in that count. And the purpose of the camp was to identify homeless in Alameda and identify some of the services in needs that they might have and how we can help to meet some of those needs. We had over 600 community members who participated in the 2014 Harvey Milk Day events. We had 14 schools that participated in the 2014 season of nonviolence. The daily readings, which the City Council also participated in, and Youth Collaborative worked with the Alameda Education Foundation and some other nonprofits to see that for the last school year, this current school year, over 1000 low income kids in the Alameda Unified School District received free backpacks with school supplies. That's a major initiative that the Youth Collaborative participated. What are some of the new initiatives that we have going in the building division? This is this first bullet is really a fancy way to say that we want to continue to enhance our customer service and we are looking to do how to brochures. We really want people to know if I want to remodel my kitchen, if I want to redo my bathroom, what are my permits, what are my processes? What are my requirements to do some of the most common kinds of things that homeowners in Alameda undertake by way of renovations? We want to bring back the building official advice columns that used to run in the papers. Those were very popular. The realtors really liked those. They found those articles to be very helpful for selling and buying property. And we always look for ways to enhance making the website as user friendly as possible. And then we are looking to both building and planning are looking to really utilize new technology to the maximum extent feasible . So we're looking at a new software program that we're hoping to unveil in the next couple of months that will allow the public to access a permit history so that if you're wondering if the guy building down the street has a building permit, you'll be able to access this information online and figure out, do they have a permit, what's going on? And it should allow people to have a lot more access to information that you currently need to come in and ask about, and it should be more streamlined. Planning is looking. We have two priority development areas here in Alameda and Alameda, which is Alameda Point and Alameda landing and the northern waterfront. And the planning will be focusing on entitlements for projects that are within our two priority development areas. A planning staff also wants to update our zoning ordinance to really reflect current community priorities. So some of some examples of that are to look at updating our historic preservation ordinance to streamline that and make that work a little more efficiently. Universal design has been a big issue over the last year or so, so we want to have a universal design ordinance that we bring to the council and our public art ordinance. We've been actively working to update that. As I mentioned, planning is just as interested as building and code enforcement in really taking advantage of new technology. So we actually have a one of our planners is pursuing I bet you didn't know this. You can get a master's degree in GIs and he is pursuing a master's degree and he's been our kind of go to guy for really a great in our desire system. We're looking at doing more and more online permitting just to make it easier for people and hopefully may take us into the second year of the budget. But electronic plan check is on everyone's wish list. The engineers at AMP, the engineers at Public Works that plan checkers in our department. It would really make things a lot more efficient. Speaker 0: And we're Ashcraft. Speaker 3: I am sorry to take you back, Miss Potter, but I did have a couple of questions I realize you're going quickly through, which is great, like the pace, but I just want to ask a couple of questions. On the building division, we often hear that there is a need for more building inspectors. I think maybe I saw that in the budget. Speaker 4: Right? When I get to the new staffing slide, you'll hear us talk about the upkeep. Speaker 3: Good. And then you mentioned how two brochures for, uh, are being contemplated or prepared. Will these be available online as well? Speaker 4: Absolutely. Speaker 3: Okay. Because we do have a concern about how much paper we use. And also, I think more and more people are getting their information electronically. I think there's a I heard about an initiative or an idea that's being tested in building, which is a a mobile app for routine inspections out in the field that is actually on the contractors cell phone. And. Right. Speaker 4: So that is one of our initiatives regarding taking maximum advantage of technology, which is to allow our inspectors to do remote inspections. So we are piloting that program right now with some with a handful of contractors that we've been do a lot of business in the city media. And when we're done with the kind of the beta testing, we will be rolling that out. But that is that is an initiative that will be in the upcoming fiscal year. Okay. Speaker 3: Thank you. Thank you. Speaker 4: And then economic development. You've heard Mr. Rato talk a lot about bringing back the facade program and council member Oti is a big fan of that too. So we have budgeted $125,000 a year to reestablish the facade program. And we also talked last month when we presented on the Economic Development Division about preparing a new economic development strategic plan. The last economic development strategy was updated in 2008. So we think it's time to update the strategic plan. And then we are looking to fund workforce development initiatives. Some of you might be familiar with the working waterfront cohort that is underway with College of Alameda and some of our maritime employers. And we want to be able to help out with some of those workforce development initiatives. And then we want to formalize our business branding campaign. We really we've kind of been working with that tagline, Choose Alameda, and we want to kind of build on that that branding campaign. And then for the real estate property management, we have a major study underway looking at how to improve our maritime facilities, the piers and some of the other resources that we have at the public marinas, that kind of thing. And there's been a lot of discussion of late about cell towers. And so we're anticipating that we might be looking at a policy for cell towers on city owned property. Speaker 0: That was actually suggested at the planning board. Speaker 4: SSA Tabi and the Youth Collaborative. SSA Tabi would like to conduct a second homeless count. They are also planning on updating their community needs survey, which they do periodically and they would like to do a second annual community service awards program. And the Youth Collaborative is working very closely with the school district and with the Economic Development Division on career pathways and looking for ways to move kids into high school, to community college, into training programs to really make sure that we're training our youth of the future for our high wage, high demand jobs of the future. And I think this was something that might have been done 10 to 15 years ago. But a youth report card about the health of of the youth, you know, graduation rates, health data, child care. So that's another initiative that the Youth Collaborative is looking at doing in 2015. Speaker 0: In regards to the career pathways, we're always looking for companies that would like to join the school district in the city and internships and training programs. Speaker 4: Absolutely. So we do have some new staffing that we're proposing and that is in the budget. The first position would be an economic development management analyst. We if we are going to take on the facade program, we need staff to implement it. So it's kind of a package deal, staff, person and fund essentially the capital funding for the facade improvement program. If we are going to stick to or achieve our performance measure benchmark of inspections within 48 hours of a request for an inspection. We need a new supe. We need a supervising building inspector. We are. We are not meeting our 48 hour turnaround and we need to really get there. We're going to need a new supervising building inspector to manage them, the inspectors. We are also proposing an assistant community development director for planning and building and an an executive assistant. Both of those positions are really being proposed to better align the job duties and responsibilities within building and planning and then economic development. And so those are. Those aren't brand new bodies, but those are going to be looking at re characterizing some existing positions. Just I talked earlier about how there used to be a building in the planning department and there used to be a development services department. And when you combine what is today community development, when you look at building and planning and development services, those two at their peak were 67 employees. And today we are 30 employees. And I will note that we don't have redevelopment. And I did make a little footnote here in 2011, which was the last year of redevelopment. The city in one year received $15 million in redevelopment funding, 3 million of which for just that year went for housing and 12 million of which was available for economic development activities. So no more redevelopment. And then housing, which I'll talk about next is we the city contracts with the housing authority for its housing the administration of its housing programs. So just caveat in that in 0405, the 67 employees were also working on redevelopment and housing. But still we have been severely reduced in terms of what we're doing today versus what we were doing ten years ago. Speaker 0: Question Member Authority Thank. Speaker 5: You, Madam Chair. So of the the reduction from oh 5 to 15 from 67 to 30, how many of those positions would you attribute to the loss or redevelopment? Speaker 4: I'm. Speaker 5: Maybe don't have it yet. Speaker 4: Over time, probably five positions. Over over time, you know, because we started when we started probably laying off in 2009 and by 2011, between oh nine and 11, it was probably five people. Speaker 5: That's it. Speaker 4: For redevelopment. Speaker 5: So the other 32, 32, 32 were. Speaker 4: I would say, between housing and redevelopment that probably represented. 8 to 10 staff people. Speaker 5: Okay. So the other was just, you know, regular budget cut. Reductions. Speaker 4: Well, that and we'll talk about this with housing. The federal government has also been cutting back the block grant program in the home funding. So some of the cutbacks really started tied to the feds and then just, you know, redevelopment activity, because a lot of I mean, I'm not going to a lot of the redevelopment funding goes for debt service. So, you know, after that, you know, so that staffing levels were starting to decline in 0809. Speaker 5: I guess what I'm trying to see is, you know, what's the what's the apples to apples comparison? I mean, it's not 67 because housing and redevelopment are not in there. Speaker 4: But, you know, so. 3557. I'm I would say if you took out redevelopment and housing, it was probably 57 employees and down to 30. So it's. Speaker 5: Still a. Speaker 4: Substantial reduction of staff over the last ten years. Speaker 5: Okay. Speaker 4: Thank you. Lately. Speaker 2: I think some of that also was backfilled with consultants. Right. Speaker 4: And base for use. Right. When you don't have staff, you're you're cobbling together part time people. You're cobbling together staff. You know, we yeah. You use part time planners, part time staff, consultants. That's kind of how you piece it all together. Speaker 0: So we thank you for clarifying that. Speaker 4: Oh, sorry, we budget. Okay. So our total budget is about $5.4 million and we are projecting budgets of 7.3 and 7.4 million in the upcoming fiscal years. And you might be wondering, that's about a $2 million. That's a huge jump. But I just want to point out that the reason it was 5.4 million in this current year, we have a lot of salary savings. Unfortunately, not only is it super busy, but it's very hard to recruit. We're down to permit tax. We're down a code enforcement officer, a planner. And it's not just Alameda that has challenges recruiting for these kinds of positions. It's cities throughout the Bay Area. We have staff constantly sitting on all boards in other cities, and it's just tough to fill these positions. So the bulk of the difference in the total department revenue is really from salary savings for this year. And the upcoming two budgets reflect us fully, fully staffed and fully funded. And then just to quickly go through our different divisions, I just the most important thing, two important things to point out here. One is that building and code enforcement and you'll see the same as for planning. Both of those divisions are 100% funded fee for service. So revenue comes in we budget the staff that we need to meet the needs of the customers who come in and pay. So that's an important thing for a. The community to know about how we find ourselves in building and planning. Speaker 2: And that's not an easy task for me. That's not an easy task. Speaker 4: And and then you might see that we're projecting revenues that are a little bit more than total expenditures. And I just wanted to highlight that when the council approved the fee schedule and the fee study in 2013, we asked for the ability to collect enough in fees to pay to a reserve that would equal 90 days of staffing for the department. So in the event of a natural disaster or something where building just, you know, it's went down, but we were actively needing to be out there dealing with a result of a natural disaster. We would have at least a 90 day reserve. It'll take us five years, we project to get there. But that's what you're seeing here, is as we start to build that 90 day reserve, and that is for building and code enforcement as well as planning. So here you can see planning. They're there, they're showing a little bit less of a reserve, but the money actually goes into one fund for for both those divisions. And once again, it's a 100% fee for service funded division. So economic development is a little bit more creatively funded. We, the other sources, which is that 87% of this division's budget is and there's a little footnote at the bottom that says fiscal ISA revenue and our Commercial Revitalization Fund, which is also least revenue that comes in from economic development initiatives like theater and some of the other redevelopment initiatives. That is the primary source of funding for economic development. And then when council approved the Economic Development Division Manager, it also approved funding that position from the general fund. So what's reflected here is the general fund funding is for the Economic Development Division Manager. That's the. The General Fund contribution to economic development. Speaker 0: Member de SAC, I think. Speaker 1: Just a quick question on the FISC lease revenues now where we approved the CFD for the Catalyst project. And isn't that particularly where the FISC revenues are? So at what point is that going to. Speaker 4: That is an excellent point because this is not a sustainable source of funding for the Economic Development Division. Although I promised Liz that we would come with a budget that would would work for the two year budget cycle that we're entering. But that's right. When Catullus us undertakes its Phase two development, the lease revenue won't be ours and some of it will go away. And we will be coming back to the council, most likely at that time with an analysis of what the general fund is gaining by the demise of redevelopment. And we will be talking to the council, most likely about earmarking some of that that money for economic development initiatives at that time. But at this point, we are confident that the revenue is here for the upcoming budget cycle. Speaker 1: Duly noted. Thank you. Speaker 6: I swear then to me it doesn't make any sense to add a staff person. Economic Development Manager Analyst is a full time additional position if we've only got sustainability for two years. Speaker 4: Well that we will we will mostly we have an in for two years and the we the nice part about lease revenue and other kind of dedicated funds is that you have a fund balance. Whether that fund balance, how far that fund balance takes us then into the next two year budget cycle, we will have a better sense of that in the next cycle. But that that will be a decision by the Council if it if the Council wants to bring back the facade program and make that happen. Speaker 6: So if we have a contract person who can take a two year contract for the life of this, I'd be okay with that too to manage the the saga, however. But if we can't sustain it, I don't see bringing an employee in benefiting them and then having let them go in two years and being faced with that decision, that's not sustainable. So I think we need to look at that very carefully. And if we've got, again, transient work and that is transient against a transient budget, then we have to make that tough decision everyday. Speaker 1: So I think that's a that's a valid point. My take on it though is that you bring in the staff that you need and the challenge for that staff person and him or her is to generate the economic development and the revenue so that they become self-sustaining. In the meantime, in our fiscal and the two fiscal years we get the services that that we want out of them, as well as the services that we want through the facade grant, the facade improvement. So it's whomever we hire, should we go down that path. I think they'll be on notice that, you know, you got to make your own revenue. Speaker 0: Is warmer than. Speaker 2: Right. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I think you know this I'm hearing a recurring theme, and I think this came up with the project managers in Mrs. Aldridge's presentation, as well as Mr. Mahone and Mr. Garland. Now, our staffing is fluid. It's not it's not because this person is here today. We expect them to be here in five years or ten years. I think, you know, we have the ability to flex our staffing. And if the and if the revenue is there, then we keep them. It's not we have you know, we have people retiring all the time. And so we can flex our staffing. And I think also, as Councilmember De Saag said, you know, that is one of the efforts that this individual is going to be doing is in the economic development division is to be generating more sales tax, you know , property tax and those in those types of things. And she's correct that as the redevelopment agency, you know, as it winds down, it's its work, more of that revenue gets flowed into the general fund. So it's not a you know, I know it's it's attractive to say this is a discrete thing that this person starts here and we know that they're going to be here in perpetuity. But that is not exactly how it works. So I just wanted to sort of give you that that perspective, at least our perspective when we hire these folks. Speaker 0: Yeah. So will you be asking for direction on that? Because I do support your recommendation. Speaker 2: Absolutely. I mean, at the end of tonight, I think we're going to want direction on these on these positions. Speaker 0: Are you keeping a short list? Yes, thank you. Speaker 4: And then on the real estate property management, that budget is 100% funded from the Tidelands. The lease revenues that we receive from our Tidelands leases. And by law, we are required to reinvest those revenues into tidelands related activities. So this is a pretty straightforward. And then I guess SSA Tabi and Youth Collaborative would be the other general fund funded initiative that we have. But you can see it's a very minor amount and on the special funds, the 22%. So Alameda is very lucky. We have a very generous county supervisor and supervisor Wilma Chan gives to the city $15,000 a year as a contribution to the youth collaborative so that that helps fund that initiative. So that is the budget for and this is a they're so small that this is a combined budget for those two initiatives Speaker 0: . And I'd like to share that even though it's a relatively small budget, but it's there are many community service organizations that participate, many volunteers and provides amazing service to. Speaker 4: All of you know, Jim Franz is an amazing person who you would never know that there was one guy behind all this in terms of what he does for the community. And then this this is just a graphic, as some as I think Jane said, it's just a graphic depiction of what we just ran through and about revenues. And we have a very small sliver of general fund funding, but the vast majority of the department is funded by fee for service, the other dedicated funds and it looks pretty much the same for 1617. And then with that. Oops, can you do that? Yeah. Okay. I'll do the housing one and I'm. And we, as I mentioned, the city contracts with the housing authority to implement the city's housing programs. And we do that arrangement is. Captured in a staffing services agreement. And we will on the June 2nd council meeting, we will be bringing the Staffing Services Agreement for the upcoming two year budget cycle to the Council at the same time as the budgets presented. Speaker 0: So this is the Affordable Housing Week and November. Ashcraft and I were at an event yesterday for the reopening of the Diamond Center and then this Friday. So Friday afternoon, there's also a public event. Speaker 3: And I attended the the kickoff of affordable housing week on Friday night this past Friday night in Oakland. Very well attended. Speaker 0: You. Okay. Speaker 4: Okay. You don't want me to sing or anything? Oh, the assistant manager, right? Yeah. No. Oh, yeah, that. Okay. Okay. So what I do as the community development director is I'm the I administer the staffing services agreement on behalf of the city. So I work closely with the Housing Authority staff as they do their work to do housing for Alameda. So a housing authority, their their division, their housing and development division, they have a few key goals. One is that they develop new affordable rental housing and they have some projects coming up. Stargell Commons, which is going to be located on Stargell Avenue, just west of Fifth Street. And so it'll be between Fifth Street and Shinsei Gardens. We are expecting any day now that we are going to hear that we got our tax credit funding for that project. So if that is the case, construction will be underway by December of this year. 2437 Eagle Avenue, which is 22 units, is scheduled for a planning board design review on June 8th. And the Del Monte Project, this is the affordable this stand alone affordable project is scheduled for planning board action on May 26. So they are moving forward with a number of affordable housing projects and their focus is on what their new development is on very low and low income housing. They also administer the city's inclusionary program, which is the below market rate units. So Cadence, the 16 units, that's the fancy name for the inclusionary units at Alameda landing the Tri Point Project. And they a couple of weeks ago, they did the lottery for the first four units and they had several hundred people participating in that lottery. And then we have 16 inclusionary units that are going to be made available in the Marina Shores project. So they're working on that. And then they also administer the city's down payment assistance loan program. It is tough to make silent seconds or second trustee loans in this kind of hot market when it's so expensive. It's just very challenging for moderate income people and very low and low income people to qualify, even with the support of a of a second trustee. But they we offer the program. They do first time homebuyer sessions, too. And the staff administers the Community Development BLOCK Grant Program Council voted on the five year plan and the upcoming annual plan at its last meeting. Residential rehab is a huge component of the CDBG program. Staff does residential rehab for owner occupied or rental housing, and they completed six projects in the 2014 calendar year. We also do lead paint hazard abatement. Although that program is going to be winding down for staff, city staff, and it's going to be run by the county directly, so that that will be a change next fiscal year. And we do an accessibility modification program and that's grab bars, ramps, lifts, that kind of thing. So 46 projects received grants for accessibility modifications in 2014. And of course, we've had a lot of discussion about the Rent Review Advisory Committee, which housing authority staff staff, that committees and there have been 30 cases to date in this fiscal year that have gone before the RAC and the home program. They have expended 100 and almost 136,000 on the start of Common's project. So this budget is this current year, the projection is at $1.8 million and the budget is projected to be closer to 1.76 million in the next two years. And that is really a function of the federal funding being decreased for CDBG and the home program. We are affordable housing. Finally, is that the affordable housing unit fee? So it's the fee that commercial developers pay to offset the impact of new employees in the city on our housing stock. So we're projecting a little more money in the upcoming years because of commercial activity in the city. And then just a quick on the previous cuts over the last ten years, you can see that cumulatively the CDBG programs have been cut over 30%. The home program over 40%. And once again, we've been talking about redevelopment. You can see in 2025, we got in one year, one, almost $1.8 million. In 2015 zero. It's a 100% reduction in redevelopment funding. So statewide, the number one source of housing, affordable housing funding was eliminated when redevelopment was eliminated. So it's really kind of illustrates that. I do. Okay. That's it for housing. And then successor agency is last. So in keeping with the theme of redevelopment and the elimination of redevelopment debt. So we have this new entity that was created when redevelopment went away, which is called the successor agency to the Community Improvement Commission, and we usually refer to it as the FAA. What we do, we unwind the affairs of the former CIC and we're really the successor agency is charged with meeting all of the enforceable obligations, completing redevelopment projects and disposing of assets, which is really land that was owned by the CIC. We staff a seven member oversight board and that oversight board, the members of the oversight board are prescribed by state law and they they they are primarily the taxing entities who benefit from the property taxes. So under the state law, the oversight board will be going away July one of 2016, and all of the oversight boards will be subsumed by one county oversight board. And in the governor's revi. The Governor's budget bill is tasked the county auditor comptroller's office to be in charge of the county successor agencies and the oversight boards. So it's a little I think they might have been caught a little bit off guard about their new responsibilities. So it's a little uncertain about what's going to happen after July one of 2016. But that is kind of the long term plan, is that our oversight board will go away, will be part of a county oversight board, and the Auditor Comptroller's Office will will staff all that. We prepare a ROPS twice a year and that really is just a listing of all of our enforceable obligations and our payments in those six month periods. And the, the the big redevelopment project that we have left here in Alameda is Alameda Landing. I'm wrapping up the DDA on that project. So in the next upcoming budget cycle, implementing phase two. Most of you know that phase one is well underway and is almost completed. So phase two, which is the area from Mitchell Street north to the waterfront, it's about 40 acres. That's the last that's phase two of Alameda landing. And then we have one parcel that is owned by the CIC or is now owned by the successor agency that we refer to as the bottle parcel. And it was a remnant piece out at Bay Port. It's kind of a funky looking. It's kind of skinny. It really looks like a bottle. And it's between Fifth Street and the College of Alameda, and it's not even a couple acres probably. And so we will be disposing. We our long range property management plan has been approved by DOF and our strategy for disposing of this was to put it on the market and sell it, you know, at the appraised value. And so that'll be that's an initiative that we'll be undertaking. Speaker 1: It could possibly counsel if you've already given a staff report on that to previous councils, if you could recirculate that again or generate a new one, that would be interesting. I'd like to find out more about that. Speaker 4: Are you talking about just kind of the bottle? Yeah, I'll do the one sheet from the property management plan which which you have all seen. I'll get that out to everyone. So we will be looking to dispose of that parcel to. So our what we get from from the county is what are enforceable obligations are. So it's really dictated by what we say our obligations are. That's the amount of tax, property tax that's remitted to the successor agency. Whatever is left is then is kind of a waterfall. Whatever is left then is distributed to all of the taxing entities, which is why the city has been seeing an increase in property taxes, because the city is a taxing entity. And we're actually lucky because we are a high property tax dollar city. And so based on the formula, we get $0.32 of every property tax dollar, which is we are very fortunate. There are some cities $0.11, $0.17. So we're really in a good position. But based on our cash flow analysis, this is what we're looking. Relative to our enforceable obligations. What? What the budget's going to look like in the upcoming budget cycle. And you can see that 98.6% of our money is the redevelopment property tax trust fund moneys. And then there was Kyle Conner. The Alameda Theater was one of our last redevelopment projects, and he had a $1.4 million loan from the agency. He's been he started repaying that loan a couple of years ago. That now is revenue for the successor agency. It's an asset. The note is an asset of the successor agency. So that money gets plowed right back into. To be used for payment of our enforceable obligations. So that's that's our revenue. And see that by far and away, 99.2% of the funds are spent on meeting our enforceable obligations. Think that's. Oh, sorry. Those are. That's it. Speaker 0: Questions, comments on to the next one. All right. Speaker 4: Thank you. Speaker 0: Base for years. Now we're going to take a short recess. Five minute recess. Thank you, Richard. It. Thank you. That's all. Ready to go? Speaker 7: I didn't actually do anything, so. Speaker 2: Oh. Speaker 7: Good. Good evening, Mayor Councilmembers. My name's Jennifer Ott, chief operating officer with Alameda Point. I'm here to talk about the base for use department budget. And before I go into too much detail here, I just want to step back because this does have implications for a little bit of what we're doing on our budget is that base reuse. And you heard Ms.. Potter talk about the Development Services Department. At one point, the base reuse was a division under Development Services. It was it had a separate legal entity called Aluminum Reuse and Redevelopment Authority for a number of reasons, including, you know, mainly related to the demise of redevelopment. The city ultimately took over all the assets related to the base, and we created a separate base reuse department. And then economic development was part of the Development Services Department that went under community development. And so we were kind of divided these different functions among two different departments. And as a result of that, and this is why I'm telling you this is there was a lot of shared staff between the two departments, and that's that's fine. We all cooperate and work well together. But over time it is we found that it's much easier to have separate staff, at least for some core functions. And there's still some sharing going on, which is, which is fine, but to to start to try to figure out a way to have each each of these divisions kind of have their own staff and to be able to it was hard for staff in a lot of ways to kind of have multiple priorities from different departments and different department heads. And so part of what you'll hear tonight from me is a little bit of trying to to kind of over time transition the two departments to be to be separate. And so we'll talk a little bit about that later. But I wanted to give that broader understanding of the base reuse department. But what do we do? There's three primary functions. And that leasing in property management is this is the first that's really the day to day. We manage all the existing facilities on an 880 acre site. We recruit new tenants, we retain the existing tenants, we negotiate new leases. We have 66 commercial and 68 residential leases, and we generate over $11 million annually in lease and license revenue. We have two private partners that help us do all of that, and they're representatives of both. Those partners are here tonight on the property management side. That's Premium Realty on the leasing side, that's Cushman Wakefield. And you are going to hear later too, at the end of my presentation, there's been some questions about how we set market runs out there. So we have a short presentation on that as well after this. The second function and that's that's really done that leasing property management is overseen through the base reuse department. The staff person that directly oversees as private partners is that we'll talk about this in a second is shared by both community developments the assistant community director and community development. That is kind of the final shared piece that will meet and maintain will maintain that sharing between the community owned department, the base reuse, and then there's maintenance and operations that's really run through the public works department. It's about $2 million annually to execute repairs of existing facilities, sewers and water. And we'll talk a little about the water in a second because of some of the impacts to expenditures. But Public Works maintains this about 3.4 staff people in those different functions. And then the final is redevelopment. And that's really obviously through the base for your staff implementing the communities plans surrounding the points, overseeing the Navy's environmental cleanup and conveyance, all the things that, you know, solicit developer interest, negotiating transactions, pursue grants and other things. So those are really kind of our main three primary functions. That's how our budget is divided. In terms of new initiatives, major new leases, ones that you've probably heard of that have been executed recently, as you know, about over about 120,000 feet square feet, four with Google Bricks, Beverage, a kind of organic soda beverage company. Right. Speed technologies in building 41, about 120,000 square feet. Another clean tech green tech company, proximo spirits. And then we do ongoing marketing and negotiations with with new potential tenants and things that well, we've got a number of leases that are pending and under negotiation, one for building, five for a food and beverage kind of incubator or building nine, I'm sorry for food and beverage incubator, building 23. One of the one of the hangars on Hangar Row that will be coming up for potential lease building 167, which is a building down in kind of the southern area near in state lands, tidelands area, near where the Marriott ships are. So we'll be working on a number of key leases that will be coming to the council over the next year or so. Speaker 1: A miss. Yeah. On bricks. I just want you to know that on their website, they have they are touting the Alameda point craft soda. Speaker 7: Oh, cool. That's great. We're getting some free publicity. That's good. And then the phase two conveyance, we as many of the council members know, we received our Phase one conveyance in June of 2013 for a 510 uplands acres and will be we are working very closely with the Navy right now to facilitate a second phase of conveyance , which is currently slated for February of 2016. It'll be smaller, but it'll be some of, you know, a lot of the pieces of the conveyance phase that were done before. It was, you know, 510 acres, a significant piece. But there were some important pieces kind of in our gateway and other parts that will be kind of filling in the Swiss cheese of the conveyance. And so we are working very hard for to meet that February deadline of next year. And then the site development. We don't have to talk about that tonight. Main Street neighborhood specific plan, which was a contract consulting contract that the council approved in April. We'll be moving that forward over the next 10 to 12 months. A $10 million tiger grant that came up already tonight. So we talked about that, really looking at leveraging those measure B B funds to try to attract additional federal funds to build transit infrastructure in West Alameda. We have this was part of kind of your general fund really looking at previous cuts, budget budget, previous cuts and budget demands. We don't fit perfectly into this. I think what you were doing with some of the other departments, but just things to give a little bit of history. We have had a number of operational budget cuts and other kind of major expenditures over our lifetime, a long time. And so in 1999, there were actual funds that the Navy were spending in caretaker funds that ended. And because of that, that was actually really when we started being much more aggressive about lease revenues to compensate for the loss of some of the Navy funds. We actually privatized for a period of time the leasing with our first master developer ultimately took that back under our our hat. But those resulted in different changes and things to our budget. For 2013 and 2015. We've been paying over time a $4.2 million Sun Suncor settlement. The last of that payment was made this year and and then because we had a pretty major eviction I guess, I don't know if that's the right eviction in Building 167 for Nelson's Marine. And there was a significant expenditure that over time we're hoping to get back some of that money over time. But it was pretty big expenditure that occurred. And so these are some of the budget demands and previous cuts that we've experienced over over a period of time. I think what's important and what we've been trying to do, because there have been different approaches to the the base reuse budget over time. We with kind of the impending master developers that we've had on two different occasions, there has been an and there was a pretty big surplus that had developed early on and in our budget. And because of that and we had expenditures and we and because there was we were always kind of on the verge of having a master developer take over all the obligations, the master developer for the entire I don't mean to point property and take over a lot of those obligations related to property management. We were essentially drawing down over time on our fund balance when it came clear after the second master developer didn't work out. Staff has really tried to shift our budget approach to needing to be much more sustainable and having certain kind of an approach that I wanted to share with the Council as to how we approach our budgeting, really moving away from this, you know, this idea that a master developer on a, you know, is going to come in and save the day, you know, for the entire property is we really need to take a long term sustainable approach to our budget. And that has resulted in a number of changes that we've made over time and cuts honestly, and things that we've had to do to try to make that happen. It was made a little harder with the sun cow settlement, but we are now with that payment being made, really focusing in last year we were able to succeed with this is generating more revenues and expenditures. It seems like an important approach to this where we're not drawing down on our fund balance any longer and then maintaining a minimum of unrestricted $2 million surplus for emergencies and contingencies with the infrastructure the way it is there. If there were a fire in a vacant building or something like that, we believe we want to kind of try to meet both of these these kind of baseline, you know, approaches with having, you know, make it every year , generating more than we expend and maintaining a $2 million minimum of a $2 million surplus. We also set aside additional funds for pier replacement and we'll talk a little bit about that because we actually have before you on May 19th an expenditure to draw down on our fund balance for the pier replacement, which I'll talk about in a second and you'll see that reflected in the budget. So usually in general, we generate about $11.8 million in revenue and we we pretty much expend know we want, you know, maintaining that $2 million fund balance. We want to we do expend pretty much most of our revenues assuming we have that $2 million, mainly because there is a lot of deferred maintenance and other things. So we try to get really close. So you see it getting close to that mark. But we always we're very conservative about budgeting on revenues and we're also pretty conservative on budgeting our expenses. So it's very common that we come in pretty under on our expenditures. Last year, for instance, we were budgeting a deficit. We came in $660,000 over, you know, in in terms of in the black on our budget. So we try to be conservative with these these approaches. The reason you see this this deficit this year is because we're drawing we had budgeted for this year $1.8 million fund balance for this pier replacement reserve. And so we're essentially with a $1.3 million contract that's before the council on May 19th. We're asking you to appropriate the use of the $1.3 million from that reserve fund that's dedicated for pier replacement for this very purpose to fix some sewer repairs and other things related to Pier two. And so that's why you see this deficit here. But you don't see, as you see the beginning fund balance or the ending fund balance stays the same. So we're we're not that is not a that's not a structural issue. It's more of a one time issue because we're drawing down on the pier replacement reserves, assuming the council approves the contract on May 19th. So 11.8, we have a little bump here, mainly because we are we just counted as revenue the grant funds for the Main Street neighborhood. But we also we we kind of net those out. So there's essentially a wash, but that's why you see a little bit of bump in the revenue. And then over time what I want to show. So we have these are the revenues. We've got expenditures and transfers out. Essentially what you see here, you know, accepting this issue with the replacement allocation, we're essentially break even in our budget. And we've maintained over as you'll see over these this two year period, we're maintaining, including the pier replacement budget, you know, an Indian fund balance about $2.7 million. So we've met in this budget where we've met our, you know, our approach to making sure that we're being sustainable over time. How this breaks down. We've got 100% lease revenue is the exception is that 12 million this includes about $200,000 of those grant funds. But in pretty much 100% lease revenues, personal accounts are about 12%. 12% of our budget. I wanted to mention, as we were saying, that we do have some personnel changes this year where we're going to be. Last year we had about 4.4 full time equivalents, but that only include one full time staff in the base reuse department. And that was me. So everyone else was shared with community development. And so what we're trying to do going forward is have 4.6 full time equivalent. So adding 2.6 full time equivalent, but having three of those three of those FTE is actually be full time folks that are dedicated to base view so that we're minimizing that sharing between community development and base reuse, adding slightly as personnel. And that's why you see some of the increase in our personnel budget. I mean, obviously some of the increase is just due to increases just like you have in the general fund. But some of it is due to this additions of the point six FTE. But really and so that includes a project manager, a remote project manager that would report directly to me to essentially assist me in the project management of, of the base reuse department and then an executive assistant. Whereas now I have kind of 5050 of two different administrative staff who would be consolidating that into one administrative staff with the just that would support me and the department moving forward. So I wanted to discuss those. Personnel changes. Services or supplies? That's really what that means. Those are legal services. All environmental consultant that looks over the Navy shoulder, making sure that they're doing, you know, what they're supposed to do and analyzing all those reports. It includes all of our property management fees and expenses and staffing, both on the residential and commercial side. It includes our port manager that helps us manage our contract with Myriad. So that's really the bulk of our expense expenditures. And then the fixed charges are really a essentially transfers out to the general fund to cover eligible expenses for for providing services to to the base. This just goes quickly through how that breaks out. There's a very simple chart here. Same. This is just a graphic breakdown of those different budget categories. They don't change significantly at all between the two years, and I'm here to answer questions. I could also want everyone to answer question on the budget and then have John McMahon as our lead team member of Cushman Wakefield, our leasing agent, do the market, kind of talk a little bit about how we set market rents or I can answer question. I think it probably better answer questions about the budget and then I could have him come up and give a little presentation on how we set our market rents. Speaker 0: Member De Daisuke. Speaker 1: Just a quick question on the fixed charges on the expenditures of 3.175. Is that like the police officers who happened to be working there or the fire department personnel who might be there at their time? Is is that is that what that is for the most? Speaker 7: It's it's eligible expenses for kind of offsetting. Services that are provided from. Speaker 1: The finance. Speaker 7: Department. Speaker 4: Good evening. Actually, the $3.2 million and I'm rounding it covers a variety of. Speaker 2: Expenses, which includes the administrative. Speaker 4: Costs of services provided by Finance, our city manager. And on top of that, it includes the component for public safety as well. Speaker 1: Wonderful. Speaker 4: Actually, it's probably a larger component just because it costs so much. Speaker 1: Understood. Thank you. Appreciate it. Speaker 0: Remember. Speaker 5: Thank you. Have a nice presentation as usual. Thank you. You're probably more for full time equivalents in one, but we won't we won't make you do that. Just a quick question. Can you clarify just for the public that peer to peer that is or. Speaker 7: You appear to is is related to where those big ships are in the maritime ships. Right. Those married ships that are there. So it's down in the south, kind of. I guess kind of the southwestern part of the base where you have those big ships where this picture is right here. Speaker 5: Where they need the sewage, where they have a sewage problem. Yes, there's. Speaker 7: A sewage problem. Right. And so we are there's a couple contracts, one that we're funding the 1.3 million that we're funding through the actual available fund balance for pure replacement. And then another war funding through our up, what we're able to kind of capture through our operating budget, we had funds available in a fund. So it's only the $1.3 million contract that we're asking you to appropriate funds from that fund balance, which was designated exactly for this purpose. Speaker 5: Thanks. I guess we'll talk more about that next week. Ask. Speaker 0: I remember comments like this one. So I also want to add it was a great, great presentation and again, I support your recommendations. Regards to staffing. Speaker 7: Great. Thank you so much. Speaker 0: Next base, reduce market rent determination. Speaker 6: Good evening. I'm John McManus. I'm with Cushman Wakefield. We are your leasing team at Alameda Point. And I've been asked to take a couple of minutes tonight to talk about how we set lease rates and then to answer any questions that you may have on that. I think the first thing to emphasize and often gets lost when we have discussions with tenants is that we look at Alameda Point regionally as part of the roughly 132 million square foot East Bay industrial market, because primarily we have industrial product that's ready to lease and ready to go or what would fall into that classification. And so we're looking at buildings that are offered for lease from Richmond all the way to Union City and making comparisons to what we have available at Alameda Point to what the alternatives, the principle of substitution is what an appraiser would call it. If you wanted to go get something else, what would that be? And so I want to make sure that we do this in a regional context as we talk about rental increases from 2010 and the trough to where we are today, we will go out and inspect the buildings. We will look at their condition. One of the challenges and one of the things that we talked about when we were in the process of being engaged was how can we get more leasing activity when we leave it to the tenants to do their own capital repairs and improvements because we don't provide any tenant improvement money? And so one of the things that that comes up is, well, we'll give you a year of free rent to pay for that. That tenant may not be able to write us a check for 12 months of rent or write a check to a contractor, even though we're giving them the free rent. And so the condition of the building may necessarily dictate what happens in a lease negotiation. You may not have as many people. There's also this notion of scarcity. At two years ago, when we started two years ago, September, October, there was less demand in the market. Today we're putting buildings out and we're getting multiple users on the building. And that allows us to be more aggressive with with the asking rates. And finally, the direction of the market comes into play. If a tenant comes to us today and says, we'd like to renew our lease and our lease expires in June of 2016, we're going to look directionally at the market. And it's not today's rate that we're trying to anticipate what's going to happen in 2016 when that lease rolls over. Can we go to the next slide with this? The speed of the arrow. Do it for me. Or just the green button? Speaker 4: No. Speaker 6: A laser or. Speaker 3: Not? Speaker 6: Is it locked? Speaker 4: Do it. Speaker 6: And I'm sure it's operator error all night. Speaker 0: Yeah. Speaker 4: It's frozen. Speaker 0: But she's doing that. Can you tell me, how long have you been the leasing team? Speaker 6: We were engaged, I think, in September of 2014. Yeah. I think it's September 2014. No. Excuse me, September of 2013. This is 2015. So it was it was almost two years ago. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 6: So. We've got this slide up here because this is this is really the important directional slide. These are asking rates. They're not necessarily taking rates. And so we compile the average asking rates for all industrial product types, which you can't say, well, today it's $0.63. Today it's it's you know, it was 45, but this is directional. And so from 2010, when the the market basket was at $0.44 to today at 63, that is a 44% increase in in the market overall. And this has been not just to allow me to point, but everywhere a real hardship for tenants. I'm working with folks now that did, you know, three, four or five year leases that are looking at at 50% rent increases. And this is in San Leandro, Hayward everywhere. It's a big issue. It's a big issue. And, you know, they become policy decisions for or cities and landlords and how far they want to push on rents . But there certainly and we do run into circumstances where people will say, well, I've got this lease right here that you did in 2011 or 2012, and I want that rate. I want that, you know, directionally, that's not where the market is right now. And I think it's important to keep in mind, as we as we have that regional discussion. And just to further illustrate and again these these are averages by market we statistically. Track Alameda as part of the Oakland submarket. And you can see what what the average asking rates are in each market. And I apologize. It looks like some of the the Category C, which is the warehouse distribution, has slipped from market to market. But you can look in, for example, as you might expect, Berkeley and Emeryville are the high numbers. Oakland and Alameda actually do pretty well. We continue to see rates be a little bit lower in Hayward in Union City. We saw in 2001 and again in 2007 that flipped over and inverted with the impact from Silicon Valley. I expect that will be the case again. And then you'll start to see more migration from south to north, which will put further pressure on us here. Speaker 0: ASHCROFT. Speaker 3: Thank you. Mr. McManus, can you just tell us in the this slide in the boxes is Berkeley, Emeryville under category a high tech? Why does it seem we. Speaker 6: Don't track high tech so high tech as we categorize these buildings? I'm trying to think of what a good if you drive through Fremont and you're right on 8080 kind of south of the Tesla plant, you see a lot of buildings that are characterized by a lot of glass front. They might be built to support 30, 40, 50% of office space. They don't have a lot of docked or so. It's a it's a building classification that would have certain elements because. Yeah, and you don't have that business park, you know, Berkeley, Emeryville isn't real business park and the things that have been torn down have been replaced with Office and Life Science Building. So there, there isn't enough of that product that it constitutes its own statistical category. Speaker 3: Okay. And I'm a little surprised, but I guess I understand what you're saying. What what's category C again? W slash D warehouse distribution. Speaker 6: And what doesn't appear here is office class-A office or buildings like where? Um, development bills in Emeryville. There are those five and six story brick buildings that are sort of stair stepped, that are built specifically for laboratory. Those would not be tracked. That would be a separate slide that would be office oriented. Speaker 0: Any other member questions or comments? I, I had actually asked for this presentation, but I meant regards to the tenants that are out their differences between their leases because that's where I've heard some feedback that that. Trying to make sense of why one tenant gets one right and why another tenant gets another rate or. And also in regards to rent, when you're speaking about renegotiating leases and. And does someone report to council of how that's progressing so that we're part of that conversation? Because I would think that if we have a tenant that's been out there and or I don't know if you're coming back and saying a 50% increase from what you were saying, I wasn't sure. But if there's anything like that happening, I would appreciate if you would inform council of that. Speaker 2: Address that again about sort of historically what? Speaker 6: Well, I, I don't know. We we haven't asked anyone for 50% increase nor nor do we have anything that's under discussion at that point. Speaker 7: Yes. I mean, that's not I mean, we're we are experiencing multiple offers on and buildings now where we're seeing, you know, a lot more interest. And so we are having some, you know, even, you know. Speaker 0: Like an emergence, huh? That's new tenants. Well, no, not. Speaker 7: All I was going to say is even a renewal, for instance, for existing tenants where the lease may say, let's bring you up to market for your renewal. And there's a discussion with us and with them about what's market. And there's a, you know, the lease may have a process outline as to how you determine that in some fashion, but it's usually it's legal to get comps and things like that. And we are having, you know, not a not difficult. Speaker 4: But just just in-depth conversation with folks about because they may say, well, six months ago you executed a Lisa was this is like. Speaker 7: Well six months ago even said six months ago that's changed. And so are some of those conversations going on. But nothing like where you're talking about displacing tenants because of 50% increase in rents and things like that. We just haven't had that kind of impact at Aluminum Point yet. Speaker 0: But are we displacing tenants? Are we not able to make a deal when we have someone that does want to renew? Speaker 7: No, no. I mean, I haven't heard anything. Yeah, we don't have any. Speaker 3: You need to talk into the microphone, so we'll get it on the record. Speaker 6: No, I'm not aware of any tenants that have been displaced. Speaker 0: So in regards to negotiations, that's something that if we reach a point like that or where it seems like it's difficult, I would appreciate it if we could discuss that clause among council members. Speaker 7: I think I think we are you we're coming to you with a closed session, in fact, on Tuesday where you know things because of this new situation that. Yeah. Which is honestly I mean, it's on one hand it's it's a good situation because it means we're getting a lot of interest, a lot of demand for our buildings , a lot of demand for looking out there and potentially higher rents and purchase prices and things like that, which on one hand is good. On the other hand, you know, doesn't. Not everyone gets what they want. And in it it does create some complications in this particular case, because those complications will be coming to you in closed session and seeking your direction on things that are much less controversial, much more consistent with the way we've done. Business will continue to kind of facilitate in the same way that we've done that before. But we absolutely agree that if there's something controversial, honestly, especially we're negotiating a lease, we don't it takes a long time. It takes a lot of effort to negotiate a lease. And we do not want to, you know, have that controversy. You know, we spent all that time on a transaction and come to you and there's controversy or you're not on the same page. So we agree with you. We want to try to get your upfront feedback on that. Really appreciate on those more potential controversial issues. Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Speaker 1: Member every quick question since you're here for Mr. McManus. So in the in the East Bay Quarter that you're looking at within in the Oakland Alameda suburbs market, you have manufacturing at roughly $0.71 a square foot. So. The win for Alameda point though. What would be the order of magnitude? Typical order of magnitude kind of write down that that would. Speaker 6: I that manufacturing is a is a definition. I think that our buildings while we we don't look to lease them for warehouse distribution because there's too much truck traffic that goes on, it's not a favored use they probably resemble the most because of the limited office improvements and things that they have on a rental basis. That's probably where they fit the both the best. If we had a building like Building 530, which some people call the Safeway building, the if that were in pristine condition, that would be more of a manufacturing type building. Speaker 1: And what I was getting at was per square foot live rent the monthly per square foot. Speaker 6: I don't think there's so much a discount. I think we're really looking at that is what's most comparable because if I were setting up an operation, a brewery and I wanted to look at alternatives and I wanted an empty box to work in, which is really what we're offering in most cases. I'd be looking at similar buildings that were were classified as warehouse distribution on on on San Leandro, for example. And so that's where I think our best comparison is in. Is there a discount? There's a discount on condition, but there's no discount for the views. And there's certainly going to be a premium for the clustering and the customers are already coming. So all these things are coming into play as interest as we set the rates. Okay. Speaker 1: Thank you. Appreciate that. Speaker 0: Thank you. Right. So that's. End of presentations, I believe. All right. Speaker 2: That's correct. Speaker 0: Council communications or the. Well, I. I'm sorry, city. Speaker 2: Manager, actually, we were hoping that we can have some discussion and get some direction from. Speaker 0: You. Yes. So do you want to leave that or. Speaker 2: Well, I think you've heard from the what I call the other than general fund categories. Really. I think what we need direction from you is on positions that that our folks are asking. Just to summarize, we have we are asking for 4.6 new bodies. And that point six comes from Ms.. Ott and we're asking for three upgrades. So it's a total of really four, four and a half new new bodies, I guess you could say, and and three positions that there are currently people in it, but they're going to be upgraded. Um, so that really is kind of what we're looking for is direction on those, on those positions. Speaker 0: All right. Council members. Speaker 3: Ashira I was just going to ask is minute, would you just list those for us and just it's been a while since the beginning of this occupation. Speaker 2: So and I'll do it by department. So in recreation we are upgrading one position. It's a park maintenance worker, we're upgrading it to a four person. And then we're also asking for a parks program manager. That's a new body, but that would be shared with public works. They say. Speaker 0: Program manager. Speaker 2: Project manager. Right. Okay. Speaker 0: I'm not sure if you want to respond per position or if you have a general idea of where you want to go. Speaker 3: I just wanted the listing so we had so we had a friend of us all go through specific. Speaker 2: So the in public works. We're looking for a project manager too. That's a new body. In economic development. We're looking for an economic development management analyst, a senior building code enforcement officer, write code compliance. Supervising Inspector. Sorry. Supervising Inspector. Speaker 3: Building inspector. Speaker 2: Building Inspector? That's correct. So that's economic development management analyst. A supervising building inspector. That's plus two, right? And then two upgrades. One is from city planner to assistant director and from an office assistant to an executive assistant. So that's just those are two same bodies, but just upgrading those positions. So economic development is two new bodies. And then base reuse, as we heard from is that is adding essentially a 0.6 body. So she's combining a bunch of positions, but the funding is additional of 1.6. She's taking some part time people and consolidating. Speaker 0: Right. Member de SAC. Speaker 1: Well, thank you very much. I think the 5000 feet view of, of things when it comes to the, uh, managements requests for new positions and upgrading all previous positions. I think the 5000 view of things is, for the most part that, you know, these are not the general fund and that a lot of it is funded by revenue streams that are specific to the purposes of of these various departments. And having said that, you know, whomever is hired, they understand the risks. And to the extent that they, you know, are entrepreneurial, generate revenues for the city and they help their positions as well. So from my vantage point. I support, you know, staff recommendation and I support in particularly bolstering our economic development department. Recognize that, you know, we've got certain things coming down the pike with regard to the fiscal revenue because on the the same source, that's from which we're generating the least revenue is possibly going to be redeveloped for other uses. But, you know, that's the. That I think will prod a spirit of enterprise on the part of that person should this council support the management analyst or economic development? And we will also have to fill the economic development position to write the staff person position. So I look forward to staff's. Comments on that in terms of the recreations, just quickly. What an outstanding job that department has done. And made you know it. So I think we can continue to it's good work. And again, I think as indicated earlier, the sources of that are not general fund. And if at some point in time it does become general fund, then, you know, then let us know. So without I don't think there's much more that I can say. Well, one final point. I appreciate the presentations by everybody. I thought they were they were a very nice public works presentation. Was very nice. So thank. Speaker 0: You, Nebraska. Speaker 3: Thank you. Just a couple clarifying questions and then a comment. So when Mithat was talking about her department and I understand there's some sharing between her department and community development. Right. But I thought at least I put in my notes. But I could be wrong that she's asking for one FTE full time equivalent in this budget and one administrative staff to support her. Speaker 2: Jenny, want to clarify that. My understanding, and I heard you say an additional point six. Speaker 3: Is that you knew all this off the top of your head. Speaker 7: I think what the city manager woman am saying is that the net new FTEs point six, but because of the consolidation instead of four or this year for instance, I'm the only full time staff that's actually assigned to the base views. And then I'm kind of a cobbling a little half of this person, half that person. And we share sharing with the new development department. What I'm asking for, for the next two years would be three full time staff dedicated to base reuse, an executive assistant and a project a redevelopment project manager in addition to my full time . Position. Speaker 3: Okay. So help me understand how three full time staff equals point 6%. Speaker 2: Because she's combining it's the funding equivalent. She's combining part time staff that she is sharing. So she's taking that money and and bringing it over and combining that. Speaker 3: So some of those part times your are shared people you're creating into full time. Speaker 7: Where you actually, for instance, one of them a development manager and community development. I share what community element that person's going to be full time in community development right now we as share to part we share to administrative staff people kind of half and half. So instead we're each going to get one, you know, here it's just, you know, so there is a little bit of an increase in my case of point six. But we're both carried out mainly in the Economic Development Department, our Division of Human About, you know, we're kind of bumping up a little bit, but we're doing it in a way so that we can then have our own full time staff. It was it's been difficult for staff to have competing priorities with different department heads and things to trying to consolidate. So I know it's a little confusing, but. Speaker 3: As I was trying to sort of see a mental picture, I think those clever graphics that we saw in the CFP better we could have used here that, you know. Speaker 7: Yeah, I should have just a slide and we will the actual budget will have a detailed kind of position by position of how that all adds up to be able to see it a little more clearly. And I'm sorry I didn't have that. Yes. Speaker 3: No, no, that's fine. And so so my comment. Thank you, Ms.. And then Ms. for Madame. So someone Councilmember de SAC, I think mentioned we do have that vacancy now in the economic development. Speaker 2: That's correct. Speaker 3: Director. So where, where in the budget does that fall? Speaker 2: That's, that's actually a general fund position and we are assuming that it will be filled. So it's already factored in the general funds. Speaker 3: Budget already budgeted for. Okay. So I do take to heart Councilmember de Suggs admonition, a reminder to us that these positions we're talking about, these requests are not coming through the general fund. They, for the most part, come from funding that is actually generated in part by the work of these departments. And these folks are hired with the caveat that they could be terminated if the funding runs out or the the use is no longer there. So I, I feel that we have good, strong department heads. I feel they've been doing good, hard work. We've asked them for a number of years to do more with less. And they have and we still expect everyone to be thrifty and tighten belts. But we I don't want to see us handicapping our departments, especially as we move forward on some really substantial, meaty items that are, you know, for the benefit of our entire city . So I am in favor of giving people the tools that they need. And I'm not going to try to micromanage if I assume that by the time they came before us, they put a lot of hard analysis and thought into these requests and I'm supportive. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 5: Member Brody Thank you, Madam Mayor. And I want to echo the comments that have already been in spoken and some of the concerns that were raised earlier. I. Understand that these are funded by, you know, other funds and other sources of revenue. But for instance, the economic development position where we already know that that revenue stream is going to stop. You know, I am a little concerned about, you know, bringing that on as a as a full time permanent position. And I think there was a concern raised raised earlier on that by one of my colleagues. And, you know, I echo that concern. I kind of had a little concern about, you know, the project manager. But, you know, I think after thinking about it and hearing all the work that Public works and Parks and Rec need to do that, I think that that that position will will be able to be sustained long term with enough work. And I think that will help us be more efficient as we as we implement a lot of these project. So a little bit, you know, probably in the minority here on the economic development, but you know, that one I'd like to see us, you know, think about a consultant for two years. But on the flip side, you know, the facade grants, you know, the workforce development, all of the good work that we want to get out of economic development. I think those are important. And I think those those programs are not only, you know, popular in the minds of Councilmember Ashcraft and myself, but, you know, my other colleagues on the council have also expressed strong support, especially those that have been here before and that were able to see the successes of the facade grant. I'd like to see you know, as I said earlier, the library, if there's a way we could find more funding for materials that may be, you know, another small, you know, stipend or one time allocation from the general fund. I'm not sure. There was no increase in hours and no increase in headcount this time. Two years from now, if we're sitting here, I mean, that might be something I think we might want to consider. The community has been asking for, you know, some of the cuts in hours for both city hall. That's not for today's discussion, but and the library to be restored. So I think that's something we can we can explore in depth, you know, either when we come back in a year and revisit the budget or next year, you know, all of the other, you know, projects. I really appreciate all the hard work and how we've all now done a lot more with a lot less. And, you know, all of the effort that that staff has put in. So I'm fine with all the other proposed new hires that have been been suggested. I'm just a little concerned about economic development and that we're going to have a long term funding source for that. That's kind of my my comments. Speaker 0: I swear. Speaker 6: I'm. Thank you. I. I agree that in park and Rec. And public works. I think that we have that revenue stream to support the the positions. I am concerned about the economic development as a as a finite or unsustainable revenue stream that I think that one. Should be a project basis entourage. I also I favor, but it's up to the department head. I favor project managers as part of the project. Embedded in that project and they deliver it. But I can I can go with this recommendation, assuming that we're going to evaluate it mid-year and at the end of the year, see what the progress is or what the future looks like when we come out of two years. So I would support the recommendations of staff. And provide that we go forward. I do have a question. This is our last workshop before the budget's presented. Correct. Okay. So I'll have a comment after. After this is. Speaker 0: All right. So I see this as a realignment of funds more than anything some departments have access to over time. Others don't. Some use consultants. Others don't. Some hire part time employees. And some. Actually, I would submit overextend their employees that are salaried. And I see this as a correction. We did speak at the last meeting about what was referred to as phantom savings. And when you're paying overtime as opposed to hiring or filling a vacant position. Overall, I think you're working certain employees too much and we're not really doing the best work that we can to meet the needs of our community as well as our employees. So I fully support these recommendations and I'm confident that at the end it's money well spent. So thank you. All right. Vice Mayor And. Speaker 6: I'd like to bring up something that I thought about after we went through the last session. And I think it came up when one of the speakers talked about $30 million or $30.8 million in our general fund balance. And. That there were a variety of ways how that was built up. But I would like to see us. I'd like this council to consider asking the budget to come to us with that fund balance. Grim down to the 20%, approximately $16 million, and the Delta or 10 million or so be allocated to some of our. Unfunded liabilities, such as, for example, OPEB for retired currently retired employees. Or deferred maintenance. And the question came up is, well, if we had a little bit more money, we could save some money by making investments, some of our infrastructure. So. A chunk of money to that. And then to look at some of those. Some of those trust funds that we have, whether it's that leg trust fund or the library trust fund that are cut constantly. I'm like I say, being confronted but are constantly being looked at for trim because I'm looking at the meta, the library , the deliverable, the library public is materials, you know, on some level. And that's where the cuts usually come. So I would like this council to direct. City management to present us with a budget that has a 20% fund balance in the general fund and that proposes an allocation to those unfunded liabilities or the deferred maintenance as the top two categories. To allocate the Delta two of that $30 million so that we don't have this pile of cash sitting there on top of the general fund for the next few years, but actually put it to work, particularly in the unfunded liability that remains with OPEB, because that's another step we can take. We could also consider PERS Trust Fund or whatever the city manager can make a case for that says We're starting to address an unfunded liability that we haven't addressed in the past. So that's my request of my colleagues to consider giving that direction. All right. Speaker 0: Member Ashcroft. Speaker 3: Well, as I say, I think that's intriguing. And I'd like to hear if that's something we can do. Speaker 2: So I think what I would like and I think it's an excellent suggestion. We have a week to publish this budget, so it may be difficult for us to get exactly, you know, where we're going to put it, because I want to get some input, obviously, from the departments. I mean, Elaine, if you want to come on up and you can weigh in on this. But what I'd like to suggest is, you know, your that surplus is going to stay there and we can come back to you within, you know, six weeks or, you know, a couple of months with where we want where we suggest that money goes. I just worry that we don't have enough time between now and next week when this thing has to actually get published, to be able to really give it some some good thought about where we'd like to put that money. So I think it's a great idea. I just would like a little bit more time to think about it. Speaker 6: And, and my, my point is not so much where we allocated I gave those as examples, but the fact is having that but general fund balance is, is like a a temptation to live beyond our means because it is in the general fund. And I'd like to see it go back to that 20%. Reserve that we have to do whether the downturns. And put the other money, restrict the other money, basically take it out of that, put it in another fund balance, and you can take the time to figure out where to recommend we allocate that for these unfunded liabilities . But don't leave that temptation for us to live beyond our means in our general fund sitting there. That's what I'd like to see. Speaker 1: Member De Matt Amir I mean, this is a new idea, which I don't know, I think. I think amounts to $14 million discussion. That sounds like it's being discussed on the fly. Personally, I don't want to. I don't want to see us make a decision as a council in this budget session to basically decimate the $38,000,030 million . Reserve that we have just whatever amount that represents, 20%, 20% would be I mean, that's $20 million is if our budget is $8 million and eight 8% represents 10% or 16% represents those $16 million. You want to go from $30 million, $30 million to $16 million because $60 million equals 20% of the budget. In this budget cycle. We want to make that kind of a decision. I and I think and putting it into items like OPEB for which we garner no lasting asset in return, i. I think I think we should probably park this discussion and just move forward with the budget discussion at hand because I think the implications move this profoundly. Speaker 0: Negative member Ashcraft. Speaker 3: So I think I favor what our city manager suggested, that we can come back at a later date to decide. I'm still I'm intrigued by this idea, but, you know, bear in mind, the public also should have the right to weigh in with the as you said, the time is short for preparing the report. And I don't know, but I think it's a it's a good idea to consider. And but I also see the points raised by Councilmember de SAC. I think we need a little more time to for all of us to absorb this and and then hear from staff the different implications. But definitely something to keep in mind and kind of a good problem to to have, you know, for a change. But the vice mayor did mention the the library and that the deliverables were it's a tough one to say this late at night. The deliverables are the materials. But, you know, the deliverables are also the amount of time that the libraries are open for the patrons. And so I would like when we come back for final consideration for a look to be taken it how we could add back some of those hours that Mr. Serkis is still in the room have had shown in the slides have been cut over the years because I you know that that's something we've got a great library in to you know recently renovated branches that you you want them to be open to the people who need them are a residents and already. Speaker 5: Thank you, Madam Mayor. I think that's a great idea. You know that the vice mayor came up with? You know, we have I talked about this last last meeting, you know, that we were philosophically we were talking about, you know, cutting when the period of austerity is over and we should start talking about restoring where we were not spending wildly, you know, not adding, you know, hundreds of people to the to the payroll, to the headcount, but addressing some of the issues, you know, that we have left addressed for for too long, unaddressed for too long, you know, the unfunded liabilities, the deferred maintenance, you know, the hours at the library, you know, things like that, that. You know. I too don't want to see have this 30.8 or it's going to be 30.7 or whatever it is in two years sitting there and tempting us to do something that we shouldn't do. And I think the sooner that we that we we restore some of these these these cuts that we've made and deal with some of these, you know, I call them all unfunded infrastructure problems. I think the better off will be. And, you know, I I'm fully supportive of the vice mayor's idea. Speaker 2: As an American. I should also make a quick clarification regarding the library. Just I just want to remind folks that library hours are ongoing. That's going to be it's going to add to our deficit materials as can be a one time thing. So I just want to be clear that you understand that, right? So if you're adding hours, that means that your delta that we're trying to get rid of, which was the 1.4, is now going to raise by whatever gain, you know, comes up with. But I just want to make that clear, as opposed to the materials where we can make those is one time contributions. You can take that out of your reserves. Speaker 3: Right. I understand that. I do. But I also think it's time to take a look at maybe not cutting as deeply in some departments to allow that. And I do realize that it's ongoing. But I think this is a year when we should be considering that, given our finances it. Speaker 0: So I feel like we have just talked about bringing back quite a few positions and realigning funds. I think that's a good first step. I'd like to see the numbers come back after we do what we've already given recommendations to do. And then I support the city manager in regards to taking our time. I don't want to send the message to staff. We want you to come back within six weeks or eight weeks. We have plenty of time to do this. I don't think we have to hurry to touch the reserves. In fact, I don't feel like we are tempted to spend it because it's there. I think that's why it's been able to accumulate. So I think we are protective of the funds and for me a good first step is but we've our that we've just spent the last two meetings saying, okay, add this back, then we can revisit the numbers and take our time to best serve the community across the board. So I think that there were three of us that were fine with taking. Speaker 3: Well, I think I mean this is it's direction right that they're going to staff will take back and put into the mix so it's not that they have to do either or. Speaker 7: Um. Speaker 2: Yeah, we have direction. Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. We have two. All right, so that was City Manager Communications. Did you want to. Speaker 2: Yes, I think that's all I have. Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. Next. Speaker 2: All right. We might have to. Oh, right. Speaker 0: Yes, Mr.. Speaker 2: Horn. That's right. He gave me a note.

Regular Agenda Item

Receive Presentations from Non-General Fund Departments and Programs on the Proposed Budget for Fiscal Years 2015-16 and 2016-17. (Finance 2410)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_05062015_2015-1648

Speaker 0: We're going to start with a presentation by Chief Hillary for the police department. Speaker 5: Actually, I'd like to just do a quick intro, if you don't mind. Madam Mayor, please. That. Okay. So good evening. I just wanted to to say welcome to everybody out in the audience who obviously is taking a great interest in this item tonight. Hopefully, folks at home are watching. This is the fourth of six meetings that we're having on this on our budget for fiscal year 15, 16 and 16, 17. Tonight, we have what we're considering all the majority general fund departments. So that's all eight departments that will be presenting tonight. That includes police and fire admin services in H.R. finance, city clerk, city attorney, city manager, which includes information technologies and the city council's budget. So all eight of the budgets will be presented tonight. And then also we have at the very end of the presentation a discussion about what I call filling the gap for the deficit that we've identified in fiscal year 1617. So with that, I'd like to turn it over to our first presenter, which is Chief Larry. Speaker 0: Actually, if we could have two more public speakers before we start, that would be greatly appreciated. So Kelly. Laura. Thank you. Speaker 5: Good evening. City Council and Mayor Spencer. Thank you for having me here this evening. I'm here tonight to speak about the possible cut of the SRO officers that are placed in Alameda High School. Speaker 0: And it's not high school. Speaker 5: That's being considered for the 20 1617 budget. And I ask you not to cut the SRO officers and not to make any reductions in that area. SRO officers. Speaker 0: Have been in our high schools for. Speaker 5: Over 20 years. During this time, they have served students and supported the community by providing a valuable resource. They partner with the school staff to keep our schools safe. They form relationships with. Speaker 0: Students. Speaker 5: And staff. They take reports. They investigate. They provide assistance to use who may not feel comfortable going to the station. They take reports and de-escalate situations. I know firsthand that they have supported our young people through issues of sexual assault, drug and alcohol issues, robbery, etc., very serious issues. And of course, I know that we all know in our recent current events throughout our country how important school safety is, and SRO officers play a critical role in that. So I ask that we continue this discussion. I absolutely understand budgets. I understand the predicament that you all are in and the need to make budget reductions. I ask that we consider this conversation and continue to have dialog and see if we can figure out another way to make the budget balanced. Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Thank you. Can Petersen. Now he's speaking on this item. Speaker 4: Thank you. Speaker 6: Isn't this an item that's on the agenda? Speaker 0: Right. Except that there's all these presentations. So they don't want to wait until apparently like ten or 11:00. They're all connected. Speaker 7: I thought our process was presentation public comment. Right. Speaker 0: So I was asked because we have nine presentations on one agenda item. They could be two speakers could go first. We only have one agenda item, right? Speaker 2: Yes. Yeah. Can we after each presentation so that if a public speaker wants to speak on a police issue or a fire issue or whatever department presenting, can we break in so that they hear the presentation first? That might inform the discussion. Or to the. Speaker 6: Comment. I would I would favor that sort of thing. And I think other. The particular item that Ms.. Laura spoke about with is actually in one of our. It's the last later the later one last presentation. So, I mean, if we. No, but I do I do think that the vice mayor suggestion, at least maybe hearing the police. Speaker 0: So, Mr. Chair, are you here speaking on which of these presentations? Speaker 4: I'm sorry. I can almost understand what you're saying. Speaker 0: I'm sorry. Which presentation are you planning to speak on? Speaker 4: I'm thinking about the overall process, which I think you should keep the. Speaker 0: Last one, the overview presentation. Speaker 4: As it fits into the overall city. So that's. Speaker 0: The. Okay, hold on just a moment. So that's number three, four, five, six, seven, eight. Speaker 4: I'm I'm sorry. I can't. Speaker 0: So if you could if you're speaking on the last one, General, for an overview presentation, which is like the 10th or 12th presentation this evening, but council will be agreeable to allowing him to speak at this time on that item. Speaker 2: I'm fine with that. Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. So if you and then if you could hold your comments to make sure you stay within the 3 minutes, that'd be great. You want. Speaker 4: Me to wait. Speaker 0: Till I know you could go now? Because you're speaking on the last item, the overview presentation. Yes, you may proceed. And then if you could hold make try to keep your your comments to 3 minutes. Thanks. Speaker 4: Okay. All right. My hearing isn't very good, and I almost understood most of that, I think. Anyway, a few years ago, I spoke nearly every council meeting about issues and the budget, and I think I stopped when my former dam came on. And I didn't think that a new person needed any more trouble than she might have already had. And so the key thing about the budget, I think, has to is that it has to do with city money. And the money the finances has to do should have to do with the city's financial condition and its prospects. Some issues have come up before regarding their elected financial officers and what they were saying and then what was done. And it was represented that the city managed the city's finances very well in spite of what the the doom and gloom that was presented or proposed by the financial officers. Of course, it was misstatement. And the misstatement and the attack on the person. It also corrupted the discussion because it shifted the attention away from the key issues into personalities. And the key issues need to be discussed. And that is, in fact, what is the city's financial condition, what are our assets, what are the prospects for being able to pay our debts and what are the debts and how are they trending and will we be able to pay them in the future? And how will that be done? As the budget system has been changed and been shifting over the last few years, it becomes less clear as to just how these things are going on because they're shifting the finances and the and the operations out of the general fund and into other books and departments. And as soon as you no longer can tell exactly what happened, but we do know that in the last few years that the city's income has not greatly increased and that the expenses have increased. Yet still we had a balanced budget. And so I think somebody needs to consider and explain just how that magic was achieved. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. All right, Chief for Larry. You may now proceed with your presentation. Thank you. Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam Mayor. Council members, city staff Paul Larry, Chief of Police. So thank you very much for the opportunity to present the police department's budget. I want to tell you just briefly that last week was my 23rd anniversary of working for the city of Alameda. After growing up here and 26 years in law enforcement. And at last week's meeting, I was very pleased to hear a positive comment after positive comment about how people felt about the police department and the fire department in the city. And I was very grateful for that. And because of the length of the meeting, I didn't get a chance to say thank you to everybody that night. And I would have. And now it's an empty room. But had they been here and so if they're watching on TV. Thank you very much. The men and women at the police department appreciate the support that we get in this community. It's a big deal to us and we don't take that for granted. So with that, I'll briefly I'll go through the slides and then of course, if you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them to the best of my ability for the people that are sitting at home. And for those of you who may not remember when when I'm talking about patrol and the police department in general, we slice the city of Alameda up into five patrol beats. Alameda Point from the Alameda point to eighth street, eighth street to Willow, Willow to the east to shore and then Bay Farm Island. Those are our five patrol beats. So when I talk about our staffing levels and the number of people that we have, I'll refer back to that. And so forgive me if I if I do that, but I think it's important for people to have the kind of some perspective that they may not completely understand exactly how we deploy our patrol officers in the city. So as a slight state patrol, we provide the core law enforcement functions, everything that everyone would expect. What people probably don't know is that we have about 5000 priority one calls a year. A priority one call is a call this in progress, something that's happening right now versus something that is reported cold that happened several hours or several days ago, 63,000 non-priority. One calls for service annually. That number has been relatively steady for the last couple of three years. Investigations, they conduct follow ups for patrol cases that are felonies or that go beyond the time constraints that a patrol officer on a ten hour shift can do. There's witness contacts out of town, etc.. So the investigations division, which is about 13 people right now, conducts 1900 plus investigations during the year, and then the probation and parole searches. And they monitor 70 to 90, we call them to 90 registrants or sex offender registrants in the city. And we do that every year. Traffic speaks for itself. Traffic enforcement. Now this is in addition to patrol. So when I'm talking to you about traffic, I'm talking about motorcycle officers. We have three officers and one sergeant in that unit right now. In addition, we have some non sworn personnel who are responsible for writing parking citations in addition to what the patrol officers do. So as you can see on the slide, roughly 30,000 parking sites per year, 6000 plus moving violations investigate 850 traffic collisions. And then we do one state grant sponsored DUI checkpoint annually. Animal control, as you'll remember from a couple of fiscal years ago, we went into a public private partnership with the animal shelter with force, which has been very successful, something that I think has benefited the city. And it certainly has benefited the police department. It reduced our our budgetary contribution to that service by about $600,000 three or so years ago. We still contribute and it will pop up in our budget sheet later on. The city is in a contract with this with force and we are currently providing about $320,000 a year towards their operation. It started at 300, but there's some CPI escalators in there. New initiatives, uh, initially scheduled to be. I was going to be before you on May 19th. As of this afternoon, that's going to be pushed back to the council meeting of June 2nd. I will be coming before you with the staff report recommending or asking for your approval to purchase body cameras. We can talk about it more that night, but as you all know, there's been a national conversation about body cameras in law enforcement across the country for a number of different reasons. I'm happy to say that when Chief Noonan was here, we began beta testing several different cameras. We've narrowed in on the one that we'd like. As I've mentioned to a few people separately, there is a sticker shock attached to that purchase. As you can see, it's not an inexpensive item. Most of that is data storage. And what we'll talk to you about that in a few more weeks. But a very, very promising, hopeful attitude at the police department about about getting out in front of this and getting our officers equipped with body cameras. Previous cuts to services. So I just mentioned it and I was hired here in 1992 and we had about 111 sworn officers. That number, as you can see on this chart, has decreased from fiscal year 97, 98 to the present by about 21%. We've gone from 180, 111 sworn down to 88 sworn over the last 12 years. Over on the right side of the slide, you'll see that in 1011, we eliminated one lieutenant's position and two sergeants positions. And that was in response to a study that was, I believe, directed by counsel at that time that looked at our staffing levels, looked at our calls for service, the allocation of among each rank of the police department. And they determined that at the time we were probably a little bit on the top heavy side. So we reduced from 6 to 5 lieutenants and from 17 to 15 sergeants in that cut. I mentioned the animal shelter partnership, which reduced our our expenditure by about $600,000 a year. And then following that in 1213, we eliminated one of our three school resource officer positions that that officer at the time was responsible for bouncing around between the three middle schools. Speaker 0: Before he continued. Service sergeants, did you say? Speaker 2: We have 15 now. We had 17 previously. Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Speaker 2: Sir. And then we also, as you might recall, we we closed the jail. We permanently closed the jail that led to. A layoff of about eight non sworn jailor positions. There's one at every meeting. Speaker 0: Can you repeat in regards to the jail operations, how many positions to that? Speaker 2: Sure it was. Forgive me for not remembering exactly. I want to say it was eight non sworn jailers who who were laid off. We were able to actually help them find positions at the San Leandro Police Department, several of them. Unfortunately, the San Leandro Police Department in a budget cut closed their jail. Speaker 0: So those have been full time. Speaker 2: Pardon me. Yeah, they were full time. Yes. When the jail originally opened back, right about the year I was hired in 1991, we had as many as 13 or 14. It was reduced over the years. And then ultimately in conjunction with the the the court closing it at over at Shoreline Drive become its family court now was moved over to Oakland. We weren't we didn't quite have the need to keep the jail open that we might have 20 years earlier. So it was a it was a tough decision to make, but it did like the Animal Shelter Partnership, it saved us about 600 or so thousand dollars a year out of a it was about $1,000,000 a year program budget within the city at the time. Okay. So here's our overall budget. And the police department has 13 total programs. It's been slightly condensed just for the use of the slide. Administrative services, communications records and logistics are all things that are happening inside the building. When when I talk about communications, that's that's the 911 comms in the dispatch centers. Some people might refer to it as property and evidence. Also inside the building patrol obviously jumps out. That's the backbone of the organization. It always has been and it always will be. We currently have about 39 officers on patrol. Ideally, I'd like to have 42 or 43. That number goes up and down, depending on injuries and vacancies, etc.. Right now, today it sits at about 39. Investigations I mentioned earlier. We have we had we have 13 people in there now. We have a property crimes unit, a violent crimes unit, and then a special investigation unit that does the probation, parole monitoring and the sex offender monitoring in addition to any other special cases or help that they can provide to the other units. The traffic section. You may recall in one of the other budget cuts, when we cut four vacant positions, two of those positions were in the traffic section. So we reduced our motors, which were six at the time. We went all the way down to one for a little bit and currently we're back up at the previously mentioned number of three officers and one sergeant. So for four officers riding motorcycles right now. Okay. Next slide. Administrative services, as I mentioned, is everything that happens within the police department. Before you ask, I'll I'll address the cost allocation number on the bottom. You'll see that that jumps up pretty significantly from 122 to 41. And that represents a litigation settlement that was released, reached within the city. And the the amount of that settlement was being distributed over 15, 16 and 16, 17. And that represents that, that large chunk. Next slide. Communications, as I mentioned, that's the that's the concern, as we call it, the dispatch center for those of in the public that don't remember this or know this. We formally when I was hired in 1992, we dispatched both police and fire from the third floor of the police department and the communications center. But about 12 or so years ago, I'm guessing I could be wrong. The fire department dispatch was transferred over to the Alameda County facility in in Livermore. So if a citizen were to call 911 for something that's happening in Alameda, whether it was medical, police, emergency or fire, that call will still come to our communication center in the police department. If it's a police emergency, then we will dispatch that call directly. If it is a fire or a medical call, the dispatcher will keep the caller on the line until they get the Livermore Dispatch, Alameda County Dispatch on line. And then there's a seamless transfer. They tell the police dispatcher will inform the fire dispatcher of what we have, keep the person on the line. And then once the handoff is successfully made, then the calls transferred and dispatched from Lawrence Livermore. We have. I didn't I'm sorry, I didn't mention earlier. We have 15, 15 dispatchers in there in the commission right now. 12 dispatchers, two supervising dispatchers, and then one consent supervisor. Okay. Next slide. Records, material and logistics. This is our this is the fleet. It's it's our record section. We have several records, clerks making copies, answering requests, taking parking fees, etc., downstairs. I think some of you may have may have met them in your travels throughout the building. Again, all all stuff that happens inside. It's the business of the police department that the public generally doesn't see. Next slide and. Property and evidence. We have one property in evidence clerk for probably 50 or 60 plus thousand pieces of property in evidence that we collect. There's a constant, constant collection of items and a constant purging of items. We do the best organizing that we can. Barbara Lahey does a great job in there by herself and keeps keeps the lid on everything down there. Some of the she does not cost $1,000,000 by herself, though, I will be honest with you. Speaker 0: Worth a million. Speaker 2: She is. She is. But we don't we don't quite pay her that much. When we talk about property and evidence. There are other things that are attached to that. For the purposes of this slide, we have crime scene specialists or CSI, as people like to refer to them on television. There's a police sergeant that supervises that unit, both the crime scene specialists and the property and evidence clerk. So that's that's all represented in that particular slide. Next one. Patrol, the backbone of the organization. Everything starts and ends with patrol. When you're a new officer coming in through the door, that's where you start. That's you work patrol until you get some experience. And then you get a chance to become a field training officer, go up into investigations, and after that rotation you go back to patrol. And that happens at the Sergeant Rank. And all throughout your career, you you begin a patrol and you return to patrol. It's the most important thing that we do. It's the most visible thing that we do. It's where our or the majority of our contact with the public is. And it's where the majority of the vast majority of our staffing is dedicated is to patrol. Speaker 6: Question. Chief Miller, can you just talk to us about the center revenues, the fees for service in the $485,000? This would this be for housing authority officers or is that needed elsewhere? Speaker 2: If you could bear with me for 1/2, I will get you to answer. So the revenues for patrol are attached to Prop 172 sales tax that the that the police department receives from the county alarms, service fees and then the housing authority the housing authority officers. That's $210,000 a year. Speaker 6: That the housing authority pays to the police department. Speaker 0: For. Speaker 6: Part of the officers you. Speaker 0: Allocate? Speaker 2: That's correct. We have two two officers who are assigned to the Alameda Housing Authority on a contract basis with the city. And the Housing Authority pays a good portion, not 100% of their salary and benefits, but $210,000 of it. Excellent. Investigations. As I mentioned, that's this basically it's the detectives, it's the probation, parole monitoring, the sex offender monitoring, um, 13, 13 officers. We have a few sergeants in there and one lieutenant who oversees the entire investigations division. By the way, I was remiss. I didn't, uh. The reason why my command staff is here tonight is because I asked them to be here for the for the budget presentation, and that's why they were here last week as well. But unfortunately, yes, I told them I had to apologize to them for doing this to them twice, but. They're good. They're good troopers. Next slide, please. Traffic. Again, we're talking about three police officers, one police sergeant and five parking techs. That number goes up and down quite a bit. I will tell you, as a quick aside, we had one very prolific employee who unfortunately left the police department to move to Texas after some some personal issues. And he we had a rough, rough time replacing him. Ernest White. Ernest was responsible for ticket revenue of around a half a million dollars a year. So we all miss him. Speaker 6: Texas revenues just went up. Yes. Speaker 2: He I reluctantly gave him a good recommendation. He's now working for a county sheriff's department in Texas as a jailer. And I told him if if it doesn't work out, that they'd be happy to have him in the parking section. Does anyone have any questions about traffic? Next slide, please. Speaker 1: Okay. But just one question. Medicare facility, the $1.1 million in fee for services. Those are tickets, right? Is that correct? Speaker 2: Yes, I can I can give you exactly what those revenues are, if you can just. Speaker 1: Oh. But what I'm really getting at is we don't get the full amount of. I take it? No. Speaker 2: No, that's a good question. And it's come up before people who sometimes get tickets think we're doing it for revenue. I can tell you that is absolutely not the case. Parking tickets generate a good portion of revenue. We get a good percentage of that money. I would say we get a very small percentage, six, 7% of the fee. So if somebody gets a three or $400 ticket for running a red light, for example, or a speeding ticket, we get a very, very small amount of that. The state and the county take a good chunk of that before before we get to see any of it. So when we do it, it's from a business model. It's it's not a moneymaker. It's not it's not a good business. But we all know that the reason why we do it isn't to make money. It's for public safety. That's it. That's the only reason why we do it. Speaker 1: But it's also important to send the message that to the public that we're not ticketing people for revenue generating purposes. Speaker 2: No. And that's a that's a very good point. And it's 100% accurate. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Speaker 0: Can you clarify the amount that's that's included here for revenue? Is this the total before the distribution of where else it goes or is this just our portion? Speaker 2: That's our portion. That's what we get. Next slide. Take other police services and give me just a moment here. Okay. We're talking about here, a ban on vehicle abatement and special services support, I'm sorry, which is another way of saying contract over time. So there are several events that happen throughout the city where patrol can't handle it. And we actually require, through the permit process for the event to hire one or two or more police officers. The most common example would be the antiques fair. So they pay they pay a fair amount of contract over time to have a couple of officers out there at the Antiques Fair. Yes, sir. I've met a married. Speaker 0: Man. Speaker 2: And I don't know who sets the fees, but those fees take into account the full burden of the person's employment. I don't know. I don't know that it accounts for the benefits. I actually don't know the answer to that. If we could park park that as an issue, would I assume that one, the Del Monte truck issue was going on and we had a police officer there. Making them hire a security guard. Oh, they were paying overtime. I understood. Mm hmm. But our cost is not just the overtime cost. It's much bigger. So we can talk about that as a policy. Yes, I appreciate the work, but the bill is probably bigger than. Yeah. That's a pain. That may be the case, but they did pay, by the way. They did pay everybody that worked during the time that those trucks were parked out there that was fully funded by by the contract overtime. Possibly not. The benefits will see. Next slide. So this is basically a our our particular budget pie, which as you can see, I told you, patrol is the backbone of the organization. I mean, that's that's the vast majority of our our expenditures goes to staffing 39 patrol officers and eight patrol sergeants throughout the year. And everything else is relatively small investigations because it's the next biggest unit, followed by traffic. Next slide. Same thing for 16, 17. We are right now, as you all know, we are authorized to have 88 sworn. The police officer rank makes up 74% of the police department. We have two captains. One chief and five lieutenants and then the 14 sergeants that I mentioned to you earlier. Vice mayor of requests on the last slide. The. The pie chart. The revenues are in dollars and the expenditures are percent. Can can we have them in dollars and percent of it? Or at least if these are posted, we can have some homework and looking at those. Speaker 0: Member de SAC. Speaker 1: Chief, you said you have 88 sworn two captains, one chief and 14 sergeants. Are these all held positions or are there any vacancies? Speaker 2: I have four vacancies currently and they're all at the rank of officer. Speaker 1: Thank you. Speaker 7: Which department is that patrol or their patrol? Speaker 2: Okay. And those numbers are included in your budget? No. So that's an excellent point. Up until this year. So when the prior finance director was here, Fred Marsh funded us for all 88 positions even we didn't we didn't have 88 and he funded us for that. So you've probably seen and I think we've talked about in other venues, the fact that we have a salary savings of a little over $1,000,000 for 1415 and that is a function of us being funded for positions that we didn't actually have. So we had the savings. That was an unintended consequence. I certainly and I'll if it comes up later, I'll tell you that I, I really do feel that we need those positions. But this year well, now that Alan has moved into the finance director's chair, the, the thought this year was that we'll just fund for what we actually have. And so that that budget represents the fact that I have 84 sworn. Speaker 5: Actually, I'd like to clarify that. I think the budget that the numbers actually are based on when we think we will be able to fill those four positions. So there are salary savings in his budget worked into those numbers. But the budget does assume that at some point within the year, those four positions will be filled this year. That's correct. Speaker 6: Within the fiscal year? That's correct. I mean, and. Speaker 5: Alannah worked with with H.R. to determine, okay, when do we think those positions will realistically get filled? Because what was happening is we were budgeting January, July 1st that we would have all positions filled and that was unrealistic. So we sort of drill down a little bit further and said, when do we think realistically we can get these positions, these people filled? These positions filled. And that's how we budgeted it. So. So we expect, though, by the end of the fiscal year of this current fiscal or this next 1516, that those four positions will be filled. And that's what those numbers reflect. Speaker 0: Any other questions? Counsel Then you want to make comments now or we can just proceed with the next presentation. Speaker 6: Because this will come back up at the last minute. Speaker 2: Yes. I just want to make sure I understand, because you said it up and then I think this story was finished here. Is that. In the two year cycle. Of the full burden of those for positions that are going to be hired sometime this first fiscal year. It is shown in that second year. So it's an 88. A sworn. Department staff in fiscal year 1617 and it's only a partial it's 84 going to 88 during in this coming one. Speaker 5: That's correct. Speaker 2: So and and that shows the difference between the two years, the increase. In the two years that. You look from one year to the next year on this slide. Speaker 5: Yes. The vacancies are. Speaker 2: Closed. Speaker 5: Yes. Speaker 2: Okay, I. I understand now. So you answer my question and everyday. Speaker 1: So just a quick question. So when we did our OPEB calculations, it's based upon 88, correct? Speaker 5: Yes. Speaker 1: Okay, great. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Thank you. Before you proceed, Chief. I don't know if she wants to. Did you want to make any comments? Introducing? No. All right, then. Now we have fire chief long. Thank you. Speaker 2: Good evening, Madam Mayor. Vice Mayor. Council members. City Staff. Doug Long, fire chief. Thank you for allowing me to present the fire department's budget tonight. I am very excited about it. New position for me. As you know, I was born and raised in town here. And this is a huge thrill for me to be the leader of the fire department. I celebrate my 27th year here next month. Speaker 0: Graduation. Speaker 2: Thank you. Speaker 3: Working. Speaker 2: Oh. All right. Here we go. All right. This is our organizational chart. The fire department, we have six divisions comprised of our emergency services, emergency medical services, training, disaster preparedness, fire prevention, fire admin, and our suppression. All under the fire chief. What we do. Emergency services that that takes care of all of our people on our fire engines, fire trucks. Those are the people that you see out on the streets responding to emergencies out there to protect life, property and the environment. We also provide all the emergency medical services in town by providing at least or advanced life support engines, which means that they have a paramedic on them. We also provide three advanced life support, or A.L.S. ambulances to the city. Those are all full time, 24 hours a day. You also have tactical medics. These medics support the police department with their SWAT team. They have training, but they can be right alongside of them in case one of them gets injured during one of their. You know what you call them? Problems when they're out serving warrants and such. They'll be right there beside them. If they get injured, they can take care of them. They've also found that like an active shooter type of things where shooters are in schools and a lot of children have been shot. What they're finding is that most of those children actually bled out, waiting for emergency services to secure the area and get in and get them. Our tactical medics would be able to start put on tourniquets, stop the bleeding so that most of these children would would survive such an incident. We currently run about 6000 calls a year. 142 of those are fire calls. 4300 are emergency medical services calls, and 1500 fall under the other category, such as patient. Patient assists turning off hydrants that are sheer that type of a call. We also have our special operations. These are things like our Marine operations program. Where we have our water rescue swimmers. We currently have 30 members that are trained to the lifeguard standard and are actually going through an open water rescue swimmer program now, which is more in tune with what we actually do. The lifeguard standard was more for pools. So we're changing that standard, which will also be once you're trained, you'll always have that training instead of having to get recertified each year, which is an expense to us. We also have two rescue boats at either end of town that can go into shallow water. We can launch them right off the beach or right into the estuary and quickly get out to anybody that's in trouble in the water. Also have our fire boat, which protects the marinas and waterfront property in town. We have the second largest number of marinas on the West Coast, secondary to Newport. Newport Beach. We also respond to hazardous materials calls. All of our firefighters are trained to the first responder operational level. Which means we can identify what type of hazard we have, basically secure the area. We can solve smaller problems. Otherwise, we call an Alameda County Fire Department. We have a contract with who provides full service hazardous materials teams. We have found that those hazardous materials teams are very expensive to keep certified and operate and we need them very seldom here in town like and even remember the last time we needed to call them. They also provide technical rescue. That is our people who can go into the ships and down into small spaces for our ready reserve fleet and the ships that are in port getting service along the estuary. They also have specialized training in the event of an earthquake to shore up buildings that have partially collapsed so that we can actually get inside and search for people. Speaker 6: Chief long did the mayor. May I just take you back on the Marine operations? We as a council recently approved purchase of a new police boat. Does the fire department coordinate with the police department on Marine type operations? Speaker 2: We will coordinate now. We just got our boat back from service and repairs yesterday. It will get a quick go over by the Marine operations team and probably be launched this weekend. So we'll be back in service and then we'll start coordinating trading with the police department. Speaker 6: All right. Good. Thank you. Speaker 2: Cylinder. What we do are fire preventative services. We're out there in the community inspecting buildings for code compliance to make sure that they're safe. We also do vegetation control to make sure that we don't get out of control and cause fires in neighborhoods. A big portion of what our code compliance officer does now is permit the reviews for new construction. Also regulates household hazardous waste and enforcement of that hazardous materials storage. We were down from seven full time people in our fire prevention bureau. We're down to one code compliance person trying to complete all of our inspections. Now we've flattened our organization. And due to the cuts that happened in 2009, we have pushed down all of our commercial inspections down to the fire companies on suppression. They have historically completed all of the inspections for apartment buildings. Now they complete the ones also for commercial inspections. Also have our disaster preparation and our CERT teams. CERT teams are trained citizens. They learn how to respond to emergencies in their neighborhoods, to take care of things in case of a disaster. They learn how to turn off the gas by small fires. I know that they've been used to search for missing persons. Were able to get them together very quickly. And have them start searching. They also can provide a secondary means of communications for the city and event that all communications go down. There are ham am radio operators. It gives us that back up system. Currently we have 500 trained active citizens on our CERT team. I. Question. Speaker 1: Oh, no. I was remarking on how 500 trained. Speaker 2: Also what we do. Fire department is very active in the community. We are part of the resilience planning for the city. The fire department meets often with different community groups in town, as well as department heads coming up with a plan for resilience for the city in the event of emergency. We also got in very, very many community events. We go to National Night Out. We do Safety Town every year for the small children in town. We have many visits with our trucks to different neighborhoods, events in town. We do benefit events so that we can generate funds for donations. And in the town with Alameda Family Services. And station tours are constantly ongoing. Anybody can call us, line up a tour, come in and see what we do. What we carry on our rigs. How we respond. And the doors are open. Now, we're not a closed door mystery out there. Speaker 0: Relay for Life. Speaker 2: Relay for Life. I couldn't fit them all on the page. Speaker 0: That's point. It's coming. Speaker 2: Up. You can see our cancer awareness shirts there on the in the picture. New initiatives, one that we're very proud of, our community peer medicine pilot program. Currently, we have five of our paramedics in training. They've completed their core training. They are getting ready to start their local training in local hospitals. What they will be doing is they'll be doing follow up care for patients that have been discharged from the hospital. They'll be going to their houses, coordinating care with their personal care physicians, making sure that they follow up on their medications. And they'll they'll watch them to try to decrease the number of times people are readmitted to the hospital. And we'll also be managing our what we call 911 frequent callers. A lot of these people are homeless and call the fire department via 911 for just about everything, whether they are hungry. Whether they have slight pain, we're really all they know how to do and call for help. We'll be reaching out to them, monitoring them and showing them what social services are out there and available to them. When I'm in the right direction and get them hooked up with the people that can actually help them provide the service that they need. Speaker 0: Amber Ashcroft. Speaker 6: Thank you. Question on the community paramedic, peer medicine pilot program, how are you coordinating or in communication at all with the it's called the Alameda Health System. Now, the county medical system that has absorbed what we know as Alameda Hospital. With this program. Speaker 2: We are in communication with them frequently. They're helping us actually build the program because we have to to set up the means for our community medics to get the list of names of patients, their needs, and then they need to interact with those physicians in the hospital. Speaker 6: So is there any discussion of funding assistance when the grant runs out? Speaker 2: I think they're going to want to see that the data and how much it actually saves them, because all the people that we don't take there that they basically can't and help is going to be a savings for them. With the Affordable Care Act moving forward. A lot of the transports, if they're multiple in nature, if you go back to the same thing, often insurance isn't going to pay for it or the hospital is not going to get paid and the ambulance transports are not going to get paid for. So this is a way to decrease the load on on the whole system and to get the load off of our emergency rooms. Also, because they're just cluttered up with with too many people that don't actually need an emergency room. Speaker 6: So I take it you're keeping those kinds of records and collecting the necessary data? Speaker 2: Part of it is a huge a huge database. Yeah. Speaker 6: Thank you. Speaker 2: And that is completely grant funded. $1.4 million. Okay. More grants. We've applied for staffing for adequate fire and Emergency Response, which is known as the SAFER Grant. We have gotten two in the past totaling $3.52 million. We're waiting to hear now if we're going to be authorized and awarded another grant. We should be those should be going to review this month and next month and then we'll wait to hear. We've put in for $2.2 million, which would fund six four firefighters for two years. Speaker 0: That includes your benefits. Speaker 2: That includes everything, including their OPEB. Fully, fully funded. Speaker 0: I swear. Speaker 2: And I think one of the things we also have to talk about separate from this is we have a couple of grants and we have an initiative and on the power of medicine. And we also have a hospital district that we pay parcel tax into. And it seems to me, especially with the previous discussion on. Speaker 7: The on the parrot. Speaker 2: Medicine that there. I think we need to get more response out of them on when they can take this program, because to me, it's to have a highly trained, multi qualified individual that are probably the most versatile employee in the city, adding yet this to it when we have a hospital over here that we pay into, even though it's a county run part of the county system, we're paying and we need to figure out what we want to extract from that. And I'm hoping that we can, because I also understand that the paramedics and has part time temporary firefighters filling in for the firefighters that are in the paramedics in program, is that correct? That that is correct. They're in backgrounds right now to be hired and then the budget for them. Are they going to be our liability in the future? Can you explain a little bit about that? Are we compounding and going over our because we we had the big discussion during contracts on on the sustainability based on the number of positions we have now. And are we are we compounding that without having the proper funding upfront? Well, they're they're funded for the program. And when the. When the funds run out, either additional funding from an outside source will be provided or those people will be laid off. But as they're working here, are they accruing vesting toward vesting so that at some point if if we keep granting them and granting them and granting them, then now we have a vested employee that is that. Speaker 5: It would only be vested if they became permanent positions. Speaker 2: Okay. Speaker 0: What's the source of the grant funding? Speaker 2: Alameda County EMS and County measure a fund. Speaker 0: Is this something that the hospital could apply to if they were interested in it? Or is this something that's. Speaker 2: You know what? I'm I'm not sure. This is a state of California pilot program right now. We're one of about 11. Groups in the state are working on this pilot. Speaker 0: My question goes to possibly whomever is giving out the money may think that the appropriate department for fire, but the appropriate use for fire. Speaker 2: As they they are looking at. Basically everything. I think we're the only fire department. Yeah. Full service fire department that is providing this. There are also groups. UCLA has two different groups that are doing this. There is an ambulance company by itself in Butte County. I believe there's a group in Ventura. I can't recall where the other ones are. Speaker 0: I want to thank you for applying for the grant. I remember Ashcroft. Speaker 6: As I recall, because I do remember when we were going through this. It was just a handful within the state, and we were one of the handful that was chosen, which is great. And I would also suggest and I've had some just informal discussions with some of the members of the board of directors at the Health Care District, Alameda Hospital. And I think that's something that we we should pursue. I mean, they're obviously part of a much larger county organization, but it seems like a natural extension to look at. Speaker 2: And just to add on to that, if. In a in a recent event, I ran into one of the directors and they expressed interest in working with the city and trying to get more involved in emergency service. And in 2009, there was a council referral to set up a liaison committee between the city council and the hospital board. At that time, the hospital declined the invitation and the board, or at least this board member, expressed that there is no interest. So if we could follow up on that to help. Help fund. The delivery of medical service on tax dollars that were already spending. I think that would be a good use of our time. Speaker 5: So can I ask if we can skip a step and ask whether or not it's the Council's desire for us to look at that? Doing your own committee to a hospital board. Speaker 6: Yeah. And bring that back. And by the way, I'd be happy to participate. Having had a little involvement with them once upon a time. Speaker 0: This point, I think you're asking for a direction from council as to whether or not we'd want to proceed with that. I'm agreeable to proceeding with it. I remember days. Speaker 1: Oh, I think it's a good idea. Speaker 7: Not specifically on that point, but on this. Speaker 0: Okay. So in regards to at this point, she'd like direction city manager, like direction guards to whether or not we want to proceed with the liaison committee. With that. Speaker 7: I have no problem with the policy. I mean, the fact that we're giving direction on a non agenda item I'm a little uncomfortable with but. Speaker 2: To get more money. Speaker 0: I'm just curious. Speaker 2: I'm straight. Speaker 0: He's raised an inappropriate child. Speaker 7: Okay. Speaker 6: I think I think it's. Well, I. Speaker 7: Think China ordinance and all. Speaker 0: But it would come back for us. Speaker 5: Absolutely. Speaker 6: Yeah. At this point, we would just say we want to drill little deeper. Speaker 5: It's just made. Speaker 6: Be skip. Speaker 5: One step on the referral process. Okay. Speaker 2: I'm looking for revenue on tax dollars that we're already spending for this purpose. That was the promise at the hospital that we were going to have emergency services. If the hospital closed, we wouldn't. So I think it's it's it's right to the point of this because our department is at the front end of providing basic life support Speaker 0: . Thank you. Brody. Speaker 7: I thank you, man. The thing with the hospital is now at HHS so that the discretion of the of the our hospital board, you know, their discretion in spending funds is actually pretty limited. I think their only role left is to authorize the personal tax or not authorize the personal tax. So, I mean, it may be with HHS, it may be with the hospital. I mean, I know they're having, you know, severe financial issues with HHS right now. And the supervisors have put them on the board of supervisors, put them on a short list. But the whole point of a pilot project, if I'm correct, is that, you know, somebody came up with an idea to do it statewide. It would cost, you know, millions and millions of dollars. So they decide let's let's try to do a pilot, do it in a small number of cities and counties. And as you're saying, we have some fire like us. I think we're with Hayward, too, right? Speaker 2: Hayward dropped out. Speaker 7: Oh, they dropped out. Okay. And then, you know, some ambulance companies and so on. And then we collect the data and then the legislature takes a look at it and says, is this something that's effective? Is this something that we get bang for our buck on? And then if know it turns out that it is, you know, then the state may turn it into a program that they may fully fund. So absolutely no. Ah, in my day job, we were very honored to be supportive of this and I'm glad that we were able to be part of this pilot and I'm excited to see what happens. Speaker 2: Thank you. Yeah, we're trying to see if it's a viable option and we'll see what the data looks like. Speaker 7: And the Affordable Care Act basically made this possible, if I understand, correct? Right. Yeah. Speaker 0: You. Speaker 2: Hey, more grants that are pending. We've also put in for an assistance to firefighters grant. This will be to replace our old, outdated and obsolete scba our self-contained breathing apparatus. Those are the tanks that we wear on our back to provide air so that we can go into hazardous areas and still be able to breathe in there . Our grant puts in for 66 of those breathing apparatus. And it totals. $568,857. We're still waiting to hear on that one. Speaker 0: And I want to thank you for requesting all these grants. That takes a lot. Speaker 2: It takes a lot of time and administrative time. And but there is money out there and we go for it. And we've been pretty successful. Another new initiative. This is a new one that we're pretty darn excited about. All in Alameda, we've been asked to participate in this program to help youth in Alameda. Take a look at different career opportunities, get them pointed in the right direction. YOUNG So that they don't end up on the low end of the poverty scale later down the road. We are planning to start an Explorer program and or a recent regional occupation program, but we we are already jumping in. We're taking two interns this summer. Actually, today was the job fair. Yes, it's an old high school, so we should have a handful of applications to go through. Speaker 0: And I was able to participate in that. And I want to commend you for showing up and reaching out to our youth. It's really important for our community. It's another collaborative effort. So thank you. Speaker 2: Thanks. Another new initiative, the replacement of existing fire station three in conjunction with the construction of the new EOC. $5 million project. It'll replace a fire station that was deemed seismically unsafe in 2000. We've been renting and living in the house next door since 2001. The California Infrastructure Bank, N.A. unanimously approved our $3 million loan last week, which will partially fund this project. We are very excited about it. It's time to get this done. Speaker 1: Well, congratulations on that. Speaker 2: Thank you. Speaker 1: The great stuff. Speaker 2: They were they were very excited about it and interested in the project. Or new initiatives or vehicle purchases will be replacing staff vehicles as well as a couple of pickup trucks that date back to 1988, which I believe we actually acquired from the base when it closed. Also purchased a new ambulance for $150,000. We're saving money on that by doing what is called a remount instead of purchasing a brand new ambulance. It's essentially new. What they do is they take off the existing box, rip it down in it, rework it, wheel the the old chassis away and put a brand new one underneath it . So it's actually a brand new vehicle, gets a new VIN number, but it is much cheaper. A new ambulance is about $218,000. Speaker 0: So that's kind of like recycling. Speaker 2: It is. Speaker 0: Recycling. Speaker 2: It saves all that aluminum that we don't have to. Speaker 0: Write. Speaker 2: Use on a new box. All right. Another new initiative that I am unhappy about. We are going to suspend our basic life support, transport, ambulance. We were doing very well with this Alameda Hospital, was very happy with us. Our other clientele at the skilled nursing facilities were very happy with us. However, when Alameda Hospital was taken over by Alameda Health Systems. The contract went out to a RFP to include all of those other hospitals. Our grassroots program, which has worked so well in Alameda, did not have the infrastructure in place that met the requirements of the RFP. We were not able to put in a proposal for that. So in essence, we lost a big portion of our clientele when the award was given to somebody else. We were in a restructuring mode with our bailout program. We believe that getting out there and getting other contracts with other skilled nursing facilities and being the overflow provider for the current provider, which is West Med. That we will be able to bring the bailout program back, especially as the Affordable Care Act gets going and our community paramedics get going out in the field. They will be able to downgrade the patients of TLC ambulance. And I believe that that's the the wave of the future. But being fiscally responsible. We didn't want to drag this program along until we could see where those revenues were going to come from. Speaker 6: So. Question Chief Long. So how many personnel did you have working in the BLS transport program? Speaker 2: We had 20 part time people. Speaker 6: And where do they go there? Speaker 2: They're currently working until. Speaker 6: Sebelius still exists. Speaker 2: BLS, which exists right now but is not funded for the next fiscal year. Speaker 6: So where do the 20 part timers go or are you just laying them off at the end of the term? Speaker 2: They'll be laid off. Speaker 0: And how long? How long have you had this program? Speaker 2: It's been about three years. Speaker 0: If. Speaker 2: If this cuts to service. We've eliminated two firefighter positions over the last eight years. The reduction to our fire prevention bureau in 2009, where we reduced from seven positions down to two. Also in 2009, we had the closure of fire station number five, which eliminated one fire engine. Speaker 5: That's don't mean to point. Speaker 2: I'm sorry. Okay. This is a graph that shows. Our cuts. You can see in 1993, 1994, this line. Up here. This is a line that we use. This is the required number of staffing that we need to provide, the level of service that we currently have right now. Speaker 0: No, I'm sorry. It's not showing up on our screen right when you. Speaker 6: Well, here's this. Speaker 0: When he's off, you can do it again. Speaker 2: This line right here, the orange line. That's a level we need to get at, provide the level of service that we have right now, which is four engines, two trucks. Three ambulances and the division chief. In 93, 94, we had 96 personnel and backfilled with overtime to get up to that line. In 1997, 98, we acquired Fire Station five on Alameda Point from the military and our authorized positions went to 111. Which we acquired 16 positions from that. Until 2005. 2006. We went down to 103 positions. Eight positions were eliminated during the budget cycle. Overtime was used to fill those positions to get up to that yellow line. And when over time became too severe. Stations were were closed to save overtime money. In 2005, 2006, our overtime budget was 1.23 million. What we actually spent was 1.2. 4 million. From there in 0607 or over time budget was 900,000 994. But our actual expenditure to keep the stations open was 1.7 the 176% of our budgeted overtime. Speaker 6: Excuse me, Chief. Why is that on a slide in this presentation? Are you looking at. Speaker 2: I'm looking at supplemental information. Speaker 0: So what? I'm just point seven. Speaker 2: 1.7. I'm just trying to show you in this area when we don't have enough staffing. Our overtime goes very high, almost double of. What we're authorized in 0708, we're budgeted 1.2 million. Our actual overtime was 2.2 million. 80 0809. Our overtime was 134%. And then when we started getting into the year's. Right in here. This green is our safer firefighters where we acquired six firefighters through the safer ground. Or overtime and during those periods. Gets reduced. In 1112, we were budgeted for 1.1 million, though our actual overtime use was only $611,000, 55%. In 1213, our budgeted overtime was $846,000. But our actually use was only 502,059%. And then in 13, 14, but it was 793. And use was 721. Still under our authorized amount. However, with the loss of the safer firefighters when the grant expired. In 1415. Our authorized overtime is $795,000. A projected overtime expenditure will be 1.4 million 178%. So without the safer firefighters, we're still continuing down that same road. If we don't get the grant or if we don't fund the firefighters with overtime. It's a it's going to be a huge cost. Additionally. I'd like to point out that. Oops. Wrong, but I'm sorry. This time frame here. We don't have. The base. We're not protecting the base. We are protecting them. Basically, the main island, this side of Main Street and Bay Farm Island. Across the middle when we have the base. Our staffing has gone up. This was 96 firefighters over here. Over here, we've gone down to 92 authorized positions. However, we're still protecting the whole island, including what we've taken on with Alameda Point. Those are authorized positions. I've gone down by. What we need to protect has gone up, and our call volume has increased by a thousand calls a year. This line right here is 98. Firefighters are authorized for 92. This is what we need to make up in here. Here's our overall budget. For administration. That's our people in the office that take care of our business. Emergency operations, the biggest portion of our budget. That's the people you see out on the street running the calls. Our prevention services. Our one code compliance officer and a partial office person. Emergency medical services is our. EMS captain and our non sworn. Forgot the name of her position. EMS coordinator. Disaster preparedness is our one fire captain that provides training to the city, to our cert people. Ah. Training one fire captain. Higher grants. We have some part time people in those positions. That's our senior safety program. I have a person that goes out and installs smoke detectors for the elderly and low income, as well as sets up contractors to install handrails and safety hardware in people's houses. Speaker 0: Question. So that sounds like does public works ever do anything like that? Or is there another department that's always the domain of the fire department to do handrails? Speaker 5: No, that's usually fire department. Speaker 2: Thank you and completely grant funded. Basic life support we've talked about that will be eliminated in 1516, hopefully coming back in 17. Right. Administration. As I said, that's our our people in the office doing the business. We have seven full time employees, two sworn and five non sworn. Emergency operations. People are out on the street. Going to fires. Going to medical calls. Everything. That is called by 911. These are the people that are taking care of it. Our fees for service are the revenue that we take in from our ambulances and our inspections. Speaker 1: Chief, what would be the distribution between ambulance and the inspections? Is it like 50, 50? 60, 40, roughly? Ballpark? Speaker 2: Mostly. Mostly ambulance. Okay. I can give you a thank you. I can give you a number here. I'm sorry. Councilmember Desai. Speaker 1: We can come. Speaker 2: Back. I'll have it for you. Thank you. 2.2 million for the Animals Prix. All right. I preventative services. Once again, that is the. Fire prevention or I piled stock. A lot of our revenue this year is coming from new construction permits. Actually, most of our fees are coming from that now. Speaker 6: This isn't a major point, but is that is that why we see a drop off? I'm looking at the revenues fees for service in the first line. We see a drop off of $10,000 from one fiscal year to the next year. Just anticipating a. Speaker 2: We we adjusted our our numbers on some of our inspections that weren't getting done because of the emphasis on taking care of the permit process so that the construction could continue. Speaker 6: Thanks. Speaker 2: Right. Emergency medical services to two full time employees. One sworn, one non sworn. That's our EMS coordinator and our EMS captain. Disaster preparedness, one full time employee that's a captain that is split 5050 between police and fire. Speaker 6: I'm sorry. So you said you're one captain. Who's in charge of disaster preparedness. She, right? Yes. And she divides her time, 5050, between police and fire her. Speaker 2: She's funded 5050 between police and fire. Speaker 6: All right. Thank you. Speaker 2: Fire training. One fire captain. And our fire grants. Currently we have the community peer medicine program under grants and our housing and. Safety Inspector, which I told you what's in the smoke detectors and grab rails and cert is also funded by grants. Okay. Fiscal year 1516. Emergency operations, the revenues. Generated are 71.2% from emergency operations. Grant funds are 23.8 and our preventative services are 5.1%. Obviously our expenditures are mostly in emergency operations. Those are our personnel. Smaller portions are emergency medical services. Fire training, disaster prep are Prevention Services Administration. Speaker 0: Before you move on, I'd like to make take note of the revenues. 23.8% is grant funding. I think that's a very significant some truly goes to your hard work in getting these grants. Speaker 2: Thank you. And a mayor. Speaker 0: A vice mayor. Speaker 2: I realize it's a lot of hard work that does it, but I the pessimist, he says it's a liability because we're not guaranteed that we're going to get the grant in the next cycle. And how would we address if if they half of the grants or a significant grant didn't come through? How are we? That's a rhetorical question, but should we be prepared for that or is that a reserve issue? Is it? Speaker 5: Well, that's actually the issue. I mean, I think that that is your call. I think our position is that if the funding is not there, the positions don't exist. And if the council wanted to backfill those you are, you know, that's your prerogative to do. But I think our position is that if the funding doesn't exist, those positions don't exist. Speaker 2: Thank you. Speaker 0: So I'm going to try to be optimistic here. Sorry about the. Speaker 2: Balance. All right. Sorry. 16. 17 is about the same. Emergency operation revenue. 81.5%. I preventative services 5.8 grant funds are down to 12.7%. Speaker 0: And that's because the vice mayor was thinking about. Speaker 2: Well, as I skipped ahead, as the as the grants run out, these are would be for a community per medicine. All right. Questions. Speaker 0: Member Daisuke. Speaker 1: Thank you very much, Chief. Long and again, congratulations on becoming chief and also a hearty thank you to former Chief Chief Ramsey. I just want to say, you know, I know it must have been a tough decision with regard to the bells because I remember that matter coming up before us. And the discussion really pointed for me, as I recall, came down to making sure that we had all the data points as to should we, you know, make it permanent, which we did, actually. But then I guess with more data coming in and also the change in the and the relationship with the hospital, I guess, you know , you had to make a really, really tough decision. So, you know, that's why. Speaker 2: It has been tough. That's when many people. Yeah. That were, you know, working there for us, gaining experience, getting involved with the fire department, became part of our family. But part of that program was that it needed to sustain itself. And based on Alameda Hospital being swallowed up by Almeida Health Systems and not being able to get the contract that we had gotten from Almeida Hospital at this point. We wanted to make sure that we found a revenue source. To make it sustainable instead of going down the river of. You know, personnel costs without the revenue to back it up. Speaker 1: Thank you. Speaker 0: Member. Speaker 6: Ashcroft And I just want to touch back on the question of the grants. And. As has been said before, I commend you and your department for the hard work in applying for and receiving grants. And and we see that actually across the city. But I and maybe it's the optimist in me, I think you go after the money and you see what's out there and we don't have a crystal ball, but we've always got our eyes open ear to the ground and we'll, you know, we'll see if we have to make the tough decisions as as you're doing right now with, for example, where else we will on the pyramids in program. I think, you know, there's some other avenues we can explore before saying that that one's going out the window. So I just think in these challenging financial times, you you look at every possible source of income knowing that it's not it's not open ended and, you know, nothing's forever. But I think we might as well benefit our departments and our city, our citizens, as much as we can. So I would encourage you to keep up the good work. And in that regard, we will. Speaker 2: And we've always kind of been on the cutting edge. We're one of the first departments to have defibrillators. We've been first at a lot of things and jumping into this and seeing if it will work as far as the community paramedics. And we're we're very excited about it. We believe it's the wave of the future to help decrease costs and more importantly, it our citizens the care that they actually need. We are not doing people, the homeless community any good by picking them up and taking them to an emergency room. We need to ensure that we get them into those social programs that can actually help them and help them find shelter and get them the medical care that they need. We're excited about that and we'll keep pushing the system forward. And I think that it's going to show that it's going to be a big cost savings to the to the county health as well as the hospitals. And I think that they'll be more than willing to to pay for a program like that. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 2: Mayor. Vice Mayor. I have a question on the emergency operation center and the placement of fire station three. Is that. That's not is that it's not part of this operating budget of the fire department. Is that correct or. It's a notice list is an issue here. Speaker 5: But that's it is actually developed into our budget. So all the cost to both fire station three and the EOC are already factored into the budgets that you've already seen. Speaker 2: Okay. And one of the things that I've I've looked for and I've I've seen some pointing to it, but I haven't seen what satisfied me as far as the gap analysis for the necessity of building an emergency operations center. I understand what the function is. I've seen the staff reports, but I haven't seen it broken down into a. And I mentioned this a number of times in conversation that if the emergency happens tonight, what is it tomorrow that we can't do? That a $3 million building will allow us to do? And can we do it somewhere else? Speaker 5: We're actually this item will be coming on your next agenda May 19th. So we just review that report and we'll be having that conversation then. Speaker 2: Great. Thank you. Speaker 1: Chief Long, if I could just. Similar question that I posed at the end. So you need 98. Servicemen and women. Yes. You're authorized for 92. Yes. Within the 92. I mean, what is the actual staffing level? So what if there is any vacancies? Is there any vacancies between between 92 and something else? Or is the vacancy between 92 and 98? Speaker 2: We are authorized for 92. Currently we have five openings, which includes three of those to backfill for the three people that are assigned to community per medicine. Speaker 1: So we really our staff, our staffing level right now is 87. Speaker 2: That's that's correct. Speaker 1: But what you're going to need there. Speaker 2: That's how we end up with all the overtime because we need to get to 98 to provide the service that we provide on the street. Speaker 1: Okay. And just following up, when we did our OPEB calculations, it's based on 92, correct. Or, um. Or we can come back. Speaker 5: Yes. He was based on 92, which is the authorized position. That's right. Speaker 1: Thank you. Speaker 0: Question. Speaker 2: No, I'm scratching my head. Speaker 0: So if you had 98 officers or firefighters, would it be what would your overtime look like? Speaker 2: It would it would decrease greatly. That's the thing. Go back to my chart here. With the with the safer positions, which were those additional six? They got us up to 98. Those were the years where our overtime. Was well below what we were authorized in 1112. Our authorized overtime was 1.1 million. We actually spent $611,000, which was 55%. In 1213, we were authorized $846,000. We actually spent 502,000. And in 1314 we were authorized 793,000. And actually spent 721000 to 91%. So her overtime was greatly, greatly reduced. When we had our seafood positions in place. Speaker 0: And that's when you're at 99, 98 positions. Speaker 2: That's that's 98, because those six safer positions got us up to 98. Speaker 0: Okay. So when you're at 98 positions, then you're approximately 5 to 600000 over time. Speaker 2: Yes. Speaker 0: And when you're at 92 positions, is that what? Of what you are now. Speaker 2: That's your. That's what we are right now. Speaker 0: And at the 92 positions, then your projection is the 1.4 million. Yes. Overtime. So those are the that's the equation trying to balance. Speaker 2: Yes. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 5: In Manama. Yes, Chief Long. And maybe Mr. Adair can also correct me if I'm wrong, but we budgeted as if we were not going to get the safer grant. So the way the budget is, is developed, there's no safer grant. So you'll see very high over time, already factored in. So if we do get the safer grant, I think we we determined and this is we're going to talk about this later as well. That will get 250,000 in savings. I think that's is that this year. In 1516 and then 16, 17 the full amount. The full half a billion. Speaker 0: And then I'd like to look at these numbers, though, because so I don't know what the cost is of these six positions, but the difference in over time is approximately $900,001 million. So actually, I'm not sure what is the best way to do the staffing that utilize this the most economical. Speaker 5: Well, the grant is the best. Is the most. Speaker 6: But in someone else's money. Speaker 5: If you didn't have the grant. Speaker 0: So if you had to pay for the six positions. Speaker 5: Versus your. Speaker 0: Overtime? Correct. I think that an equation. Speaker 5: Would need to do. Speaker 0: Everything. Speaker 6: In its salary and benefits in this. Speaker 0: Member J. Speaker 1: Now just thank you again for your patience. Chief Long, I appreciate it. Just to make sure I understand clearly. So we're authorized for 92, and we're going to go out to fill five more positions that are open right now. Speaker 2: Six, 6% just. Speaker 1: To get us to 90 to the actual 92. It's not to get us to 98. Speaker 2: Oh, I'm sorry. The the the five positions we're actually going to fill six because we have a person that's going to retire first week of June, but we have six in backgrounds that will get us to 90. Speaker 1: Exactly. So similar to the last time and will that happen in five, 15, 16 or it will spread between the two fiscal years? Speaker 2: That that will happen very soon. Okay. Speaker 1: Thank you. Speaker 0: It's warmer down. So when you're running these numbers, you're including benefits for this equation. Speaker 5: Yes, Sam, it's it's not an exact science because it depends on where the person comes in, you know. But roughly speaking, six firefighters roughly cost about $850,000. Speaker 0: And is that including benefits? Speaker 5: Including benefits as fully burdened? That's it. They have seven. Without getting to too complicated, but they have seven steps and they come in at step three. That step three. It's about eight and $50,000 versus the million dollars that that approximately. Speaker 0: Right. That's interesting. Speaker 5: That's a rough estimate. So if you really want that's just a. Speaker 0: That. Speaker 2: Is that the benefits just for the person right now or does that take into account the of the person the OPEB. But at the back end that's. Speaker 5: Today that's how much. Speaker 2: So it's bigger, right. If you actually looked at the you have. Speaker 5: To do a present value calculation, you're probably right. But we never tried to do that. Speaker 6: Right. So no question. But I think we need all that to make a real. Speaker 2: I have I have numbers. Yeah. Fully benefited. Firefighter is 205,866 annually. Same replacement with overtime is 151,238. For one for one firefighter. Speaker 0: All right. So. So, based on your numbers, is this the fiscally responsible way of doing it, then running the over? Is that coming in lower than having the six firefighters. Speaker 2: Over some overtime is. Is lower, however. That burden on staff is very high and they generally end up with more injuries, especially long term injuries that actually cost us more in the long run because those people are still on the books. They may be off for a year trying to get over their injury. During that time. We are then paying for them. And backfilling them with overtime, which in the long run. More costly. We would much rather have people in those positions rather than over time. Speaker 0: Thank you. I appreciate that. The other question comment. Speaker 2: Is. Speaker 0: This mayor. Speaker 2: Check a note. It's about 72% of our calls right now are medical. That sounds about right. I have 2014 data. Number of incidents was 6049. And 4300 something medical. Of medical was 43. 56. And are we are we looking at that? It sounds like it's in the. The service is evolving. And I think the paramedics in this part of that evolution are really looking at a different structure that we might be able to. I hate to say save some money, but I'll say it anyway. Save some money and how we deliver this based on how we're how our equipment is staffed, how how equipment is deployed, and how we have the positions defined within the department. Are we even considering that? Right now, I understand that crews on the ambulance are also firefighters. So like a full service employee all around. Has has that been examined to see if that's the most cost effective way of delivering the service? I think the city gets the most bang for their buck by having firefighters on their ambulances. What you get is those quick response times in the county right now. They shoot for getting on scene within 8 minutes and 30 seconds. Our average on scene time is 4 minutes and 30 seconds. That really matters. If your heart is stopped, if you're having a stroke, you start getting brain damage after 5 minutes. I don't think 8 minutes and 30 seconds is a really great goal. And that's that's I'm saying, is there a way to. Well, I'd like to think of it to. To deliver this service without such a versatile. I leave? Benson. Speaker 0: Versus going at it. But I think what I'm hearing is that, for instance, when the call comes in, could you then send someone that is going to address the medical concerns, if that's what the call goes to, as opposed to someone that can do fire and medical? Speaker 2: Yes. Well, I think. See what we have here is we have to have a certain number of firefighters on scene of fires. So those three ambulances that we have in town, that's six firefighters that we count on, which is part of our total of 24 on duty daily. If we reduced those people and had, let's say, outside private transports that weren't sworn firefighters. Those firefighters that we would be trying to replace to save money would actually need to go on other fire companies in town. So we'd still we'd still be paying for them. Otherwise we wouldn't have the response that we need to to fight fires. So they'd be put on other fire companies. And then we'd be in that situation where we were waiting for the private ambulance company to come. Speaker 0: Everybody. I didn't want to interrupt you. Speaker 2: I just saw a whole bunch of questions. Speaker 0: I know that. Did you finish your answer, though? Speaker 2: I think so. And, you know, and not only are they our firefighters, but they're multifaceted. They're also your rescue swimmers that are stationed throughout town. They are also your people who can do auto extrication. We have those what you might know as the jaws of life on our ambulances. They are right there, provide that service. And we're fortunate that there are paramedics and can provide the ambulance service in town. So. I think they're very cost effective. You could look at it like we don't generate any revenue out of most of our fire companies, ambulances or fire companies that are generating revenue. At $2.2 million. Speaker 0: You remember. Speaker 7: Odie? Thank you, madam. Just to add on to that point. My understanding is there was some study that may have answered the question. Like three or four or five years ago, they called it trying to study. Can we. Find out about that and. I think that question was answered already. And. It was similar to what you gave, but I like at least the council to have access to that information. Speaker 2: That'd be very helpful. Speaker 1: Man. Amir. Speaker 0: I remember this. Speaker 1: So I just want to summarize what I thought I heard was an important point, which I think for me is. Is. I heard it correctly. So the three ambulances have six firefighters now. In sum, some people might say, well, if you have. Paramedics or not non firefighters and the three ambulance, then they'll be a savings. But I think what I heard you say, though, is that the six firefighters are counting towards what I believe are some kind of required staffing level. Speaker 2: That's that to help us reach those required staffing levels. And we need at least one paramedic on each of the ambulances for it to be advanced life support so that we can provide those high level services, such as intubation, starting IVs to to give drugs. Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Chief. Speaker 2: So one last one, less tag on the chain. So I'm trying to catch up and educate myself on this. If we have three ambulances, six firefighters on them. And 75, 72% of our calls are medical. Is it fair to say that a good amount of time it could be that six firefighters are out of town having taken someone to the trauma center. Or to one of the other specialty hospitals. It's possible, but but generally we have at least one ambulance. And the way the mutual aid system works is when we have a fire, our firefighters generally go to work as firefighters, unless there is a patient, immediate mutual aid with the mutual aid, with the ambulances from the private contractor come in and backfill to provide them the medical care unless it's something emergent. Right when we get there, then our ambulances will take them and transport them. Speaker 0: Amber Ashcroft, thank you. Speaker 6: So given the the ratio of your incidents of 6049 incidents, more than half, about 4300, some were medical. Do you think your staffing percentages are where you need them to be to address those calls? Speaker 2: I think they are. I think we're at the the bare minimum of for what we need for fire protection if we go any lower than that. I don't think that we'll be able to adequately protect the city. There are laws that I must follow for basically fighting a fire in town. There's the what they call the two in to out rule where unless we have a confirmed and known rescue, the first fire crew on scene cannot enter the building unless they have new people outside to go get them if they're in danger. If we start reducing our fire companies, we're going to limit our ability to to fight fire. We're very proud of being an aggressive fire department that goes inside and puts the fire out. I believe that probably most of the significant incident reports that you get say that we can find it to the room of origin. If we don't have enough people there quickly that we can make that initial attack. The fires are going to get bigger. We're going to have larger, larger fire losses. And, you know, it might go upstairs and you have two floors and we might be protecting the structures on either side. Speaker 6: Well, that's why when you said earlier that the you don't generate any revenue from fire companies, but you do from the ambulance companies. I would argue that actually the savings in terms of, well, human life and property damage is hard to quantify on a balance sheet. But I think we all know if, you know, a fire is burning in your neighborhood, we have a lot of older historic neighborhoods in this city and fire can travel fast. So I think you're you're adding quite a bit of value, even if you don't see it at the bottom line. Thank you. Speaker 0: In other questions. Comments. Thank you very much. Speaker 2: Thank you. Speaker 0: Our next presentation, Human Resources. Good evening, mayor council. I'm Stephanie Gerber and Sierra, your administrative services director. And I'm here to present the budget for human resources. I'm going to grab the clicker. You're in movies through. Let's go right into what we do now. Part of this presentation is going to be a little bit about how our staff has been cut over the years. So when I was putting this list together, I realized that the list of what we do is actually what we kind of like to do and what mostly we do. And gosh, I'd like to do more and gosh, we really don't do some of this because we're so busy. But let's start with this recruitment. We do approximately 50 recruitments per year. Looking back at our numbers, we actually hit 55 in 2014. This includes our outreach administration. We test, we on board. We process approximately. We say 2000. Actually, last year it was 2561 applications which we have read and processed. Now the selection process is governed by the charter and is governed by very vigorous civil service rules and the law. And we pride ourselves in having a very fair process and making sure everyone has a chance to move forward in our civil service system. And everyone is on a firm equal background. When we recruit for positions, we administer and implement contracts for health, dental, life insurance, disability employee assistance plan. There are 457 plan for nearly 500 active employees and almost 500 part time employees. We have 11 different bargaining units, all of which have different benefits. That requires work on all of our staff's parts to make sure that all these benefits are taken care of for each individual employees, each employee. The differing benefit structures is one of the biggest challenges we have in our down to the issue of different bargaining units have different death benefits for which relatives. So it is actually very time consuming and difficult to administer these systems. We administer retirement benefits for over 300 retirees on three different plants. And now that we have Peprah, which is the the new PERS retirement plan, now we have a different layer of PERS creating even more complexity in our system. Training. Now, this is the part that I wish we did more of. Speaker 5: Of course, we administer the mandated training, Caesar sexual harassment. Speaker 0: We have the D.O.T., which is the Department of Transportation trainings that we must do pursuant to state law. We also organize and facilitate other trainings as much as we can. We'd like to do more. Obviously, training is an important part of our mission, making sure that our workforce is ready to encounter the challenges of the 21st century . Employment services. We maintain employee records and personnel files for all of our active and retired employees. In terms of the payroll system, we help maintain it and we do position control. What that means is, is we know who is in what position at what time we administer and track special pays raises, leaves, step increases. Most of these you don't just push a button in our payroll system or a 2% raise. Here's that button. We actually separately maintain for pretty much every employee, we have to put together a spreadsheet. Every time there's a raise for each special pay and then we have to feed it into the system and then it is calculated . So much of the work for a simple raise takes a manual work on Excel spreadsheets, taking weeks, sometimes months, to prepare for for any kind of a race. And most people don't don't realize that it's one of the reasons we are looking into some new computer software, because our office, our human resource information system, is quite outdated . And so we're looking for a new position, new system that can help us with that. Classification and compensation. Now we have job descriptions for approximately 350 classifications, all of which have been passed by the Civil Service Board. We try to update these when we can and when people have new positions in mind because we have a new and changing economy, we constantly are being asked for to have new classifications written, which is done by our staff. Each classification is about a page or two in length and they're quite technical. We maintain uniform salary schedules. We consult with and receive direction from our civil service board on all of these matters. We try to ensure market competitive competitiveness for attraction and retention of qualified staff to the continuous review of these classification and compensation data. We try to keep track of what's going on in the market to make sure that we're attracting the best people for the job. We look at external benchmarks for cities of similar size and what we're doing so we can remain competitive. Compliance. This has become an ever increasing area of our lives. We ensure compliance of federal and state employment laws by directives, advice and training. That includes FLSA, the Affordable Care Act, which has actually consumed a good deal of our time. Sexual harassment laws. FMLA. We track the leaves for FMLA, whether it's a family leave, personal medical leave or whatnot, because all needs to be tracked separately. Their Employment and Housing Act, the ADA Pregnancy Leave, which is a separate type of leave that we all need to keep straight federal EEO laws, etc.. Employee Relations and Labor Relations. We have work rules here in the city of Alameda and we try to maintain and enforce those. We give advice on employment and employee performance issues and disciplinary matters. That includes terminations, separations, grievance handling, reductions in workforces, reorganizations, union correspondence, or just calls from the unions. We handle those on a daily basis. Any time we want to change something within the system that requires and we confer that comes to heart, we handle that and we respond to employee complaints. Not that we have any of those. We also negotiate, administer and interpret our M.O., use with our 11 bargaining units and employee groups. This is quite a large number for 500 employees. Let me just say. We also provide staff support for two different boards, the Civil Service Board and the pension board. We hold a public meeting. We keep minutes and records. We write reports, make presentations, and we implement the decisions of these boards. What a lot of our day to day work is actually, is we answer questions. We help people. We saw problems. I would say a good part of our day is picking up, is answering the phone. When somebody's got a question, we answer it. Someone need to report it. Run if we can. We'll try to run it and we just try to streamline the process for our departments. New initiatives. One of the things we'd very much like to do is we'd like to move to the 21st century by using Neo Gaia, which is a new system. Actually, it's not a new system of cities for using it. We're using a somewhat of an outdoor, outdated system. It's a software that automates the hiring process, onboarding and performance evaluation process. We're actually asking for funds this year, only to do the entire process week onboarding and performance evaluation. Maybe we can do that someday in the future. Online training. I'm very excited about this initiative, and now what that would do is give every employee an onboard platform to be able to take trainings online. Their supervisors could then choose from an array of a catalog of training courses so people could actually get some training online, such as management training and just a variety of trainings that we just don't provide now. We just don't. Investigations One of our new initiatives is although the city does do investigations right now, we do not have a steady funding source. So in other words, when we have a complaint for sexual harassment or workplace bullying, something of that nature, and we have to hire an independent investigator to go out and do the investigation. Right now, there is no dedicated funding source for that. So departments have to find the money. It's always difficult. So what we've done is we've put a very small fund in the budget so that that struggle wouldn't take place, that we can just go ahead and move forward with our investigation. One of our new initiatives for this year is actually we have five unions coming up at the end of their contract. So we need to begin negotiating with AMC, ACA, IBEW Pans, Uber, which all expire at the end of this year. So we are actually gearing up now to go into negotiations. We were planning on doing that for the four sworn unions next year, but they we've taken care of that. And so we're very grateful that that has happened. And so now the non sworn unions can go ahead and hopefully we can conclude those for this year. The new unions we have, we actually new union is Uber. It is an employee group. It's the utility electrical utility professionals of Alameda. They are recently formed, it's a new MRU and we are currently in negotiations with Uber regarding their salaries. And then we're going to continue on with negotiating their full contract at the end of this year with the rest of the unions. Question, shouldn't you anticipate that these those five employees will be negotiated prior to expiration? It is our hope. There is a calendar for that. It is always our hope. You never know how difficult and complicated a negotiation will be. One of our main goals in the upcoming negotiation is to streamline and make more standard the benefits included in all of those milieus, which have tended to extend outward like an octopus so that they're all different. So if we can get them back on the same course so people get the same leaves and it will help the city's administration immeasurably if we can do that. So that is the main goal for the upcoming labor negotiations, is getting everybody on sort of the same tracks, the more usual look somewhat similar to one another. They all have the same grievance rights. They have the same leave rights. That would help a lot. If you. Past staffing cuts. In 2001 through 2004, there were 11 staff members for H.R.. In 2010, that was cut to seven. And that was a pretty drastic time. There were a lot of things that didn't get done. We still have piles of filing that has yet to be filed from 2010 because we just don't we don't have the staff. We didn't have it now, did have it then. And we are struggling to catch up. Is it still on? Okay. Current staffing is eight. We did add eight an analyst this year, which was of tremendous help. As you see, we we increased our recruitments, which was wonderful. At the same time, these last five or ten years, H.R. responsibilities have really increased. So and I wanted to make sure folks knew that because of our infrastructure, our I.T. infrastructure, we have really fallen behind because now we do so much work by hand on spreadsheets and by hand calculations, that is become much more complicated and much more time consuming. For example, right now we have the ACA, which is about which is a new initiative that we we are all complying with. And unfortunately, we need to do reports regarding, you know, how many of our. Speaker 6: Part to tell you about the Affordable Care. Speaker 0: Act. Affordable Care Act, I'm sorry. Affordable Care Act. We need to keep track of how many of our part time employees may be reaching the 30 hour a week mark because we will need to offer them health benefits to do that simple report. Who's working? How many hours takes? An analyst? Approximately two full days of work. Um. Also the changes in the various milieus we have created special pays, special leaves, an amendment and an administrative leave here or there creates much more work on our end and the qualifying parameters, because you were the people who have to qualify them, you know, did you let me see your your educational background, let me see your degree. So we have to make sure that that they qualify for these things. There has been a dramatic expansion of compliance and monitoring the implementation and administration of citywide performance reviews. That is a new John Russo brought that along about three years ago. Right now, each and every employee receives a performance review and you may rehearse a department. We implement that. We have the mandatory training and sexual harassment, which has been expanded to include bullying as of this year. And we're going to have a live training to live trainings this year that you're all going to be invited to. By the way, the affordable care act, of course, is an enormous amount of h.r. Time and work. And i know a lot of cities have actually contracted out to do part of that. We have not done that. We are doing that. We have absorbed that internally. There's, of course, hit that, which is the medical act, which makes sure that people's medical records are kept private. Since we do keep medical files, we have to separate our files and keep those under lock and key. We have ban the box. And what that is, is increased opportunities for folks with felony convictions to make sure that they're not discriminated against in the hiring process. And that changed the way we did business in terms of the hiring system to make sure we don't know a person's criminal record until they get much closer to the appointment process. There has been an expansion of ADA in California, disability laws in California, and we have new responsibilities for tracking leads and the interactive process. I don't know if any of you have heard about that, but when someone does show that they've got a health issue, immediately, H.R. needs to be called and we need to bring them in for a one on one. Talk about what are your restrictions? Can you do your job? What kind of accommodations can we do for you? It has gotten to the point we do approximately 1 to 2 per week now, an interactive process. Speaker 5: What else. Speaker 0: We have. Oh, and there's a new a new law just came on the books this year. And as of July, there will be mandatory sick leave for our part time employees, and that will go through our payroll system. We have our pension reform PEPRAH, which has now created a two tiered purse system which will create separate tracking. And we were actually sued in 2006 for FLSA overtime issues. So we are extremely meticulous about our FLSA and we have not had any issues with that since then. Speaker 1: That's family. Speaker 0: Leave. No, that's Fair Labor Standards Act. And when you work over a certain amount per year, we actually have two types of overtime in Alameda. We have the federal overtime law, which is FLSA. Then we have Alameda overtime, which is pursuant to the misuse and we need to keep track of both of those. We have disability retirements that has actually been expanding in Alameda as safety personnel are able to if they're on worker's comp when they retire and they become permanent stationary, they can now get a disability retirement. And that is a burden that is now on the Human Resources Department to process those disability retirements. You're all familiar with the Sunshine Act. Alameda has a very stringent Sunshine Act and we get all kinds of requests for information regarding employees and pay systems. And I think you you know, that the last few weeks have shown that there were a lot of information that went through H.R. on that in that process. And of course, the new bargaining units, which we discussed previously. Getting to our budget. Oh. The other thing I just wanted to bring up before we came in here is past staffing cuts. We talked about the things that we did do. I want to talk about the the few things that we don't do that I'd love to be able to do. One of the things is update our classification system. We have updated, we have out-of-date job descriptions that we're not able to keep track of and we'd love to update those. Same with our work rules. Our work rules are terribly outdated. We're working on updating those and we're doing that right now. Training, professional development, succession planning. These are things that a modern h.r. System should be able to do. But with staffing cuts and with the current state of really trying to tighten our belts, it's been really difficult to do diversity and inclusion. We really don't concentrate that on that in the city, and I'd love to concentrate on that more. The executive management division for the first time had a segment we brought a segment of diversity inclusion training to the executive management training last Friday, and it was very gratifying to me to see that training happen in this city. Basically, I think. An H.R. department. Should move from a simple service provider. We're here in the trenches doing just the trench work is what we're doing now to be. Do you come an enabler and a builder of talent? And that's, I think, our future goal. And I just wanted to throw that in there before we get into the nitty gritty of our budget. As you see, we have very limited funds, fees for services that comes from AMP. AMP does pay for a portion of H.R. because they do have a very active H.R. need because of their diversity of services. They have three different employee groups just within AMP, and they have a great diversity of different types of jobs classifications within their organization. And I think it's self-explanatory. Ah. One thing I would like to point out is services and supplies. We do anticipate an increase that is due to our negotiation, the budget we're going to need for the upcoming negotiations, because we will need outside help to do salary surveys and outside help for the negotiations coming up this year. So I have a question. Sure. I think first or second slides that there were 11 bargaining. Yes. Groups, and then you had four groups that have recently been. Yes, resolved. And then you have five that were coming up at the end of this year. What about the other two? The other two are actually unrepresented, but they're bargaining units, but they're unrepresented right now. So we have agreements with them, but we do not have to negotiate with them. And that would be the executive management group. And that is also the there's an AMP unrepresented classification bargaining unit and they are not yet organized. So does that not? So then there's not additional time by you to address those two groups. It's limited because there is a negotiation process. However, they do have separate salary schedules and they have a separate agreement. So we have to maintain we have to maintain the agreement and the salary schedules. And there's a certain amount of determination, you know, what their salary should be in the market. For example, I believe in the in an upcoming council meeting, there is an item regarding raising the salaries for the AMP assistant general managers. They are belong to AMP to the the Alameda Municipal but they're the assistant general managers for for AMP and they are unrepresented. And so that has to come to council on a separate item. And, and again, all of their classifications do come before the Civil Service Board whenever you do have change. Thank you. Cost allocation has risen slightly again. We have no control over that and. So what do you do when an employee issue comes to you? I'll tell you what everybody in the city does. They call they that cute and they call us. So I just love this slide because that's exactly what people do. Questions there, vice mayor. Speaker 2: The increase looks like it's about $250,000. Can you tell us what the. From last year. If you go back to that. Yes, we're projected to. Two five, 15, 16. What? What's. Speaker 0: Well, part of that is we're increasing the services that we're going to need because of the upcoming negotiations. Secondly, we did add another senior analyst, and that's an advanced position which we sorely needed. And part of it is, I think, partially my salary because I moved over to this department. And so that takes care of my salary. And I do mostly employee relations sorts of issues. Speaker 2: Of the one new. Speaker 0: One. Speaker 2: Being added? Yes. Has it already been added or it's being added? Speaker 0: It was already added. Thank you. And when you moved over to this department, was that a new position for you? It was a slightly it was a slightly changed position. It was a human resource director and a change to administrative services director. It's the same, right? All right. Remember, even though I actually do other things as well, besides H.R., for example, the project labor agreement, that's under my purview, I'm also to the extent that I have time, I try to help with public contracting and other issues of of kind general contracting and things like that. Speaker 6: Thank you. So, Miss Sherman's here. What would you say? That the H.R. department spends the majority of its time doing? If you had to quantify. Speaker 0: I would say maintaining employee records and making sure payroll is correct. Speaker 6: Okay. Speaker 0: And benefits, I think benefits administration. Speaker 6: So my question my next question is more to staff. Are there cities who contract out all or part of the functions of their H.R. departments? Speaker 5: Many cities have looked at doing that, but particularly, for example, one of the areas that that is probably the most likely to be contracted out is recruitment. But one recruitment can cost $10,000 and a few. How many recruitment did you do last year? Speaker 0: 55. Speaker 5: 55. So it is not really cost effective to outsource that type of that type of service. So I think particularly when you have 11 milieus that you're trying to manage, it's very difficult to outsource that type of service. Speaker 6: Well, and that was my question about outsourcing. All are a part of the function, because I've heard over the course of the discussion the need for new I.T. infrastructure, the need for services, personnel, services, when we're doing all these negotiations. And. And I'm. I don't do a lot of recruitments. I've been involved in a couple, but I would imagine there's maybe some economies of scale that if a firm is working for you anyway, I just when we're looking at these budgets and not only trying to keep our our costs reasonable, but also trying to do things as efficiently as possible, i, I would just like to see the range of possibilities. And. Speaker 5: You know, I think h.R is probably the one of the best examples of why we're asking for what we're asking for in the I.T. division. And we'll get to that later. But we're trying to be more efficient as as we heard and one of the ways we do that is through technology. And we just do not have the technology right now to to be more efficient. And in the past, essentially, we've thrown bodies at it. And what we're trying to do is not do that. And we're trying to come up with some so some not even innovations, really. It's not innovations. It's just some i.t infrastructure that actually can help them do their jobs and be more efficient. And in fact, I don't know if you want to talk about the kickoff of your of your program that just happened last week. Speaker 0: Yes. We had a firm come in from solutions who came in and did an analysis of what we did and and how we interacted with our i.t and with payroll it with other departments to try to come up with a system that is more streamlined. Because what we're doing is we have so many outside dashboards that don't really feed into the main system. It has become very, very time consuming. I can't imagine how an outside firm could do this because it needs to be completely integrated into the existing finance and payroll system. And that's why we are working hand in glove with the finance department in this. However, unfortunately, we work with one system, the Sungard system, and as Sungard has, you know, it's a very expensive software system and as they've innovated in certain parts of their their mission, which is in the in the payroll it in well, actually not the payroll in the finance side. They have not updated their h.r. Side and you the system needs to work together. And so that's not something you can bring from outside. And so that's one of the challenges that we needed an outside consultant to really look at, to see how do we do this best? What's out there on the market? Is it even possible? The biggest complexity we have are are myriad a variety of email use and the fact that we have so many different benefit structures to have an outside person doing that, we would pay so much money, it would just be incredible. I have to tell you, i've got a staff member who the h.r. Manager who comes in the morning approximately 6 a.m.. She never leaves before 6 p.m.. She works Fridays, even though she's not paid to work Fridays and she works most weekends. And she's I think she's worked probably this is her 27th year. So the institutional knowledge in this this person's had Djokovic's is incredible. And when she retires, it's going to be a tremendous loss to the city. And I'm almost everyone has touched what she has done. And and I really am concerned because half of our staff has an extended amount of time. And so they know this stuff in their head and having to teach an outside person to do this, I don't see how it's possible because they have to know, oh yeah, in 1998 this happened. That's why this is and this is why. Oh, and this guy got that benefit because I remember because I helped him 20 years ago. And that's why you can't it's it the institutional knowledge is absolutely crucial for a function such as H.R.. You could contract simple payroll out. I don't know if that's possible. Cut it like that. But but in terms of the bargaining and the day to day phone calls from union members and negotiating and meeting confer and most that we have very few grievances in the city of Alameda and I'm very proud of that. And one of the reasons we have so few grievances is because union members know to pick up the phone and cause I'll talk to them and we'll work it out and I'll talk to the manager. And if we can work it out, it's going to get worked out. And that's my business model. That's our business model. H.R. Everybody feels that way. We want to solve problems, not bring it to a litigation. Speaker 6: Thank you. Did I understand you to say over here on page four of new initiatives under investigations solving a need to provide steady funding source? Is that saying that you want to hire an investigator? Speaker 0: No, we it's not going to change our need for investigations. All it is going to do is create a funding source for those investigations. Speaker 6: So who does the investigations now? Speaker 0: We have a variety of investigators and we work with the city attorney's office and we pick an investigator. Speaker 6: We try to outside the organization. Speaker 0: You're outside the organization. Speaker 6: So you do outsource some services? Speaker 0: Oh, absolutely. And that's the type of thing that is good outsourced because it's independent. No one can claim that they're short of internal. Can you clarify the eight positions? Full time positions? Yes. Thank you. And were the 11 staff that was full time at that point? Yes. And the other question. Comments. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next presentation is finance. Speaker 8: Good evening. Members of the council, mayor. Speaker 0: It. Speaker 8: We'll see if finance is going to be as exciting as all the other ones. Generally it's fairly, I guess, boring department in essence, but would do a lot. So what do we do? We have several divisions within finance. One of them is accounting and cash management. So what we do there is we compile and analyze, assemble a bi annual budget as we are doing right now. So finance together with the city manager's office taking the lead. Of course, all departments have to pitch in and help out as we don't necessarily know their business. Precisely so. But the lead in putting together document assembling all in one document is really with finance. We also, after the time that budget is done actual on the annual basis in this particular case, we prepare a comprehensive annual financial report and that's the management of the audit for the city. As I said, that comes every year on top of just the regular annual report that has to be done. We are also facilitating other audits, such as single audit, which is the audit of federal grants. We also work with the auditors for any state required audits such as TDI or local, which we have county coming in and doing the audits for various measures, transportation measures. Speaker 0: Ashcroft. Speaker 6: Hey, may I just ask you? Under the first accounting cash management section and the the second bullet prepared the comprehensive annual financial report Kaffir Write in Audit. Do you work with the city auditor and treasurer on this? Speaker 0: Or or at. Speaker 6: What point or where do you work with the city auditor and Treasurer? Speaker 8: We usually connect with actually both of them. The Treasurer particularly reviews the investment type of reports when we meet with the financial advisers for the city in managing the cash. So he takes active role in that. Obviously when we brought up the investment policy, the Treasurer was here presenting um with the audits, the internal auditor, he's involved , but he's an internal auditor. This would be more of a working closely with the external auditor. However, external auditors do meet with Mr. Kearney in. They usually consult to see if he has any concerns or any particular areas to look into within the city. So they take his advice, I guess, in essence, and. You know, address any issues that he may have. Speaker 6: Thank you. Speaker 2: Mm hmm. Speaker 8: We whole handle the accounting for all departments and funds in the city. And actually we maintain over 120 funds, various buckets of money that we account for, whether it's individual programs or grants. Some of the separation is required by, I guess, grant agreements such as housing, CDBG home. So those are separated on purpose and required to be separated. Obviously, the biggest one is general fund, but within that, we have a number of departments that are being presented here and talking about it today. So should there be a request to make budget amendments, finance processes, those? If somebody inadvertently charged something to a wrong account, it comes to finance. We get to fix it. So we do a lot of work that normally is not really seen, which is I guess alright with us, but I think we put in quite a bit of work in doing that. We also manage the city's debt portfolio that involves all the certificates of participation, all the tax allocation bonds that we have, any revenue type of bonds. So for like sewer, if it's refinancing, refunding finances and involved a lot as well as some of the other departments such as city attorney's office, city managers, of course, as well. We also do a continuing disclosure. So just because we issue debt, it doesn't really stop there. The work begins after the fact, and that's usually is handled by finance. The next item I have is accounts payable and payroll. So all the employees in the city that we have, whether they are part time or full time together working with h.r. We issue either the checks or direct deposit. So almost 500 full time employees. But usually by the time payroll is actually done with all the part time people, it's somewhere in the range of about 600 or so. The payroll is processed by weekly, so hopefully you all being paid on time when we are very happy about it. So we don't hear from anybody that they missed the checks or any of that. We also process accounts payable that's done on a weekly basis and the accounts payables vary depending on what's going on in the city. It could be anywhere on the lower end of 400 to 500000 and on the high end of like two and a half million dollars. Again, it depends on what's going on in the city, which includes some of the large capital projects and things like this that are happening. We also are in charge of a business license. So we send we have in the city about 7000 businesses that we send out the business license renewals to. On top of that, we also assist improvement districts like the Park Street for which those fees are included also with the business licenses. And so we in essence act as a billing agent for them as well. We try to do as much collection in-house as possible for all of those that are delinquent licenses. You will have actually, I believe, on the next city council meeting May 19th, actually. A report brought to you to put delinquent business licenses on as a lean on the property tax bill to set the date for that. So that's a responsibility of finance department as well. We also try and collect the revenues. So last council meeting, you've approved a an agreement with the Franchise Tax Board. We, in essence, collaborate with them. We get the data from them, they get the data from us, but we use the data to see if there are any businesses that may be listed to be in Alameda but maybe have not been paying their business license tax. So we try to approach those as well and that's usually is done in-house. Central Services. Those are. We pretty much do some centralized items such as utilities, fuel copiers. Those all run through finance. We manage it even though it's for the entire city. In essence, it's citywide. But we manage that and charge all the departments for their appropriate costs. Well, so have mail room. That's part of the finance. There are three part time employees that do that. We deliver internal and external mail for all the departments in the city. Speaker 0: Okay. Speaker 8: Some of the new initiatives that we're working on, employee access center, that would provide the staff, particularly at this point full time staff access and the ability to inquire about their financial records such as they can request and see their paystubs, they can print them. W-2s is a big deal. I know for everybody. Sometimes you go in to get your taxes done and you forgot your W-2 or maybe it's lost. Hopefully not so. But this gives you an ability to access it via web and it's secure. It gives you get a username and password, you get to log in and the information is there. You can also review your salary, your current benefits, some of the information, such as your address, your tax withholdings. So if you need to look at it and change it, verify it, you can do that. We are hoping to roll that particular one out soon. We've done some testing already with some of the employees and hopefully that will be coming out to everybody in the city, at least the full time employees. The next initials we have is electronic time system. We're just in the very, very early stages of it. Pretty much working with the departments or tried to get information as to their flow in terms of who would be doing the approvals of the time, she told Prepare them and then moving forward, working with our Sungard provider to see how we can set it up. It's going to again take some time but hopefully will eliminate some of the paper and we don't have to use that again. Moving towards more of an electronic type of processing for which we do need the I.T. infrastructure for that and I.T. staff to assist us with that. Workflow enhancements. We do a lot of manual processes right now. Again, a lot of paperwork. So any time we have to do approvals of invoices, it goes to each individual departments. They have to sign off on it, it has to be routed and it does take a while. And you don't necessarily at any stage know where invoice may be located, how long it's been since it's been received. So one of the things that we are considering is looking into accounts, payables, electronic approval, which means the invoice will come in, it could be scanned potentially in the system and the approval will be done electronically from the departments and upon move into finance. Redactions. So I get to speak about something that I wasn't here for, but I do understand that there were quite a few people or quite a few more people within finance than we do have now. On the slide, actually, you see all the staff that was actually cut out of finance, which is looks like seven people that we used to have more than we do now. One of them was a budget analyst. And I can say it would be a great thing also to have this as a full time position will have Evelyn and she's been absolute savior for completing this budget and helping and coordinating with all the departments. But I think it would be important to at some point hopefully have that here in house and have the institutional knowledge in here so that we can retain it. We also lost a supervisor. This department used to have three supervisors. Currently we have two. At some point there were two cut, but I believe last year one of the supervisors was added back. So we currently have two on staffing, but we used to have three. We also had additional two accounting use as part of the budget cuts. One of the accounts two positions. It wasn't fully cut out of the department, but it was downgraded to an account one. So the level of proficiency, I guess you would say, was reduced. It would be great for the city to have rather an account too. That would have been my preference, but that's what I have. So. We also had cuts, senior account clerks. And then what I can say is actually one of them wasn't specifically. The position wasn't really cut out of the city. It was relocated from finance department to police department, and that was for the parking division. I guess that was switched to PD and the other two senior account clerks were one for accounts receivables and business license and one cashier. So now we don't have those people either. Speaker 0: Before you move on. Were those all full time positions? Speaker 8: Yes, they were. Speaker 0: And how many people are in your department now? Speaker 8: We currently have 15 people of 15 positions. Three of them are part time. So we have the director and myself. We have two supervisors, two staff that work in the Business License and Revenue Division. We have an administrative clerk to accounts payable staff to payroll staff, and we have two accounting positions. One of them was currently under filled and one is vacant but is being filled with a part time person for the time being. Speaker 0: And when you say part time, how many hours are each of those positions? Speaker 8: Mailroom staff. There's three people, three part timers in the in essence, sharing one full time. I guess I would say position. So divide regular, I guess position by three. The part time accountant is really just half of the week that's present. And would you have to annuitants, retired annuitants that come in. One of them, as I mentioned, one is assisting us to put together the budget and one is helping out with some special projects and any items ongoing that we have that she actually has an institutional knowledge for the city. Speaker 0: So mailroom. That's finance. Yes. But what's the description for those positions? But it's a mailroom, too. But ones that are under your department. Speaker 8: They are. Well, we pretty much oversee them. They're adjacent to us, literally, but they deliver mail internal, external from within departments. So any mail that goes in between departments and also they pick up the mail from post office and do the delivery for the and for the city. Speaker 0: And there's three people sharing one position there. Correct time. And why is that as opposed to one full time? Speaker 5: How they like it, actually. Speaker 0: Yeah. Speaker 8: I, I don't know if I have an answer to that one. Speaker 0: But. Speaker 5: It actually works out pretty well that they're part time because they all of them are retired. Yeah. And they all just want work all across the weekend and they're lovely. They are. They're really fantastic. And don't forget, we have a lot of buildings throughout the city. So it's not just within city hall at City Hall West Park. It's, you know, the fire station. So it's there. They also have a vehicle that they carry all over. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 8: K Moving on to our budget, so gives you an overview primarily. Accounting is really a service department and therefore we have mostly salaries that are included in here. We almost 100% supported by general fund not for everything. We do receive some revenues from EMP for cutting their checks, for payroll, for accounts payable. So there's some revenue comes in for that. That's our program revenues. We also account for any of the interest and penalties for delinquent licenses. So the actual business license tax is a general revenue. But any time it comes in late and if there are penalties, those are associated with our program revenues for finance. Key for accounting cash management. As you can see, I've mentioned before, personnel services, that's primarily our accountants, myself included. That charge in here. There's there hasn't been really much of a difference from year to year. You wouldn't see that 1415 was lower in terms of expenditures in general for the department. Primarily it's because we had some vacancies, including the director vacancy, which was filled with a part time person, as you're all aware, with the interim person, but it still didn't account for the entire salary. So you see that projected 1415 is actually lower. The services and supplies here as well. That accounts for a contract for the auditors, external auditors that we have. And we just got the auditors this year bring you firm. Accounts, payables and payroll? 100%, really? General fund accounts. As you can see, the spread in here is really mostly 90% of it is personnel or salaries and benefits. There's some minimal services and supplies and cost of location that's included. The services and supply is really minimal in terms of it really is just copying. It's purchasing the actual checked stock, mailing out accounts, payables, payroll, postage costs. That's in there. Business licenses. As you can see, we have the fee for service and we have that's part of it included into our charges to other departments and they pay for. Services that were pretty much provider in billing, providing a billing service. Speaker 6: God, I miss it. May I ask on the the first line here in your revenues, fees for services, why do we see them going down as time goes on? 110201 to 91000. Speaker 8: Actually, for the business license, that would be. The penalties and interest on business license that we had. I understand we've had a. Collection. Firm that was hired. Speaker 6: We had some difficulties. Yes. Speaker 8: And I understand there were some some difficulties. And at that point in time, because they were so aggressive, we did receive some late fees in interests that were coming in at the time. They are no longer performing the service. The only thing we really have is internal staff. And so those do go down because one, we don't have enough hours for the staff to actually complete all the collections and we don't have as many resources to go in after the businesses if they're delinquent. Speaker 6: We'll have happier members of our business community. Okay. Thank you. Speaker 0: So we also have a lawsuit. Speaker 6: Oh, yeah, that could be. Okay. Thank you. Speaker 0: Sure. Speaker 8: Central services, primarily. These are what you see in fees for services and actually the general fund component, unlike others. These are actual charges to the department. As I've mentioned before, we have the utility, we have the fuel, and then those charges do go out and being charged out to various departments. So what you see on the general fund side is actually a revenue to pay for the services that we provide. It's in essence an allocation of those costs, and that's what ignites this revenue. Graphical presentation of our revenues and our expenditures. As you can see, business license has a portion. Essential services is the primary one and accounting has very little primary charges go to on expenditures is accounting. Like I said, we are service organization or service department and therefore salaries and benefits is primarily that's what it is in all really four divisions. It looks very similar in 1617. There wasn't really any increases other than what we couldn't control, which is really salaries and benefits. And that concludes my presentation. Any questions? Speaker 0: Council members. CNN. Speaker 6: Thank you. That was very nice. Speaker 0: Thank you for your presentation. And now we'll continue with the city court presentation all. You go. Speaker 3: Okay. So the Secrets Department is a small but mighty department. And what we do is we do lots and lots of council meetings lately. No, not that many. I'm not. I'm not. Yeah. That we handle legislation as a follow up at the council meetings, we run the elections for the city dealing with all candidates measures. We administer a bunch of filings, all of your good campaign filings, everybody's form seven hundreds that they love so much. And one thing I left off of here is we are Sunshine Central. We handle a lot of stuff with ensuring everybody's complying with the Sunshine Ordinance, stopping the Open Government Commission, responding to public records request, meeting all the deadlines. The newest initiative we've been working on for the past year and we're continuing is we have been scanning and preserving historic records. What you see on this page is actually a page of the minutes from 1896. My handwriting isn't this good, but we have all the resolutions done. We need to finish up the old series of ordinances the next after every ordinance you see is because there was a new series and an old series. So the old series ones are very we haven't gotten to those yet. They're older books. As the minutes you can see, we're back to the 1800s and the meeting videos. Speaker 0: Are. Speaker 3: They they go back on the web to August of oh six because that's when we started livestreaming. What we're going to do, the database itself goes back to 2005 because we were trying to, you know, kind of have a good break when we transitioned it and launched the new database. So we were going to at least go with the council meeting videos and upload them back to 2005, which involves converting some VHS, this into a digital format and uploading them. So we were going to just make that a really complete database and keep going back further on that. Previous cuts to service, we eliminated full time position in 2013. We also, at the same time decided to launch a citywide agenda management tool because why not do more with less? And that is what has allowed the iPads to replace paper has allowed the new format. And that was the transitioning to that new database, which was a very large effort. We also did a lot of citywide training and continually still administer the whole program and do all of the, you know, requests for new users and all that type of stuff. With no personnel increase, we also assumed cable studio operations in the 2010 11 budget. So basically there used to be a public works staff person who administered it. We didn't get that person who came over with the studio. We just had to learn how to administer it ourselves and have the part time crew up there. In addition, we also took on the Sunshine Ordinance and staffing the Open Government Commission. So we really, really are doing more with less, I promise. Speaker 0: How many positions are in your department? Speaker 3: I have three full time and two part time in the office, and then I have a part time up in the cable studio. This is our overall budget. The revenue the revenue is mostly, as you can see from the cable studio franchise and then the general fund, the cable studio franchises, a dedicated fund that's just used for equipment. So and hopefully someday that will be able to be used for operations and we can ship some of that out to the general fund. Then the other interesting thing on this chart is you can see our cost goes up in fiscal year 1617 pretty dramatically. That's because there is an election that year. So we kind of always have this every other year thing in our department just based on general municipal elections. Yes. Speaker 6: Don't you also do the weddings? Is that what part of this. Speaker 3: Oh, part of our revenue. Part of our revenue does come from that. Yes. So we do we do weddings. We you all have to pay for your candidate statements, which unfortunately was a little higher this year. We yeah, we charged the school district for the cable studio. They reimburse for the cable studio time that they use. So that's where yeah, the general fund isn't paying for that. Speaker 0: So and in regards to the cable franchise, I know you briefly touched upon that the moneys need to be spent on equipment. And that's by legislation, state legislation bedrock federal legislation. But that's and I don't know if that's an I would think there's can we put that in our parking lot in regards to issues that are we could consider advocating to modify it because you want to explain that. Speaker 3: Sure. I can tell you the most recent act action that the city took was back in December. The Alameda County mayor's conference that the mayor serves on was having a couple of mayors who were taking leadership on trying to get something changed. And so the city took a position to support it just in December. So that was our most recent action to support that. And, you know, definitely anything to support the cause and have that changes. Speaker 0: We're all for it. If you can just add that to a list. Speaker 6: Or maybe because we have that lobbyist firm in Washington, D.C., that's something that we could refer to them. Speaker 0: Question Number Day. Speaker 1: So thank you, Madam Mayor. Just a quick question. Can you describe the study you referred? Speaker 3: This a lovely loft. The studio cast the studio loft there. It's terribly exciting. And give you a tour if you like. Speaker 6: It doesn't take long. Speaker 3: The steps are pretty. Okay, so this is just our overall 1516 in the graphic. So you can see, you know, we're very heavily gen general fund department budget and also, you know, mostly personnel and it's pretty much the same. But like I said, it changes in 1617 just because of that election that year. And I am available to answer any. Speaker 0: You have two part time employees. How many hours do each of those are? Each of those positions? Speaker 3: So it varies, but usually about. 20 to 30 something hours a week or ten. Speaker 0: Those positions include. And when it's 20 to 30 hours per week, does that include benefits? Speaker 5: Anything over 30 does. Speaker 3: Oh, so we don't get up to the 30. Sorry. Speaker 1: 29. Speaker 0: All right. So that's another issue I would like. But in the parking lot in regards to the number of employees that we have that do not receive benefits. Speaker 5: I'm sure H.R. would love to run that report for you. I'm sure they're going have to do it manually. Speaker 3: So I'm getting the attorney up next. Again, I. But you're on almost. Okay. Speaker 5: Players don't like numbers. We're here to help her. Speaker 0: If you think you're okay. If. Okay. So the attorney's office. So we're going to tell you about, as you've been seeing from everybody else. Who we are. What we do and what we cost. So before I even get into who we are, which I guess is about who we are, I just want to make it clear to everyone that the city of Alameda and so on to you folks, but to the people who may be listening. The city of Alameda is like a corporation, and we are the in-house legal office for the city, the corporation of Alameda. And so our job is to give advice to and provide all the legal help we can to the council, to other boards and commissions and to the city departments. We are not the attorneys for the 75,000 people who are resident of the city of Alameda. And sometimes we have a lot of confusion about that. And we are often contacted by citizens who think we are the city attorney and therefore we should provide them legal advice. So I just want to make that clear. We are the municipal lawyers for in-house the city of Alameda, so we have eight full time authorized positions. City attorney. I have been here for three and a half years now. Thank you all very much. And I moved to Alameda about a year and a half ago, so I know that doesn't count for anything until I've been here for 30 years. Doesn't count. But I just wanted to point that out. I have three assistant city attorneys that you often see in chambers, Rima. I'm going to mention them from a Brown who services the planning board, Allen Cohen, who is even here tonight, who is primarily our litigator, and Andre Penick, who you saw last night here with Lenny, at least to a level that I said that. Speaker 2: Struck. Speaker 6: Me. Speaker 0: From the webcast assessment. Okay, she's getting a little crazy here. Then we have a risk manager, Lucretia Akil, because part of the city attorney's office, besides giving legal advice, which I will talk to you a little bit more about as we flip through these slides and I won't take that long is also my office is also responsible for risk management in the city, which basically we are your good hands people. We are the State Farm Insurance, we are the property insurers and do claims and what have you. And we also handle the worker's compensation program for the city, and that is all under Lucretius management. And we have outsourced both of those things through third party managers for a lot of that work, because we found that that not being able to do more with less, we have to work smarter. And so that's what we're doing. We're looking for ways to try to manage it with systems and where we can to outsource as best we can. Then I have a legal office administrator and two paralegals. So our personnel reductions over the past year have amounted to cuts in four positions in 0203, we had 12 positions five six, we're down to ten, and now we have eight. And were those full time positions that were. They were all full time positions. So what do we do? I think you don't want to go through all this. I'll just really quickly, as I said before, we are the legal adviser to the council policy bodies, to the city manager, city clerk, all the departments who you've had seen stand up here and will continue to see as we go through the budget and many boards, committees, commissions, the kinds of things we do is we draft the legislation that the city clerk was telling you she tracks. We provide legal advice and opinions as required. We are involved in negotiating, drafting and revising all the legal documents from the city agreements, leases, financing documents. All of them come through my office. We participate. This is a big part of what we do as an integral part of the city team for complex transactions. So the site A matters that have been going on that you've been seeing. Jennifer Ott Two of my staff have been spending a tremendous amount of time working with them, attending negotiations, drafting documents, and that's the kind of thing we do in everything we do. We defend the city in a wide range of state and federal civil litigation, and we prosecute code enforcement actions. And as I mentioned, we do risk management and worker's comp. So in our transactional advisory role, we. We do a wide range of of work because we have a full service city which spans a lot of different things . And you've been getting a good sense of that as they've all come up. So we work with the police and fire, which is much different than the finance department with with human resources and I.T. in the library. So it's a very varied, varied. The diverse areas that we cover, and we are delighted to do so. In our litigation role. Again, we try to resolve claims and litigation at the lowest possible cost to the city while maintaining a strong and aggressive defense strategy. So we try to be very diligent to make good choices and of course, keep the council informed because you ultimately make the choice. But trying to really assess your risk analysis as to when it makes sense to be strong and aggressive and when it makes sense to try to settle things in the most cost effective way. And of course, we do enforcement actions to protect the city's rights. For instance, the Islands Boat Works property was one of the more recent enforcement actions that my office handled. In risk management touch on that. Now, that side of it the city is is self-insured for its first $500,000 and then we have excess coverage with the California Joint Powers Risk Management Authority, CJP Ramsey. So they are our umbrella insurer and the city is responsible for and pays out of the general fund for the first 500,000 and after and above that then it's April-May. And as I mentioned, we recently brought in a third party administrator because of the time and the personnel costs of trying to do all of the claims, basically claims handling early on investigation, those kinds of things that at Public Works and other people who are taking a lot of time and were able to utilize the services of the third party administrator to do that. Speaker 7: Your question is a question, madam. And so the 500 thousands that per incident or. Yes, okay. Speaker 0: Next we do workers comp. Workers comp is we are also self-insured this time for $350,000. Again, general fund with excess coverage paid by the local agencies workers comp excess joint powers authority locks. The Workers Comp Program is a program that provides, excuse me, temporary and permanent disability benefits. This is for this is for people who are our employees who are injured while on the job. You heard chief long talk about the fact that overtime in lead to injuries. So those are the kinds of injuries that are that the worker's comp program is in place for. So if you're hurt on the job doing your job, it's the city's responsibility to try to to to take care of that issue, get you that the medical benefit, the medical care you need and pay for those benefits, and then determine if it's determined that you can't completely return to work, it can't be fully healed, then some compensation is provided for that. So there's dependency benefits for survivors. There's lifetime medical for injuries that are actually determined by by medical doctors, are determined to be have been caused on the job that are unable to be healed. And and so they are compensated. And the 10,000 medical care is during the time that the initial claim comes in, we will pay up to $10,000 while we're determining whether or not it is a legitimate worker's comp claim. And again, we utilize a third party administrator to help us do this. As you heard Stephanie Garbrandt Sierra talking about all of the documentation and reporting requirements that are required under so many of the benefit programs. There is that whole raft of things that are required under worker's comp programs. It's a very heavily document intensive and high privacy rights because of of medical personnel issues. And so because of that, we opted to to go outside and manage it. And we're still very engaged with it, but we manage it with outside systems. So the major projects we have in mind going on during this next two year cycle is we want we will be doing being very engaged in the continued development and commercial residential leasing at Alameda Point. We are we are very involved in the redevelopment of the city's northern waterfront. We are engaged very heavily in the financing and contracting for Fire Station three and the EOC, as well as any new public safety initiatives such as the emergency medical services programs that you heard Chief Long talk about. With financial strategies, budget balancing initiatives such as all the OPEB reforms. My office is very involved in there. And you just heard Andre Echo Penick from my office talking to you about the issue with the Oakland Inner Harbor Tidal Canal. So that will be a big one on our plates in these next couple of years. Internally. The initiatives that we have going is we are very much trying to move toward that paperless document management system to facilitate what we have to do. Claims management, document retrieval, document retention. I have to say I was very surprised when I arrived here three and a half years ago to find that we really didn't have computer systems. Again, as you were hearing some of my colleagues talk about, we were doing things in paper and trying to find things. And one of my favorite stories, not even a story, we actually in some ways continue to do it when we're trying to find some documents that the city clerk doesn't have. She's great. If it comes through the council, Laura and the city clerk's office will have it. If it didn't happen to go that way, though, however, if it resides someplace else, we often just do email blasts to department heads. And it's a matter of does anybody have know anything about this area or does anybody have documents about this? And so I know the city manager's office is working very hard to try to get systems up. But I mean, this I've just found appalling. So we were among the first with the with the help and encouragement of the council supported the council that we got. We have we have engaged city law, which is a new computer system. We were among the first and Leon King is in the audience. I think we drove him crazy, but we were one of the first to get off of the Novell Group wise and onto Microsoft Outlook. And so we are trying to utilize systems because again, we realize that there's no way we can do more with the less people we have and there's more and more demand that's being put on us. So we have to be we have to prioritize and we have to work smarter. And the way to do that is to utilize systems and computer systems and the technology that is being developed right here in Silicon Valley where we live. Additionally, we're providing in-house training for the various departments on ED as needed basis on various legal procedures and ways to avoid liability and in connection with the City Clerk's Office. We have been doing Sunshine Ordinance training and ethics training for boards, commissions and other folks as necessary. Okay, so that's what we do. That's who we are. So here comes the bad news. This is what we cost. And we don't have a lot of ways to get a lot of additional revenue. So the reason our numbers are higher is again, because we have worker's comp and risk management. If we were just doing legal services, these numbers wouldn't be this high. So I think people might get, whoa, how come it's that much for eight people? We don't get paid that much. So our revenues are our fees for services, which is really just charges to the departments, to various departments and general fund. We are primarily a general fund group and then the departments again who are not general fund who contribute to our services on cost allocation basis. So the number you'll see on services and supplies, that is a lot of the insurance premiums we pay and reserves we have for worker's comp and those kinds of things that are in that line item. And so the jump that you see from 1415 to 1516 is really it's really not as bad as it looks. For one, there is not the 4,769,000 should be upped by 418,000. There was an adjustment made already to that line item. Speaker 6: So where are you misheard? Speaker 0: I mean, so I'm in services and supplies. Speaker 6: Between. Speaker 0: 14, 14, 15 projection. There's already been an adjustment to that for that 4,700,000 number I another for 418. So the change from 1415 to 1516 is not as large. It's 352,000, which is a 7% increase, which most of is attributable to the increase from our insurance pool. So it's our insurance premiums. So that's that is the difference. And that's primarily what the up is from 1516 to 1617 in that line item as well. Personnel services are the employees and you know, they get raises and they do serve them. Here are the expenditures by program and category. So as you can see, workers comp and risk management are the biggest part of what we do by program and category. And and the contract services again is managing those programs. So it's it's the claims, the liability that workers comp. Okay. So worker's comp, self insurance. There was some question about that. So I put in a couple of extra slides about this. I think Vice Mayor Matt, R-S.C., had some had some comment and some questions about the worker's comp. So the accounts. So this is about worker's comp compensation claims. And as I said, the funding source is from charges to other departments. And and there has been an aggressive cost allocation strategy since fiscal year 910. And I actually have. Cheat. I think it. Ruth, this is this is an answer. I don't think I have a slide of this. This is an answer to. Now isn't too councilman matter as these questions about some concern that there had been on the workers comp that the program was not adequately funded. And so the sheet I have enough. The sheet that I am passing around shows that in 910. The the working capital ending balance for the workers comp fund was was basically it turns out to be like a 10% coverage. But it was it was it was in the negative, which is what I think you were concerned about, if I'm correct. Vice Mayor Yeah. Speaker 2: So and so make sure that we weren't building that deficit up again, right? Speaker 0: So what. Speaker 2: You see 2009. Speaker 0: Right? So what you can see in the rest of this chart is that we have with the cooperation of the city manager finance, we have been on an aggressive program to try to increase the reserve and we are now at four 1415 will be at a 65% coverage ratio. You have. Speaker 6: Projected up a. Speaker 3: Sorry. Oh. Speaker 0: Oh, perfect. Okay, good. Speaker 5: Everyone is doing that. I'm just going to say, last year and in November, when there was the budget surplus, the council directed to take actually a half a million dollars of that surplus to direct it to the workers comp fund. So just last year, we, we, we increased the reserve by half a million. Speaker 2: And one of the things that I'd like to be able to to settle on, because I've been looking at the projections, the projections that were put together in the last budget cycle, the projections that were on the PowerPoint slide on April 16th, and then this comment about putting a portion of a surplus into a fund that. Really? I'd like us to be able to tighten up those projections and also to look and see what it really costs us, because if we're funding something that's in the general fund from a surplus. That surplus we can't count on. It's to me, it's like. It's we have to look at what our general fund revenues are excluding one time revenues. And seeing what we can actually afford on an ongoing basis. I understand and I know the surplus was built by a lot of belt tightening and just wringing the last drop out. And we either continue to operate that way or find where we are so that we can live within the means of what is generally expected for general fund revenues. So this strikes me as is we're again, we're drawing down the reserve to pay for operating costs on some level. And I think we have to think about that a little bit and see where it might be appropriate and where it puts the city at risk. Speaker 5: Right. I guess I would I would not care to categorize it as drawing down on reserves. I mean, essentially what you have is that you had revenues that were higher than you thought and expenditures that were lower than you expected. And that delta is your bet. I mean, in in business, that means it's your profit and you've taken your profit and you put it it back into your business, and that's what this is. So I guess I would characterize it a little bit different than than that. Speaker 2: It all depends on what's in that wood built that. Speaker 5: How the deficit occurred. Speaker 2: And also how the surplus occurred, whether it's, oh, like vacancies that are deferred, we either live without the position or we got a one time revenue because we saved on salaries. Yes. And then these big bubbles and transfer tax. Speaker 5: It wasn't. So I'll just say it wasn't all one time. Speaker 2: I'm just giving the exhaustion. Speaker 5: Of it was. That's right. Speaker 2: That's true of one time, one time revenues and one time savings. So I just want to be mindful of that as we go through this and whenever we're taking from the reserve. Are we taking from what's a normal revenue stream? Are we taking from a one time and just start adding those up? Because a little here, a little there suddenly or we're back to actual problem. Speaker 0: So we do on an annual basis an actuarial study on workers comp. It's done by outside firms and they look at our history, they look at what's going on in in the industry, and they do projections going forward. And their recommendation is a 70 to 90% average ratio. And so we are trying to get as close as we can to that 70%, as you can see. So we are we are now, I guess should be at 65 for 1415. Speaker 2: And that's appreciated given the experience thousandnine nine when it was. I've $6 million shortfall. Speaker 0: So that is my presentation. Do you have any questions? Do you keep track of the number of hours that are built outside attorneys? We do get. I mean, they bill us and we have copies of their bills. Yes. I mean, we can give you numbers on what we spend for outside counsel and what the number of hours are. I can give you hourly rates on outside counsel. So I'd like to know what is the cost or the outside counsel. In what period would you? Is anyone else interested? Not. So. Speaker 6: Well, I don't know. I mean, interested, certainly I know from the previous councils that we. And I mean, I think every council has probably made this decision that there are certain cases that are legal staff is very capable and competent to handle. And there's some things, oftentimes litigation that is specialized, that is extremely time consuming where we contract out. But it's, you know, certainly a good thing to know what we pay. And we have those records. Speaker 0: And I'm happy to do that. I think I think if I can just add to that, since I've I've practiced both in private practice and in both in law firms and in corporations, private corporations. And here that there's always this balance about whether you basically contract out all your legal services or whether you you try to do most of them in-house. And I think, frankly, that we've reached a really nice balance for a city the size of Alameda between our in-house and our outside counsel use. We have a small enough staff that I think we're able to really stay on top of and participate in and understand the issues and help do a lot of that preventive advising that hopefully does not get us into lawsuits claims what have you but but council member as you Ashcraft is correct as I'm sure you all know there's three of you here are lawyers as well. But there are just certain things that are either such big time time requirements like on a major litigation. I mean, it would just really take up completely four or five staff members. So in my experience, what happens in cities that decide to take it all in-house is they they build a lot of staff, a lot of inside staff. And I'm just not convinced here that we need to do that, I think, or it's better to manage the money to utilize, go outside, hire it when you need it, and develop some good relationships with firms who know us. Watch their bills because we don't just send stuff out and ignore it. We are all over them managing it and working on it. And then beside that, there are the situations where you need some certain expertize because I mean, if it's a tax issue or something like that, I mean, that's just something that, as you all know , too, there are areas of the law that are very, very discreet. And at those times, it serves the city's best interest for us to be able to tap into some expert outside counsel. And then there are times when we just have the city is going gangbusters and everybody has got so much work going on that we need a little filling and but we don't bring somebody in as a full time position. We are able to manage that by getting outside counsel and watching what they do and trying to manage it. And so I'd be interested in three years going back. The last three. Yeah, that. A member decide. Speaker 1: Just two questions. So when it comes to contracting out for legal assistance, that would be a subsidy. Is it correct to say that that's a subset of the services and supplies numbers that you have that we have in our summary? Speaker 0: Yes. Speaker 1: Okay, great. And then the second question I have is for non general fund entities. I presume that the city attorney's office provides some kind of legal assistance. Is that that's not calculated in here. Correct. So so for example, it or it. Well, I don't know. That's a question is how. Speaker 5: Is where her revenue came from? Speaker 1: Mm hmm. Speaker 0: So so that's the issue on the what we call sheet back on. Well, that's their fees for services and general fund fees for services. Is that pretty much the non general. Speaker 1: Okay. I see. Speaker 0: Groups that there is some magic that happens and I guess Elaine a left that the finance department and the city manager says you're hiding. There is magic that comes out of the finance. Speaker 6: Department magic. Speaker 0: That they do this thing they call a cost allocation and they decide how each department is going to be charged a certain amount of money, an internal charge, and that that's. Speaker 1: With that. Okay. So the key thing, what I'm really driving at the end, so this is the true and total cost of of not just the general fund portion. Yes. Wonderful. Speaker 5: And we don't charge other general fund departments cost allocation. So internally we. So she wouldn't charge. Right. But but they're to put the city attorney's office would charge the super fund or would charge. Right. So the other funds, there's a charge. That's where that revenue comes from. Speaker 1: Great. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Any other questions. Speaker 6: Comments or others? Comments that I feel like in recent months we've kept your office really busy with lots of lots of questions. We I appreciate all the time you spend with each of the council members before meetings and prepping us for these complex issues that we've heard. The rent ordinance last night was one of them, and there have been many. And, you know, thank you for all the hard work you've done and are going to continue to do on our behalf. We appreciate it. Speaker 0: Ex-City manager. Speaker 5: Okay, so I'm going to confess that I know more about the city's budget than I know about my own budget, but I'm not in that position. Okay, so we are the city manager's office. Speaker 0: Okay. Speaker 5: Maybe Laura was doing it and she made you feel better. It worked. Okay. Okay, that worked. All right, so as you all know, we provide policy, report support and recommendations to the council. We ensure the fiscal health of the of the city. And we develop solutions when we are faced with fiscal challenges and we look at streamlining, trying to streamline the organization and fostering economic development. I put that in here because, you know, that really is part of our fiscal health that that is tied together. We provide leadership and direction to our nine departments. And we work collaboratively with the city attorney's office in the city clerk's office. And we've foster community partnerships. That's like with Almeida Unified School District, a bag, AC Transit, the Water Emergency Transit Authority, ACME, which is the Alameda County City Manager's Authority Agency. Excuse me. So different kinds of relationships throughout the county. We try and foster those, make sure that we're doing best practices and that our departments are on track. We also do other injury. That's actually also in our agency collaboration. And we support the City Council's efforts to advocate for the city of Alameda at the local, state and national level. And as you'll see in the budget numbers, that includes the the lobbyists that we have at the federal level as well as at the state. And that's Ackerman and, uh, um, former Senator Perata. So previous cuts to to our department, obviously we have a very small department, but we did actually have at one time a management a senior management analyst. And just when I got here, so that was two years ago, we eliminated that position. And really that the effect of that was sort of the analysis that often people ask us to look at sort of the special things that we'd like to know about this or what do you think about that or what about that parking study or this these kinds of analyzes. So we haven't been able to really do that. We do that in obviously in with the time that we do have. Departmental collaborations. That's that was that that individual actually did a lot of that when we did a studies across the across the across citywide. That was something that she took on. But anyway, that position is no longer with us. Speaker 0: How long have we had to? Assistant City Manager. Speaker 5: So the department has fluctuated. It's always had. It's always had, obviously the city manager and then two other positions. At one time it had a assistant city manager and an assistant to the city manager, which is a little bit lower than an assistant city manager. It had an assistant city manager and a deputy city manager. So it's always had one and two, but that too has kind of varied in form from one, from one time to another. Speaker 6: But I think this mayor's fans are you asking how long have we had to equal assistant manager positions that I. Speaker 0: Appreciate the history that you've always had to position those full time positions. Speaker 5: But and then they actually also had, I think a long time ago, they had three assistants and now we have two. Speaker 0: And how long have we had to assistant city managers? Speaker 5: I think that was when I got here. So that was two years, two and a half years ago. Before that, it was an assistant city manager and a deputy city manager. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 5: Okay. So our budget essentially what our budget includes fees for services, $45,000. That's. Actually, I can't tell you exactly what that is. Um. Let's see. That may be some of our cost allocation. Actually, I think that's cost allocation. The are our expenditures mostly, as you can see, is in our personnel services. And it goes up from this year, which was 720000 to 953 and then almost over a million. And the reason for that increase is twofold. One is the position of the admin services coordinator for the disaster preparedness, which we actually did. We kept these not kept this in here, but we retracted that that proposal, as you recall, that was on your agenda. And this actually that position will come up later as one of the positions that we're recommending that you don't fill , that you don't authorize coming for going forward. And then the other position, which we have authorized but we haven't yet been able to fill is the public information office officer. That's something that we really would like to do. We'll talk about that later in the next at the end of the presentation. But that position has been authorized for over a year now, and we are sort of we re tweaking the kind of individual that we would like to to fill that position with. But that's the reason for the increase in those salaries there. And then the service and supplies that includes the as I mentioned, the lobbyist. So that's the federal and the state lobbyists. And those lobbyists have been actually fairly successful for us. Obviously, they they were they helped us get the Jean Sweeney Park grant. They the federal lobbyist has been helping us with l made a point. So they're they've they've done a very I would say they've been successful. They give us updates monthly on the types of work that they're doing. That number also includes contracts like the Bartles work that we did on the OPEB contracts. It also includes the city manager recruitment. So that number is that number includes that contract that you will be letting in the next couple of months. Actually, hopefully it's next month. Speaker 0: That both lobbyists provide monthly updates. Speaker 5: So I know the federal lobbyists provides a monthly update. I'm not sure if the state lobbyists does. Do you know arrangement? Probably not. Not yet. She's weak on the job. Speaker 0: Yeah. Third day on the job. I have meetings set up with both of them, so I'll find out what they're regular communicate. I'll request monthly updates. If not, and if those could be shared with council, I think that'll be great. Not a problem. And. And I would like. I would suggest that they be itemized with the hours. I'm not sure what it looks like, but if it could be itemized. Yes. I would I would support as much atomization as they can provide. Okay. We'll find. Speaker 5: Out. We'll take a look at what the contract looks like. Speaker 0: One paragraph. Sorry. Speaker 5: Okay. So obviously our revenues almost 100% is through the general fund. The miscellaneous is a cost allocation and then our expenditures primarily are the personnel services and the services and supplies that I mentioned and then our costs, the cost allocation that's charged to us. Essentially the same for the next year. That concludes the city manager's presentation. Speaker 0: Thank you. I've come to remember Jason. Speaker 1: Thank you very much. In terms of the assistant city manager positions or position, I think what I'm hoping to get from your office is a discussion and recommendations, some kind of plan, perhaps with filling one of the assistant city manager positions if there is to be two. With with as an internal hire. Something to think about so that that there won't be any net new person, whoever. And whatever other position, then we have to figure that out. That's something, you know, you're. I would like your office to think about. Uh, so, I mean, I don't necessarily think of it as a given that, that there should be two assistant city managers. But by the same token, you know, I recognize that in the past, you know, we used to have, uh, basically the deputy city manager or the assistant city manager when we had two of them. But one time, like Doug Yount was a deputy city manager, I think. And. And I forgot his name, but he was for a short time was the city manager in Union City. I think they were both together here at dinner. Speaker 3: Dave Berger. Speaker 1: Dave Berger. They were, yeah. So and I think Doug Yount would focus on Alameda Point. Dave Berger would be the assistant city manager. And another point in time, it was Paul Benoit. And and I think. And and David Brandt. Actually, I'll bring in David Brandt. So it's. Speaker 5: I hear I hear you. And we'll take a look at that. One thing I would like to say is, and I think hopefully what you've heard from the conversations from all the departments is that they're all doing more with less. And so these folks are actually doing a lot of the work that their folks were doing before them that got laid off. So now they had to absorb a lot of that work. And then to ask them some of these department heads to who are doing their department's work, hands on work, and then to take on the other responsibilities of an assistant city manager, I think would be a little bit asking, might be asking a lot. And I'm not sure that there's any department head here who has extra time that could actually fill in that position. Speaker 1: Well, I think what I'm getting at is it's kind of like this collateral effect and an internal hire feels the assistant city manager position, too. And then an internal hire fills the the department head position. Speaker 5: So more for some progression within the organization? Absolutely. I 100% agree with that. Speaker 0: So I think that I don't think you necessarily understand what he was asking conversations. Speaker 5: I guess I had in the mind. Jen Ott being the assistant city manager in Alameda Point C or CIO. And I just remember that thinking, Oh my God. Speaker 0: That's not what I heard him asking for. A combination of two sessions. Thank you, Ambrose. Speaker 7: Thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah, because if we do, what we have now are net minus two, right? Because we lost to really backfill. I haven't backfilled all the way down, so. You know, my only comment on that is, I mean, that's kind of a city manager prerogative. I mean, who they're going to hire to have as their team and as their, you know, their their high level managers. So, you know. Well. The point being that it's really not our business to meddle in. Yeah. You prohibited? Yes. Okay. I was trying to be polite about it, but thank you, Vice Mayor, for being blunt. Speaker 1: I don't think so. I think I think I think we have a prerogative with regard to the budget. Speaker 2: The budget, you know. Speaker 1: And we have a prerogative is a charter prerogative with regard. It is in the charter a charter prerogative with regard to department staffing. It's in the chart and as we bring the organization of departments. Speaker 7: And as we bring in a new city manager, I mean, I don't know if we want to tie his or her hands. Speaker 0: Mm hmm. Speaker 7: Yeah. Speaker 2: Yes. Speaker 7: Yeah. I mean, different city manager candidates may have different ideas. I mean. They may want a senior exec team and, you know, a junior with them. They may want to seniors. I think we have to just see what our our potential candidates have in mind, you know, before trying to tie their hands, either his or her hands Speaker 0: . I was only hearing preferences at the. All right. So any other questions comes on that one? Thank you. All right. So at this point, it's 930. We have three more presentations and if possible, we'd like to take a five minute recess. Yeah. Thank you. So we'll be taking a five minute recess. Speaker 7: Thank you. Speaker 0: And we did start at 6 p.m., by the way. Speaker 2: I. Speaker 0: All right. We're going to resume our meeting. Speaker 1: Up studio. Speaker 0: Over. Thank you very much. We really appreciate your attention. We have just completed the city manager's presentation and now information technology knowledge presentation. Leon King. Take it away. Speaker 7: Madam Mayor, City Council. Good evening. Leon King, information technology manager and I will be presenting what we call the I.T. division, which is a division of the city manager's office, who we are. Information technology has four full time positions. We have one, information technology manager, myself, one, public safety information technology systems coordinator, which is basically responsible for police and fire. We have one technology services coordinator, which is primarily solely for a library, and we have one computer services technician. What do we do? We support over 700 network users. That means these are people that are on the wire that has a computer. We have 450 desktop computers excluding aluminum and municipal power. So we do not support them. So they're not included in that number. We have over 160 mobile devices. That's the iPads that you all have and cell phones. We also have 450 telephones and 500 voicemail accounts that we support throughout the city and excluding Alameda Municipal Power. Some of the things that we maintain, we actually maintain five data centers. So we have servers in five different locations, one here at City Hall Library, Police Department, Alameda Point. And we have a. Shelf. At Alameda Municipal Power, we have over 70 servers citywide, and most of those servers are virtual machines. But then we also support the switches, the routers and everything that's in the closet. Also, we have city networks, switches, routers. That's the software side of it. So we do maintain all of the software that's related to make making those devices work the utilities, the management utilities, the monitoring software, all of those things that run on a city network. And we also support 450 desktop computers and laptops throughout the city, including public safety and fire. Some of the things that we've done over fiscal year 13, 14 and 1415, we've migrated email conversions from group to Outlook. We actually just finished it was pretty much 80% done in President's weekend and we still have a little bit left. Alameda Municipal Power is scheduled to migrate at the end of this month. We are also migrating our servers from Novell to Microsoft. This includes the data files, all the servers that are involved that people access that were on Novell. We've also implemented our first stage of our document management that you've heard from the city attorney's office, the I manage. We've also virtualized over 30 servers over the last year and a half. We also are in phase one of our Alameda Police Department computer aided dispatch system upgrade. Actually, they just received their first boxes of shipment this week, so they will be unpacking. Starting next week, the library. We've upgraded the internal wireless system at the main library. So the wi fi that's over there, we upgraded that to a little bit more reliable, hopefully system. They've also installed thin client terminals at the public library. And what a thin client many probably are wondering thin client is a fanless desktop terminal that has no hard drive. All the features typically are found on the desktop PC, including applications and data that are stored there are in the server room, so there's physically nothing on the desktop but a monitor, a keyboard and some devices to plug into. I'm kind of going back to the old mainframe days where we just had a green screen, a keyboard and everything was going to the server room. So thin client is the new technology that companies are going to for managing HeartWare. So we don't have to run around and do a lot of legwork. We can just upgrade the server and we're pretty much done. We are replacing the unsupported Microsoft Windows computers with Windows seven and as most people know, Windows seven is no longer supported. That was kind of a we had quite a few Windows XP around in the city and we've also upgraded majority of the city's Microsoft Office to 2013. We still have a few that are hanging out there in public safety and a few miscellaneous locations. But we're trying to get everyone up to Microsoft Office 2013, mainly because we have recently converted over to Outlook and then we also have some miscellaneous support things that we do for various departments. As you've heard from, I think everyone that has come up that there are some technology needs and we support every last one of them with their goals, their dreams and hopefully their dreams, but a lot of their technology needs that they have. Fiscal year 1516. Some of our plan things that we're planning on doing, we're planning on finalizing our document management system. We are also going to complete the Alameda Police Department computer aided dispatch upgrade. We're hoping to get that done between next year, over the next two years. We're also working with public works with their in-house graphical information system, the GIS system that they are now implementing. And we're also planning on installing wireless systems at the remaining city buildings as we have Wi-Fi here at City Hall. We would like to get wi fi at other locations with mobile technology taken off. Many of our inspectors, our code enforcement officers, our even our maintenance garage is looking for wireless technology so that they can actually use these devices in their location and actually connect to a cloud system or some type of system using their new mobile devices, which is now very popular. We also would like to explore to thin client terminals for city staff. The library has kind of pilot that process for us, so we kind of have a great understanding how it works, but we would like to pilot that here for the rest of the city. And we also would like to reevaluate the city wide infrastructure and software to ensure most efficiency use of resources, as you've heard from various departments, all needing some technology upgrades and services. Some of the cuts that we've had over the last nine years. As you can see on this graph, we started off in 2003 oh four. We had six and a half people. As the years have gone down or gone up, we have decreased our staff down to four. And with that decrease in staff that has caused great deficiencies within the I.T. group and some of those deficiencies don't allow for us to do proper cross-training with our staff. So we can't, you know, learn what's going on in one department for the other because we just don't have the resources to learn. I don't really know all that goes on in the police department. The police department guy doesn't know what all goes on to the city. So cross training has been hampered. We're also limited it to remain in reactive mode versus excuse me. I don't know what that's like. Okay. Here we go anyway. So we're in reactive mode versus proactive mode. So many times we're trying to put out fires versus we're trying to establish and provide new technologies. Speaker 0: Yes. But remember Ashcroft. Speaker 6: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. King. I know I take up a significant portion of your time with some of my past iPad troubles. But can you tell me this 38% reduction staff over the last ten years? That's troubling. Was that attrition? Was that department was that mandated department cuts? Speaker 7: It was cuts. Cuts. Speaker 0: So. Well, let me not ask you this. What other departments have we have seen a 38% reduction in staff? Speaker 5: You know, I don't know, but I don't know. 38, but I can tell you that their department has probably been most decimated department in the city if you. Speaker 0: And yet it appears that they so technology use is growing. So I would think that that the need and demand has increased in the past nine years. And I would actually think that it has a whole new world has been created in the past nine years with technology. So. So. Speaker 5: If I can give some perspective, Madam Mayor, we did a little bit of research because this is something that we all feel very strongly about. And I think everybody in this room is going to shake their head and say, yes, the city of san leandro, the same size that we are. Nine i.t. People, city of walnut creek, same size as we are nine people in the it actually departments. It the one that is the closest to us city of pleasanton, which has a smaller population than we do six people. Speaker 0: So we are in a slide with that information in this presentation. Speaker 5: No, this. Speaker 0: Could be added in regards to our parking lot so that we are aware of what other departments, other communities have. So if you could tell me those numbers again. Speaker 5: San Leandro nine. Walnut Creek nine. Pleasanton six. Speaker 0: And Alameda. Or. All right. So. I think that this is a very serious problem. And in regards to funding, I'm hoping that this we will see. Speaker 5: We have two positions requested in the budget. So the budget that you've seen has requested two positions. Speaker 0: All right. So let me ask another question. How many hours do you have any idea how many hours per week your for each of your four employees works? Speaker 7: I can tell you four for myself and for the rest we we're 24 seven. You call us at three in the morning. The police department has a system down where they're. Every vacation. My computer is with me. My phone is on unless I'm on a boat or in the mountains. We we're there. You know, we work the weekends. That's the only time we can get upgrades done. I mean, you know, tomorrow morning I'll be here bright and early as we repair the manager's office for their move. I mean, we just this is what we do. Speaker 0: So I don't think that's acceptable. I don't see to it or as a solution. I think we serious have to look at upgrading this department. And I don't think it's appropriate that we have four employees. And if you look at and I'm confident if we look at these salary ranges compared to what other people are paid in our city and the hours that they are expected to be on demand because they're such good employees and loyal to us, this is a very serious problem. So I agree with you more. I think this has to really be addressed. Speaker 5: When a fish. Speaker 7: Okay. All right. So as we've heard already, city departments have taken on the responsibility of purchasing and finding their own software and products that may not be compatible with our environment. Also, products could be cross departmental, but that knowledge doesn't get shared because each department is servicing themselves opposed to it, servicing them. Other limitations that we have, as were a limited ability to research and evaluate new technologies. We just don't spend the time doing it. And we kind of tell them that departments, you know, kind of find it yourself and, you know, let us know once you find it. There struggles with assisting other departments to meet their goals. And we just can't you know, every department has goals and we just struggle to meet those goals. And then we also are we don't do training because we're just too short. If we're gone, that means there's a body missing and there's work that's going to be undone. So we do not have training among the IT staff. So without a dedicated, you know, executive team leader, forecasting and direction for the city is compromised. Over the years, it has not met the needs of our users due to outdated and limited product upgrades. City staff members have taken upon themselves to assist us the IT department in researching, going on site visits and working with technology vendors to find products for their departments. And sometimes the outcomes are positive and many times the product is not, and sometimes a product is purchased that will not fit within our current i.t infrastructure. And these are just, you know, the benefits or the benefits, but the deficiencies that we have seen over the years. But the i.t. Division. Speaker 0: All right. And what type of. Did I hear you correctly that in regards to we don't have training for our I.T. staff? Speaker 7: Yes. Well, I. I can't remember the last time any of the staff members have gone to any technology training. We just came up with the Microsoft outlook. We're kind of learning as we go. And we did have a training for the users to learn the product. But as far as the administration side of it, we basically rely on consultants and just online help. Speaker 0: So I think that this is another poll in that if we were able to train our staff and then we could do so much more. I think they'd like us to be able to look at that also. And I'm just wondering if you know offhand any other departments that do not offer training for their staff. Speaker 5: You know, I mean that. Because of the recession. I mean, this is essentially a hangover of the recession. Every department, particularly the internal departments, got pretty much decimated. And and training is always the first thing to go. And so across the board, we have not done training. We're just starting to do that now back again. Speaker 0: Okay. So could we. So we have ten departments, right? One, two. Speaker 5: Well, we have nine departments in the city. Attorney. City clerk. Speaker 0: All right. So I. I think we do have training going on in other departments overall across our city and all of our departments. So there's so we could have a slide that shows training available for all of our departments. That's a slide. I'd like to see how much money is spent on training across all of each each department. And then I think that we have to address this issue. And I'm really grateful that we're having this. Speaker 5: Absolutely. And one thing I would just like to take a moment just to say thank you to Mr. King, who has done a Herculean job over the last few years. Absolutely. I thought that gray hair was earned. And it's true. He he is on call 24 seven and he's just really you've done a fantastic job. And I just want to say thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. And I'd like to be able to promote from within. And I know at some point we were talking about a director, someone of this department, but it seems to me. Can I ask, how long have you been in this department? Speaker 7: I've been with the city for 25 years and only in the IT department. This is my 25th, so. Speaker 0: I can't help but think that if you were receiving training over these years that we would have an incredibly well-trained gentleman here and that which he is. But he's had to do so much of that. But it cannot be if you if he were receiving formal training. So that has been a loss to our city and it's very unfortunate. So I think it's imperative that we get these people that have hung in there 25 years serving us training, that that really has to be added. Thank you, Mayor Brody. Speaker 7: I just want to follow up on that comment. You know, I look at the the I.T. budget and what happened to. Well, first of all, you know, we went through the Great Recession and some of the people up here actually sat through that. And they probably still have the scars. And, you know, it's very, you know, painful. And it kind of changes your psyche when you're doing a city budget as opposed to, you know, someone like me who didn't have to go through that. But, you know, I look at it kind of similar to like the sewers and the streets, you know. It's like deferred maintenance that we put off. You know, our I.T. infrastructure, you know, is just as crumbling as some of our streets are, just as crumbling as some of our sewers. And now I realize there's a reluctance to, you know, commit to the long term on, you know, new positions. And, you know, hopefully we'll have that discussion. But, you know, if we have to do that, I mean, this, I think, is the most critical spot. And so. Speaker 0: Let's try. Speaker 7: To minimize I mean, I'm not in favor of like spending wildly and hiring a bunch of people. But if, you know, if we can limit it to, you know, two or three or four people, I mean, this is where I would hope to focus. Speaker 0: Vice mayor. Speaker 2: Yes. It's a daunting task. And I appreciate. Watch what you're doing. It's it is clear that we have a huge gap, especially when we're talking Novell versus Microsoft. That being said, I'm hoping two things caught my eye. One is that AMP is separate. And. Its infrastructure is, I think is one of those things that can be imposed across the city with big time savings. So I'm hoping we're looking at that as a strategy. The other thing that I'm hoping that we look at is a strategy, because I see this in the private sector where there are firms that provide the kind of I.T. infrastructure support, especially off hours support that are on call. They have many clients and they're also up to date on the latest of the latest. So I hope and we have and this is why I, I think the gap is there. But the how we we look at it strategically is where do we get the most for our money when we want to spend? For the latest and keeping on top of the latest, I'm hoping there's a place for looking at a firm that will will service the city and have the access to the very latest technology without in us depending on a city department. Keep that up. Speaker 5: Madam Premier, I respond to that. So two things on that. We are this at these two positions that we have in the budget are actually proposed to be shared with AMP l mean municipal power. So the cost. Speaker 2: I was looking at the responsibility in the coverage because there's I think there's economies of scales too because it said the AMP hardware's included there. Speaker 5: Well they do also have their they have a small crew there, but they don't have a director either. So the idea was that we would hire a director that would manage that would would handle the entire city. The other point that I wanted to make is that now we do actually contract out a fair amount of our work. I don't know if you would say. Do you know how much the contracts are? Speaker 7: I don't know, per se, the actual amount. But for this project it was based. I mean, the contractor did majority of the work. Speaker 5: For the upgrade to the. Speaker 7: Upgrade job. Yeah. So we are in. Speaker 2: Typical. Speaker 5: And I think, you know much like what the city attorney was saying, I think there's a balance. You have to strike the balance between what you can outsource and what you really need to keep in-house, which is what are our unique needs? How do we interface with building and planning and the finance department? Right. How do you how do you when somebody pays the bill, it automatically gets posted to the general ledger. It's those kinds of things that I think we need kind of we need somebody internally that understands, that need, but then can actually go out and contract maybe to help implement the need that we have identified. So I think, again, it's kind of a balance. Speaker 0: What member. Speaker 6: ASHCROFT Thank you. And I was just going to say that i would certainly look to the folks in Leon, Mr. King and his staff in i.t. And Ms.. Madame has worked closely with it to give us direction as to what they think the need is. I think the vice mayor raises some valid points, but you're in the trenches so you, you know, information through your through your budget proposals what you need. And we're not obviously here to micro-manage, but you do. But I do want to acknowledge I can say that every time I've called Mr. King, I always say, is this a good time for you to talk? It's always, Leon, come on, then. But that's how he is any time. So thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. And in regards to the director position, I would like us to consider Mr. King and what we can do to make him be qualified or have him be a big part of the the department moving forward. Speaker 5: As much as he wants to be. Speaker 7: No comment. Speaker 6: The request that the city council has over site for three positions and for unfortunately this isn't one of them but. Kudos. Speaker 7: Okay. All right. So what we call the slide basically shows that we're kind of broken up into three divisions. We are city information technology, which is the city side, the library information technology, which is dedicated specifically to that and telecommunications significant costs. And 1516 reflects our network platform change from Novell of Group Eyes to Microsoft Outlook and the other calls includes new hardware, software, licenses and installation for the future wi fi. So that will basically why our costs jumped and 1516 to implement those new technologies. It services the slides shows our revenue and expenditures. Please note the increased costs compared to our fiscal year. These increases again are regarding our reflection of our Microsoft environment and additional equipment needed to support the new platforms and the Wi-Fi. Personnel positions are included as is warmer than I mentioned for the two positions. And our revenues are what we charge to Alameda Municipal Power. We do charge them for services. Basically, its web services, barracudas send you those different software technologies that we have on our side and we charge them for usage of that. Again, just reflections of our expenditures, 61% for services and supplies, 36 for personnel, and 3% for our funds from cost allocation, which finance has some magical number that makes that happen. The right side shows that we're 96% general funded. I'm again four 1617 51% for services, 46% for personnel, 3% four from cost allocation and 95% General Fund and 1617. Before I end with questions, I did want to make a statement that the I.T. division has been using consultants for many years, and we have used them to assist with projects. We do not have the resources, training or knowledge to implement a new technology discussions regarding to in-house vendor versus contract staffing. I view this topic as project and or slash strategic city goal planning projects or a convenient for outsourcing, since they are usually short term in scope with defined and goals. Strategic goals are incorporated with city mission goals at the executive management team level. They often have a life of their own and may go through multiple revisions over time. Completing these goals require a long term commitment. An overseer that is fully engaged with the city staff and vendors or consultants usually don't have the time or the type of relationship or access to staff to to our staff. In my experience, I've seen consultants make recommendations that do not integrate with our environment or our staff objectives. So over the years, city management has invested in technology and we are finally recovering from the past neglect in spending and maintenance. I encourage management to continue down this path and providing staff with the tools they need to provide proper services to us. And we're doing more with less, as you've heard from pretty much every department. Questions. Speaker 0: Well, I'd like to make a comment in regards to your last sentence. I think you've done the most with the least. And I think we only have one more presentation. Speaker 3: You do have a speaker that wants to address. Speaker 0: Yes. Thank you. I appreciate the reminder. Carol Goldstein. Hello. Carol Goldstein, Alameda. Speaker 1: Resident I. Speaker 0: Just had a question about the. Speaker 2: Uh. Speaker 0: The thin client terminals for public use that the library because I do use the public computers at the library and this just go in like yesterday because as of Monday there is still a quantum difference between the quality of the computers in the computer lab room, which is unfortunately the performance metric that our previous city manager chose to measure. That room's only open two. Speaker 1: Afternoons a week, Wednesday afternoon and Sunday afternoon, and it's closed most of the rest of the time when people don't use it. Speaker 0: Can't use it. But that's where the computers that work well are. Speaker 1: And that's the only. Speaker 0: Place where you can put an actual disk. Speaker 1: In a computer and read it. The ability to. Speaker 0: Read a disk is not available. Speaker 2: Out in the. Speaker 0: General public area that's open. Speaker 1: Whenever the library is open and those computers. Speaker 0: Are still slow. Speaker 2: They go. Speaker 1: Off and break down intermittently. Speaker 0: Throughout the. Speaker 1: Day. Speaker 0: They don't receive flash drives on a reliable basis. Speaker 2: And you can't turn the volume off if you go. Speaker 0: To a website or there's. Speaker 1: Like an ad. Speaker 0: Blaring at you, there's no way that person can actually. Speaker 2: Even. Speaker 0: Adjust the. Speaker 2: Volume because. Speaker 1: The icon doesn't work. As of Monday, that was. Speaker 2: All the way it was. So I don't. Speaker 0: Know where these great thin client terminals are, but they're. Speaker 1: Not out in the general public. Speaker 0: Use of a library. And then address her concern there. Of. I'd like to. I'd like a response on this possible. Speaker 7: BERMAN Again, I don't have full knowledge of where every computer is. I do know that the thin client installation is fairly new. It is on the public floors and there are this lists, there are hard drive lists, and they have kind of locked them down. The library staff has chosen to do that. The as far as the computer lab, those are funded specifically by the Library Special Fund. So it's not really funded through the city's general fund computers. So I don't have all the answers as far as where all the broken machines or the ones that don't work. Speaker 0: But it we'll be getting a presentation by the library in future. Speaker 5: That's next week. Speaker 0: Thank you. Appreciate that. All right, city council presentation. And there's us. Speaker 7: What a nice picture. Right. Speaker 0: Could you pass for some color coordinated in that picture? Speaker 5: It's going to be very brief. Speaker 0: And this will be very brief. Speaker 5: Since I hope you know what you do. But for the community out there, you formulate a finding priorities for the allocation of resources. That's usually money, but it's also people time training, that kind of thing. And adopting the biennial budget promote the city's interests at the regional, state and national level. Enact ordinances that's our laws, and provide guidance on quality of life issues. I'm sure there's plenty more that you do there, but that's sort of a thousand foot look. Your proposed budget is very simple. Much of your budget actually left your budget city council and went into the city managers in the past. All of the lobbying actually was in the city council's budget, but it went to the city managers at the council's request. Most of your expenditures are in personnel. Those are for your very limited benefits and and the very small stipend that you get for the meetings that you attend, the services and supplies. Those are pretty much the league. For example, the League of California, Cities, memberships, air bag, membership meals, lodging and travel to things like the California League of Cities, the THERE Annual Conference, as well as the East Bay Division League conferences. So that's pretty much what your budget is. It's as you see, it's pretty slim. Speaker 0: Can you discuss or elaborate on the lobbying budget being transferred from city council to the city managers? Speaker 5: Sure. So typically the city, the cost of the lobbyists, I think, which to some extent can be a little controversial, has historically been in the city council's budget. And two years ago there was a request to take it out of the City Council's budget and put it into the city manager's budget. And so if you look at a historical going back, you know, probably ten years city manager's budget kind of increased. But that was essentially it was still a function of the general fund. It was still something that we needed to do. But it just landed in the general in the city manager's budget. Speaker 0: Thank you. Formidable and brash. Speaker 6: How could I ask? Under expenditures for 14, 15, 127,000 going down to 53,000 in the next. Speaker 5: That is benefits. So that's from the change of the at the election you have three new council members who for without going into too much detail have a lesser benefit request than the previous thank. Speaker 0: Huh? We're saving money. Speaker 5: You are? Okay. And you are almost entirely well, you are entirely funded by the general fund. And again, this just to break out of your expenditures. And that concludes the. City Council's budget. Speaker 0: On that is a significant reduction in personnel costs of more than a half, more than 50% reduction there. Speaker 5: Right. I mean, you still have the same five people just and the same class that that some of you have elected things that the other council. Speaker 0: Hmm. And that's significant. Speaker 5: So the next we go on to the next. So this is sort of the the meaty and the other part wasn't meaty. But this is this is where I need you to put your thinking caps on. This is what I call the Closing the Gap discussion. Speaker 0: It's just so why we get in hard. Speaker 5: So the reason why you're getting hard copies is because the because of the essentially because of the contracts that were approved last week. And again, we're continuing to get new information. I wanted to provide you with the most updated PowerPoint. So that's why you have it hard copy. It's also on the screen. Speaker 0: Is it available online? It's not. It was the issue of. Speaker 3: Posted. Speaker 0: Top. All right. Thank you. Speaker 5: Okay. So I wanted to just start off with a little bit of perspective. There's been some discussion. We've really focused on the general fund. I just wanted to start off by by reminding folks that the general fund is just one source of funds that we have. It is our discretionary fund. So that's one of the reasons why we do focus on it. But the general fund constitutes 34% of all the funds that this city spends. So the total that the four 1516 the total funds are $240 million, of which the general fund is 34%. If I going along on these, uh, here you have got your general fund, which is this blue wedge and you've got your special revenue fund, which is 20%. Those are things like the library measure B B funds for transportation. This is this wedge right here. The the red, red wedge. Say that ten times fast. Lighting and landscaping districts, those are for all of our medians and some in some of our business districts. That's recreation. It's base for use. It's Tidelands trust. It's the gas tax, parking meters, waste management programs. That's this 48 that constitutes this $48 million here in the green. We have the capital projects. Those are the things that we will have a capital improvement project plan that we'll be bringing to you next week. Those are all of our streets and sidewalks and and Kersey Park and Sweeney Park, all those kinds of things that makes up 20% of our budget. And then we have these small pieces. Enterprise Fund, 9%. That's the sewer fund. Internal Services. That's our fleet. Computer equipment, technology, successor agencies. Excuse me, the 9% in the dark blue, a successor agency, that's the former redevelopment agency that constitutes $22 million. And then plus pension and trust agency funds. That's OPEB small, small amount. We have OPEB as well as the 1079 and the 1082. So that all constitutes the city's budget. It's $240 million, of which 34% or 80 million in 1516 is the general fund. Speaker 0: These are all millions of dollars. There's not a key here that says that on this. Speaker 5: Oh, right. Okay. We'll make sure to include that. Sorry. So very similar in 1617. Okay. So the next slide is something I wanted. So you've all been asking for this, and so I wanted to provide it for you, which is the history of public safety as a percentage of the general fund. So we're starting off in 2010 and we're projecting out to 2017, which is what our two year budget goes out to. And as you can see, we hover around 30% for nonpublic safety, and public safety hovers around 70%. It goes up I think the lowest is 68% in fiscal year 1213. And the highest is a combination is either in 2011 or what will what will be in fiscal year 1617. Speaker 2: Question from the April 16th pie chart. That's 79%. Speaker 5: Right. So the. So as I I thought I had maybe I didn't explain that pie chart and did not include transfers out. So transfers out is is kind of one of those things that people kind of their eyes kind of glaze over because they don't really know what transfers out really means. But essentially what that means is the general fund is contributing to the library, the parks to debt service. They're different categories, but essentially it's a general fund expense and it's considered what we call a transfer out. And the 79% did not include all those other things that the general fund funds. That clear? Okay. So. The next slide is a history of public safety as a percentage of all funds. Okay. So now we're looking at public safety as a percentage of the $240 million that I explained. And this is all departments, including the sewer, public works, capital projects, Community Development. And you can see the you can see essentially public safety hovers around roughly around 30 to 35%. And all other departments are somewhere in the 70%. So kind of swap it switches. But anyway, I wanted just to give this to you as a historical perspective. I know a lot of you have been asking for that. Hopefully that answers that. Okay. The next slide is a slide that you've seen before. This slide includes. The contracts that you approved last week. So as you'll see in 1920. Oops. He's me. Speaker 2: Oh. Speaker 0: And is this identical to the page two that was in the package? Speaker 5: Yes. So page one in the packet was the pre contracts. This is post contracts. Okay. So this is our reality today. And just as a reminder in 1516, we have we. In the wrong thing. So we have 81.4 million in revenues again. Now, again, we're talking just about the general fund. We have expenditures and transfers out of 80.7 transfers in of about a half a billion. So you get an operating surplus of 1.2 this year. So that means we're in the black this year by $1.2 million. Okay. This is again, this is sort of a reminder because you've seen this before, and that leaves us with a 38% reserve in this year. Again, the general general gap. And remember exactly what the accounting principles thank you is 16%, that's one 6% is the best practice. And we're at 38. 1617, which is next year. Revenues are where we were. Obviously, this is a very conservative estimate because we're still in a growth economy. The reason why it's low, as you recall, is because we had an amp catch up. So we had $1,000,000 of one time, so we couldn't count that again. But that's still an extremely conservative number. We had I think we talked about Beacon Economics, who we contracted out to look at our revenues. They far recommended much more than this, but we thought we should be prudent. So we're expecting 81.6 million in revenues with a transfer and of another half a million in expenditures of 83 and a half and point five with a deficit of 1.4 million in 1617. Although that is a deficit, we still have a reserve of 35% and we do have the trend. The trend does continue and I don't want to make anybody believe otherwise. We do have a downward trend. We do have there is what we would consider a structural deficit. However, we are, as I mentioned in the past, in a much better position than we have we expected to be at this time. And and that is because people people have I mean. I think, Leon, is is Mr. King is is an example of what happened is that that department got decimated. Many of those departments got decimated because of the recession. And we had to tighten and tighten and tighten. And we are now just starting to come out of that recession and trying to make up some lost ground. Speaker 0: It doesn't appear that all departments shared equally in these cuts. Speaker 5: Well, actually, I disagree. I think everybody in all of their power points. I mean, one of the questions that you asked us to provide was the cuts over time. And if you look back at the presentations that we just heard tonight. Every department had cut. Speaker 0: I don't think we saw a department with the number with 38% cut in personnel. Speaker 5: Well, because I think the departments didn't actually say what the percentages. I mean, when you have a small number and you cut to people, obviously that percentage is going to look a lot higher. Speaker 0: I appreciate. Speaker 6: That. I think it was over 90. Speaker 0: I'd like to just jump in here. I mean, mine was 12 people. It's now eight. I think that's a 33% cut, if my math is right. And I'm just one, I'm sure, my fellow folks. I heard those kinds of numbers from a lot of them. Speaker 5: And don't get me wrong, I think it is probably the one area that we cut the most and probably were the most negligent because we didn't keep up with the times. And we're taking care of that now. And I think that's one of the things that we're asking you to do. And I think it sounds like I'm hearing that you're absolutely on board with that, and I'm not saying that. You know, maybe, you know, hindsight's 2020, but I think the previous councils did what they could to balance the budget the best they could. And sometimes you have unintended consequences. Speaker 6: And I would just add that when I bookmarked a remark, when I was looking at this table, when I was preparing for this meeting, that we we have been very fiscally prudent. And you're right. Prior councils have brought us to this point, some good fortune has as well. But it may be time to reconsider having such high rivers reserves. I think that's a discussion this council will have. It's good to be prudent, but there is a cost to that prudence. And for example, Chief Long talking about the fire fighters and the overtime and I don't just mean the dollar amount of the overtime, but when you're looking at the cost, the human cost to personnel of injuries and fatigue, and we really can't expect people to do their best jobs if they're putting in horrendous hours a week. So this is it's you know, I and I don't feel the need to pit any one department against another. I think we are fortunate that we may be able to, you know, loosen the purse strings just a little and and spend a little more a little more prudently. But that's a you know, that's a further discussion to have. But thank you. Speaker 5: All right. So this is a slide that you've seen before. This is from April 16th. We discussed some measures that we thought would be useful in filling the gap. The first one was to use a portion of the general fund balance, and this is not in the order of that we're suggesting, but this is exactly the slide that we had that we just put back in using a portion of the balance reserve over 25% to assist. Essentially what we would say is a smoothing effect, this five year smoothing effect that that has impacted the general fund, expanding the expanding and potentially increasing the outdated uut tax as utility users tax in the 2016 election. As we talked about before, that ordinance is 25 years old, does not include cellular, does not include anything about cell phones, something that we could look at. And I'm going to suggest that we come back and do that at a later date. Reduce general fund contributions to the equipment replacement fund. We're going to talk about that in a minute. Requests from departments to cut 1.4% of the budget, which we've done. And we'll talk about that. Hiring excuse me. DeLay hiring and use vacancies savings to reduce the annual deficit. We've got a slide on that. And then also what we talked about earlier, which is the safer grant, which is a potential that we will get, but we can't count on it. We don't know that we're going to get it. But if we do, we suspect that we would save in this fiscal year $250,000 and next fiscal year. Potentially a half a million. And we find out about that in September. We're not sure when we're going to find out about the safer ground not. Okay. So they'll start reviewing applications in May and June and we could hear as early as the fall. Something we can hope for but we can't count on. So one of the things that you all asked us was to. Cost out every one of our suggestions. And so that's what the next couple of slides have done. I just like to walk you through this. This is general fund reductions, which is the first option, which is an across the court, across the board cut of 1.4%. And I'll just go down the slides and everybody is here. They're still here tonight to talk about what this this means. City attorney's office, roughly $15,000 in part time positions, city clerk also, and part time positions in our office. We're suggesting that you eliminate what we originally were trying to. Phil was a disaster preparedness position in finance, where he continued. Speaker 0: Now that position has not been hired? Speaker 5: No. In finance, part time position services and supplies human resources reduce funding for investigations and employee training. Doesn't mean that we wouldn't do the investigations, it's just that the departments would have to absorb those costs. Normally we try and centralize those costs in h.r. But so that would be something that they wouldn't they wouldn't be able to absorb. Recreation and parks. This is a reduction of the park and swim center maintenance and potentially delay of maintenance. Playground replacement of equipment. In the fire department. This is a this is a a option to eliminate one ambulance. Speaker 0: Before you continue the swim center, maintenance under rec and parks. So this is suggesting that we would reduce swim center maintenance. Speaker 5: Want to answer that, Amy? Speaker 0: Yeah. What it would do is it would we would reduce the maintenance that doesn't affect the health and safety. So that would be things like the pool deck wouldn't be cleaned as often, the ground maintenance wouldn't be kept as well. But we would certainly have to maintain the health and safety aspects such as the chlorine levels and the janitorial. Yeah. Speaker 5: Okay. So on fire there, their suggestion was to eliminate one out of the three ambulances that they have. The individuals that currently support that ambulance would return back to suppression. And then that what the impact of that would be to reduce over time. Vice mayor chief long to come up because I see you're asking a lot of questions. Speaker 2: Well, it seems to me and maybe there's an explanation that if most of our calls or medical. Why would we if we're not firing anybody? First of all, why would we return to suppression of most of the calls, the medical. Why not reduce suppression? Because that's all. Keep the ambulance. By reducing fire companies, we wouldn't be able to adequately respond to the fires in town. Speaker 1: You can't reduce the fires because of the staffing levels that you spoke of. Speaker 2: Right. We can. Count on somewhat having the private provider that responds to the county. They would be coming in more often on mutual aid to back us up because of our loss of an ambulance. We've estimated we would need to close the ambulance for seven months out of the year to meet our 1.4% cut. Speaker 7: Which ambulance is this? Speaker 2: That would be medic four, which is on B Farm Island. We chose that ambulance. It has the lowest number of calls that it runs annually. And when we take into account the revenue that the ambulances produce, Medic four was our choice because we'd only have to close it seven months out of the year. If we closed. Medic two We would have to close it for 13 months to close that same gap. And Medic one, which runs out of Park Street, we would have to close for 18 months. You. I offsetting the revenue that those other ambulances generate. Speaker 6: ASHCROFT Well, and this is just something, I think, for all of us to contemplate when when I made my earlier suggestion that maybe it's time to loosen the purse strings a little bit. I and I appreciate I spoke with Chief Long today, and he also emailed me some some financial or statistical data about this. And we do we make revenue from all of these ambulances. But even beyond the making revenue, probably first and foremost is we respond to medical calls of our residents. And so it makes me cringe a bit because we're taking one segment of the city and saying, okay, you're going to be not without an ambulance, because obviously you can still have ambulances cross the bridge. It's just that those two remaining ambulances are going to have a much wider territory to to cover. So anyway, something to think long and hard about. Speaker 0: Did you want to respond? Speaker 5: I just want to give you a maybe a preview that these are just suggestions. And and they're and there are multiple suggestions. And when you get to the end will sum them all up. And then essentially this is a menu. So we're not suggesting that this is what we're recommending. You had asked us to come back with costing out a 1.4. We went back to the departments. The department said, okay, if I have to cut 1.4, this is what I'm going to give up. So it doesn't mean that we're we're this is our preferred alternative. We're just giving you a menu of options. Well. Speaker 0: Go ahead. I'm member de SAC. Speaker 2: And on this. Speaker 1: Question. Well, thank you very much. You know, the key thing is. And this isn't a debate. But I think it's an it's an important point that I have to make, that it is SFI in the city charter that it says. I think I looked it up three seven. The City Council shall set. Employment and positions. So this is this is the nuts and bolts of why we are here as a council members to make decisions as to what are the positions we think the residents need. But having said that, though. And I think the city manager warmer Dan was getting to this. This is a menu from which we can choose, make different things. Like, for example, if we so choose to build a $1.4 million gap that we're seeing down the road, if we so choose to fill it by, buy these 1.4% cuts . These are the cuts. But then on the very next page, it has other ways of achieving that, closing the $1.4 million gap through vacancies. And I mean, it's not optimum. I know you guys don't like to have vacancies, but the point that the city manager is getting at is that it is going to be a combination. Speaker 5: Absolutely. Speaker 1: So in the end, to emphasize that is our role, figure out the right balance when it comes to that job. Speaker 0: Profile number member Ashcroft. Speaker 6: Well, and I think and this might be what the vice mayor is getting to is it is the explanation about why this would be cost savings, because staffing these ambulance requires a significant amount of overtime pay. Speaker 2: Currently, we're staffing or are some of our rigs daily with overtime because we're short of the savings would be. Down by reducing that over time, which is staffing our budget in the fire department is 87% personnel. So to make these cuts, we basically have to get into service level cuts. We've tried in the past to do it through programs such as the Marine Operations Program, the technical rescue program. You get to a point where you are decertified and unable to respond to a myriad of calls, which makes us completely ineffective. And we saw an example of that at Brown Beach. Even still, when we did our analysis, we found that cutting these programs still wouldn't get us to our $400,000 mark and. Though I. I don't support having to cut service levels. That was. What looked like it would work the best for us because there would be the backup coming in from other ambulances. And this particular ambulance, though it is isolated, made them made the most sense for us. Speaker 0: And did you want to comment? Speaker 2: And I think not to not to take more time tonight, but if we can get. An expansion of what you just said and are as an off agenda. I'd appreciate it. So I understand how. How this giving up basically giving up revenue. It gets revenue in light of the overtime. Speaker 5: So I can explain that quickly if you want. Or we can do it off another block. Speaker 2: Off. Speaker 0: Of it's. I like it. Be in the. Speaker 6: Audience for the part that's listening. Right. The Cliff Notes show the position. Speaker 5: So the the the ambulance comes offline. The individuals that are manning the ambulances are shifted into suppression. And the million dollar overtime that you talked about that we were talking about before is now absorbed by the people that were on the ambulance. Speaker 1: But the virtue of having them on the ambulance was that we had an ambulance and we were still meeting our staffing requirements. Speaker 5: But with the million dollar over time. Speaker 1: But but the downside. Speaker 5: So this is what by doing this you're reducing the overtime, the shift of bodies to backfill the suppression overtime. Speaker 2: Yeah. And by choosing some of the other options, by not filling open positions, we circle right back into that same thing of more overtime if we want to have the same staffing levels and. Reading a exorbitant amount of work for our current staff, which leads to reason. Speaker 0: And we're Ashcroft. Speaker 2: I think I'm good. Speaker 6: Yeah. And I think in another way, perhaps to say it is that you you don't have extra people for fire suppression and that that is the job of FDA, whereas the ambulance is, as you said, another company will come in and pick up those calls, dispatches account. Speaker 2: Some of those calls. We will expect we will experience some delays. Speaker 6: Yeah. Okay. So all things to consider. Thank you. Speaker 0: And when the when the additional information is provided, if you can give us some estimate of regards to the delays you're anticipating. Speaker 2: I can. And they will most likely be increasing at November of 16. The private contractor that services Alameda County. It looks like they will probably leave the leave the contract. And that is kind of up in the air right now with with county EMS is who will fill that position? Paramedics plus who has that contract right now is currently losing about nine, $9 million a year. And. They're looking to get out of the contract and that is their exit date. Is November of 16. So. We're not sure who's coming in there or whether we can count on them to be there for us. Speaker 0: Every day. Speaker 1: Thank you. A city manager murmured him. Are you asking us right now for a general notion as to what it is that we would like? Speaker 5: Absolutely. Speaker 1: I mean, I know you have two other slides you want us to hold off. Speaker 5: Yes, please. Yeah. Okay. You don't mind? Speaker 1: Yes. Speaker 5: Okay. So additionally, I just wanted to clarify that because we have the gap in 1617, we asked the departments that that was the time period that we wanted their savings. So as you can see in 1516, there's really not much savings because we don't have a gap. The the the $84,000 was from the city manager's department because we just didn't fill that position at all. Okay. Okay. So we're on fire and police. That suggestion was a not recommendation, but suggestion was to eliminate two school resource officer positions. So as you probably all know, we pay to have two school resource officers, one in Alameda High, one in internal high. And that's not a gift, but it's it's a contribution that we make to the school district. Speaker 2: Better mayor. Speaker 0: Vice mayor. Speaker 2: Are we going to lay off people? Speaker 5: No. So that's why it says return that to patrol. Speaker 2: How do we. If we don't lay off someone, how do we save hundreds? Speaker 5: Those are two vacant positions. So their staffing level would go down by two. So but because they have vacancies, a position they wouldn't be. There would be no layoffs. Speaker 2: Okay. So how are we saving real money? In this budget if we're counting positions that don't draw a salary. Speaker 5: Because the way we budget is that we budget for the positions to be filled in the year. We expect those positions every year, we expect the opposite. We look at what we have for vacancies. Speaker 1: Annually. Speaker 5: And you expect and people expect that if we have vacancies, I mean, that's part of what H.R. does. They fill positions. So we expect that those positions are going to be filled. We budget to be filled. And if and so the budgets that you have in front of you include full staffing with. Now there are some exceptions in there because we know that there are vacancies that are we just there plan we don't know where they're coming from but we assume that they're going to happen. So we do factor in some vacancies and we are fact in fact, in the past, we never we never factored in vacancies. We budgeted 100% on July 1st. This year is a first year where we said that's not realistic. And so we have some vacancy savings. But but generally speaking, we assume that we're going to fill the positions. So if you say to us you're going to take those two positions out of the schools, we're not going to backfill those those positions, those two vacant positions will leave them instead of whatever your number is. 98, 88. He'll be authorized 86. Speaker 0: So then the cost of these officers are this is $360,000 for two positions. So it's $180,000 a position? That's correct. So does that include benefits? Speaker 5: Oh, yeah, it's fully loaded. Speaker 2: So the more accurate way to to describe this reduction, because whether the person's on patrol or whether the person who is a management. Is that you're not going to fill two positions. That's that's correct. That's the real bottom line. And how you choose to put them is we can keep them in the schools, but you're not going to fill two positions. Correct. Someplace else. Speaker 5: Right. And what we thought, though, that you'd want to see what the impacts would be. Speaker 2: But to me, this this is colors the impact because it's it's it's either in the street or on the in the school. Speaker 5: And what you'd rather not know. Speaker 2: No, but but you can make a choice. There can be two less positions, which means we need them on patrol. And that's the prerogative of the chief is where we need it most. And. Well, you know that. Speaker 5: Well, I appreciate that. I mean, it would be much easier for us to just say we're going to reduce two positions. However, I assume that you all wanted to know what the impacts would be to the community. Speaker 1: No, no. Speaker 0: You go ahead. Speaker 1: If I know what I heard, I'm looking at my notes. What I heard Chief Roll Larry said earlier is that. While we have authorized 88 positions, we actually have 84 filled positions. And that in the coming year through this budget, he is seeking to, if he will, well, he will seek to hire four workers to get to what was already authorized. That's it is it is real money and real people. If we decide not to do the SRO because now he's not going to go for his four people. He's going to go for just two. Speaker 2: Correct. Speaker 1: So this is this isn't academic. Speaker 0: It's number Ashcroft. Speaker 6: And just for clarification, this this was a proposed cut from police or did we. Was that. Speaker 5: Yes. Speaker 6: Yes. Yeah. And then I'm just saying and I've discussed this a bit with Chief Hilary. I mean, there's there's this is something that's definitely on the table. We can consider doing it, not doing it. And there's other possibilities I referred earlier to police department has two officers assigned to the housing authority. Correct. Two. And there's you can probably tell this better than I and those two officers. We get some reimbursement from the housing authority, not 100%, but we get $210,000. So what percentage is out of there? But was it similar to. They would be similar? Speaker 2: Yeah, they would be the exact same price. It would be 360,000 for the two officers. Speaker 6: So. So but is more Madame alluded to this is sort of a gift we've given to the school district, but we heard from at least one school district employee this. She's an employee of the school district who spoke to us earlier today that you know how important the school resource officers are when and, you know, we don't tell the school district how to do their budgeting, but that's something certainly that they might consider as well. Speaker 2: Yeah, it just so you all know and so the public knows this isn't something that I want to do. I mean, the school resource officer program has been a very valuable part of what we do for 20 years. KELLY Laura mentioned that earlier. It was very painful when we had to give up. I mentioned earlier in the presentation we gave up the middle school, school resource officer. We went from 3 to 2. Our partnership with the school district is amazing. They will tell you that they love having those officers in the school. I can tell you that they by themselves handle calls by them within the school that don't even get dispatched to patrol because they're already there to handle them. It's an invaluable resource. We talk about community policing now. There's never been a better time or more important time in the last 20 years than now to have officers in the schools. Having said that, if I'm presented with a situation as a business decision on whether or not I have to cut 1.4%, which is going to be two officers, and those officers aren't being funded. By the school district. That's where I'm going to make that's my first move. Not what I want to do, but as a business decision. If we're sharpening pencils, then I'm going to and I mentioned this earlier, patrol is the backbone of the organization. If I go down to spots, that's where those two officers go so that I can still we can still respond to calls in three, a little over 3 minutes and have enough people on the street. So and I don't know if you know this, but between 230 in the morning and say 630 in or 645 in the morning, we have five police officers on the street, five and one sergeant for the entire city. Now I say that to you and I say that to public because I know people don't. It's not. We're rolling the dice. Mm hmm. Every night. And we do that in part to be efficient with the way we staff because we know that our calls for service generally go down. But I mentioned earlier we have five patrol boats. That's one person in each of those five patrol boats and one sergeant to supervise them for that four hour period in the middle of the night. So I'm trying to do this to be efficient. But it and it's a tough it's a tough call. And I'll tell you also, in the police budget, you have. $186,000 a year. Also going to the school district for the crossing guard program. Am I going to leave those intersections unstaffed so the kids can't cross? Absolutely not. But I think it's important for people to know that that brings the total up to about $546,000 that we are providing in services to the school district every year out of that $30 million police budget. Add to that the $320,000 that the city's contractually obligated to contribute to FAS, which comes out of the police budget for the benefit of the community. It just happens to be attached to our budget. Speaker 5: Chief, do you know by any chance what other in other communities, if they are paying for the school resource officer? Speaker 2: There's there's a mixture. I was able today I made some phone calls in Hayward, for example, is they pay for a few. They have eight school resource officers in Hayward. Some of them are grant funded. Some of them are paid for by the district or partially paid for by the district. The Hayward Unified and part of them are donated, if you will, by the by the police department. Um. Are there other cities? It's a different mixture. Speaker 0: So do we have any grant? We have any grants eligible for grants. Speaker 2: I am unaware of a grant that would help us fund two police officers in the schools right now. I mean, I'm certainly I'm certainly agreeable to go out and seek and find those grants if we can get them. Speaker 6: But you talking about school districts, the school district in Hayward, had it gotten funding? Speaker 2: They have. Yeah, they have gotten Grant. Correct. Speaker 6: The school district. Speaker 2: I just I literally found that at lunch today, so I haven't had a chance to to look into it. Speaker 7: In San Leandro, have some issue. Pardon me. In San Leandro, I have some issue with I thought I remember our member of Congress got some grant money for them and then people were not happy when the schools decided to spend it on school resource officers. Speaker 2: Yeah, I'm not I'm not sure I apologize. I don't know about that one. Speaker 7: You know, so I think a lot of times you can have education. People say, well, you're giving us money for education that should be spent on education, not on police officers. Chief, could you do this for vacancies? I mean, it seems to me like, you know, a lot of the the surplus and excess, you know, revenues we've had or decreased expenses we've had over the past few years are because of this delay. And can you just kind of explain, we can't keep counting on, you know, being under staffed by four people in the police department forever. But can you explain kind of why we have this delay? Sure. Speaker 2: There's there's a number of factors that go into it. One one of them was alluded to during the human resources presentation there. They were cut and weren't able to do, you know, the level of recruitments that I think that they you know, they would have liked to have done. So that was part of the problem. I mean, they're they're working with one hand tied behind their back, trying to get recruitments done. When we do identify candidates, we're talking about a background process that takes a couple of months. Then we're talking about if we're it's a brand new recruit with no training, they go to the police academy for 16 or 18 weeks, and then when they complete the police academy, they come to us and they spend another 16 or so weeks in field training. So we're if I hired a brand new officer with no experience or training tomorrow morning, we'd see them on the street in a perfect scenario, about a year from now, one officer. If if we're lucky and we get a lateral police officer to come from another agency who's already been trained and has some experience, we still have to put them through the field training program, but sometimes that can be expedited because of their experience. But we're still talking about a minimum of ten weeks plus the background period. I will tell you that in the last couple of years, something that we've done to try to expedite, expedite the background process without being sloppy and having negligent hiring practices, we have contracted out to an outside firm at a much lower rate than what it would cost for my officers to do backgrounds. And we have that company doing backgrounds for us on a contractual basis for half the price that we used to pay to have police officers doing the backgrounds. And we get them generally get them back quicker than than we do here because the officers have other duties assigned to them. We're this outside firm. That's all they do. That's all they do is backgrounds. So that's been a benefit to us. It's been difficult. A couple of years ago, we were up to about eight vacancies. And this is sort of a it's a it's a it ebbs and flows. I as as recently as September, I was down to two vacancies. And then we had a new recruit that was identified to start the academy in October, decided three days before or maybe maybe a week before the academy, he didn't want to be a police officer. So he pulls out. We don't have we didn't have a backup officer background added to that we could put in we lost that spot in the academy. Then we had somebody retire and boom, just like that. In October I was back to four and that's where I've pretty much remained. We've hired some people since then, but we've also lost a couple of people. I have some anticipated retirements coming up later in the year. So if I hire four or five people tomorrow, I'm going to be right back right back where I started. That's that's kind of the problem. It takes a long time to background train and put a police officer out in the street where they can work as a solo beat officer. We're trying to get laterals, but it's difficult. You know, it's difficult to do that. I hope that answers your question. Speaker 7: Yes. I'll comment more about that later. Thank you. Okay. Speaker 5: Okay. If we move. Speaker 0: On. You think? Speaker 5: No, these are good. And in fact, we we totally anticipated the longest discussions in these areas. Public works reduce the number of arborist reports. That's for trees and part time staffing for graffiti removal. Weight and facility made. Speaker 0: Before we move on there. Now the arborist reports is that going around determining which trees need to be are to see. Speaker 5: That's right. Removed. That's right. Speaker 0: So if we don't have that. Speaker 5: I think we're not yet eliminating it 100%, but we're just reducing the number. Speaker 0: It's my understanding during the drought that we've had an increase in the number of trees that need to be removed. Safety. So I would I'd like information on that. And then also in regards to graffiti removal, personally, I think that I've seen more graffiti across town as it is. And I in regards to that, maybe, maybe our chief could help with this because I think that actually you want to remove the graffiti as quickly as possible. Maybe you have some data that indicates or can help me or help us with that. Speaker 2: So over the years, on the topic of graffiti, the city has started this concrete program. So a long time ago what we used to do was we'd fill out this form in triplicate and send it through the interoffice mail, and then public works would get it and somebody would go out and clean up the graffiti. Now we have the concrete so an officer can literally just go online and and send the request off to public works. If it's public property, if it's private property, we'll go and contact the business owner, because even though they are a victim, it's their responsibility to get rid of the blight. Now that stuff comes up. I mean, I can drive down the street tonight and there's no graffiti and tomorrow morning there might be. And we try to get rid of it as as fast as we can. But, uh, but there is, there is a process, there is something that the city does have in play. Public works tracks those requests just like dumped furniture and some other things. Speaker 0: But my concern goes to the, the correlation of, of if you leave your graffiti that you can have an increased amount as well as other violence or. Speaker 2: Yes, there's there's a well published theory and it's called the Broken Windows Theory of Policing, where if you allow a nuisance to exist, broken windows, abandoned vehicles, that it attracts additional incidents like that. So more people will dump their cars, more people will come in, spray paint, break windows and whatnot. So the quicker we can get to that stuff and abate it, the better off we are. Speaker 0: So my concern would be that if this isn't removed quickly, and I can tell you right now it feels like it's as it is. It's not. I really do feel like I'm seeing more graffiti than I used to. So I would I don't think we're keeping up with it as it is. But then I think my concern would be then we would need more police to address this issue of having the graffiti stay there longer. Speaker 2: Yeah, I wouldn't disagree with you. Speaker 0: Thank you. So that would be. Those are. So I would have concerns about both of those for those reasons. Speaker 6: Can I just say. Yes, I agree with everything the chief said and the mayor said about that. And my experience has been I know I had a constituent in the last couple months email me and it was about graffiti on his private property. And I probably emailed Public Works and the chief and I mean within 24 hours it was in a couple of times this. I mean, I so I think if if anybody sees graffiti, there's a way that you can let the city know. And when they know, they you know, I know we're talking about proposed cuts. That that also makes me very wary. But I mean, right here right now, I'd say the response is really fast. So but report it when you see it. Speaker 0: I think I think other people must be seen and not just me. Speaker 5: We'll get. Speaker 0: There. Thank you. All right. Speaker 5: Okay. Finally, library transfer 28,000. This would be for Fleet. Speaker 0: I want it to the fleet and facility maintenance. Speaker 5: Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. 28 eight. And that's reduced janitorial contracts. That's here at City Hall from three days to two, which I think is reasonable part time staff, vehicle repairs. That's a staffing that they hire. They have some part time staffing to do fleet fleet repairs. So it would just it would take a little longer. Speaker 0: So how does that impact the rest of our the people that need the who uses these cars? Speaker 5: We all use it mostly public works and public safety. Speaker 0: So do we have extra cars that then those are that they could be sitting around waiting for repairs. Speaker 5: I don't know the answer to that. I'm not sure that they have extra cars laying around. I think instead of I mean, they usually if they they bring it down to the garage and instead of taking three days to repair, it's now going to take four days. So assuming that they made some accommodation for the three days, they just continue to make that accommodation for another day. Speaker 0: Okay. In our janitorial contract. So that is that outsourced? That's correct. So do we know what those people get paid? I'd like to know what they get. Speaker 5: I was hoping that you were going to ask that question to when we had the ACA contract, because Liam was the one who had the the answer to that. So I'm sorry, you don't have that denial. Speaker 0: Free to prompt Mary Todd another. Speaker 2: Prevailing way deep. Speaker 5: In my brain. Speaker 0: So I would like to know what. Speaker 5: We'll find out. Speaker 0: After the outsourcing of our Janet Janitorial staff of. Right. Speaker 5: Okay. And then the last one is library transfer. This is for materials. So this was offered by Jane as reduction the general fund every year transfers. Roughly $2 million to the library supports the library $2 million. And so she would reduce that by about $30,000 in materials. Speaker 0: And there's usually $2 million for materials. Speaker 5: So the general fund contributes $2 million to the library annually for its operating expenditures. And so instead of. 2 million, it would be less 2 million. Less $30,000. Speaker 0: And the library. Have have have the hours been reduced for the library over the years? Speaker 5: Yes. And she's going to talk about that next week. Speaker 0: All right. Speaker 5: Right. That's not general fund. Speaker 0: Okay. Speaker 5: Okay. So this is hopefully understand this is just a menu. Don't have to do a wall but get you closer to your 1.4 number. Speaker 0: And before we can continue, we would need a motion to continue past 11 p.m., which is in like 3 minutes. We have a motion to do that. Ooh. It's that emotion. If we have emotion, do we have a second? All those in favor. I. All right? Yes, I know. All right. Motion with House unanimously. Thank you. Speaker 5: Continues hoping you vote no. Okay. So on your menu of options. One of the things that we suggested was to look at our current vacancies. I'm probably going to need some help from Miss Adair, so I'm going to ask her to come up, but I'm going to try and go through it and she help me out with this. This is kind of complicated because as you see, the footnote number one, it says from the expected date of hire. So we're not again, as we mentioned this year, we're now saying we actually, Ms.. Adair consulted with H.R. and said, when do you think is reasonable that you're going to fill these positions? And based on that, we had some vacancy savings. So this these these numbers are based on. So we're going to show you 12 months of savings and 18 months of savings. But it's 12 months from the date that we expect the person to be hired, not 12 months from July 1st. Hopefully, that's clear. Okay. So these are currently the vacancies, and I. I want to apologize. This number changes daily. Speaker 2: Mm hmm. Speaker 5: Okay. So this is part of the reason why there is changes in the start in the in the PowerPoint. Literally, these numbers change daily because sometimes we have people retiring. We have people resigning. We have people coming in. So this is a this is a these are fluid numbers. This is the best we could get for tonight. It's it's I would say it's probably 95% accurate. And we have all the department heads here tonight. So if there's any changes, they'll let you know. But this is this is pretty pretty darn close to what we're what we're seeing. Okay. So we have one position fleet mechanic that's in public works that's a fleet is paid for by and again, this is all general fund. So it would be eight it would be 15 months vacant in fiscal 15, 16. You see what the savings would be because it's only 12 months. You're going to get lesser savings in 16. 17. Okay. And I'll show you real quickly. The next slide is for 18 months. So we're doing 12 months and then 18 months. Speaker 0: And do any of these positions by having this delay result in overtime, that is not as a true savings. Speaker 5: I think. Speaker 8: The fire firefighters generally would result a lot just. Speaker 5: Because. Okay, so this was the m this. No, this is not the ambulance. This is. Speaker 8: The vacancies. So should you not fill the positions? And because of the minimum staffing at the fire department, what will happen is that they would have to call other staff on overtime to come in and fill those spots. Speaker 5: Right. So unlike with the ambulance where you're sort of freeing up bodies to go into and fill vacant, you know, the overtime that's actually real savings here. There will be overtime. You want to say something? Speaker 0: I would add that in some departments like Parks, we've had two full time out of out of ten workers. We've had two vacancies since last December. And while we don't have overtime accrual, we we have a significant addition. We've gone way over budget in our part time. So we've had a full time vacancy savings. We've gone about 40,000 over on our part time. So that's where I would say other costs accrue. Speaker 5: So it is not 100% savings, but there still is some savings. Speaker 0: Okay. So I think for each of these, there should be a footnote letting you know when there are additional costs in overtime or part time or whatever it is, because then it's not a savings. It's not let's here. Speaker 5: You're going to get a chart you won't be able to read. Speaker 0: So as this chart really is not meaningful, is has limited value. Speaker 2: I think it's an order of magma. Speaker 6: Yeah. Speaker 0: I have the information of knowing how much you're paying for overtime or these other positions. And I think the complete picture. Speaker 2: When we start talking about slicing at this, you also. Speaker 0: Have to. Speaker 2: Understand, if we don't have a full time person, we're not paying benefits which. Makes it even more complicated when you have a part time person. Correct? So. I think this is an order of magnitude for budget purposes that tells us where we can get close to this and whatever we choose off this menu, I think then we can own down. Speaker 6: And I think we're we're going to make decisions not just by every last dollar and sense amount. You know, digging deep into the weeds, but by some principles that we apply to, you know, where where would we make cuts? I mean, I can still hear. Mayor Gilmore always saying that you want to cut the make your cuts as far away from the service to people as you can. And so, I mean, there's there's some overarching principles will apply. I don't I personally don't feel that I need extra footnotes, because as you've both already stated, these are really fluid situations. Speaker 0: Right. Speaker 1: Everyday SOG also bear in mind that earlier what we heard especially from Chief Long, is that he does have an overtime budget baked into his cake. The problem, though, is that he doesn't want to go. He doesn't want to. I mean, we'd rather not use it, but even worse, we'd rather not go above what he had originally anticipated. So. So if we don't fill the three firefighters, for example, here, in some respects, I believe that there is an over time a projected end to his budget. The hope, though, is that that. To the extent that we don't fill those three positions and to the extent that we have the three people still in fire in the ambulance, that means that because he's required to come up to that yellow line, remember the yellow line earlier, and he's going to have to dip into his overtime budget. Speaker 6: So and so so just to add that, I also I want us to keep in mind that we have a lot of information to present before we go into our actual budget hearings. And I mean, really making the decisions. We have another set of departments we're going to hear from, and I don't want to see us keep asking for more and more details to come back to us. And we can't decide we can't move forward until we have it, because in some ways that's just deferring, making the decision. We do need to act. And I think I think staff has has done an amazing job pulling all this together and with all the limitations that we've heard discussed. So I, for one, am going to try to, you know, make as much sense out of this. I as I said, I, I had conversations with our police chief and our fire chief because I was having trouble understanding some of these numbers. And he very patiently walked me through them. But, I mean, that's something that's always an option for any of us. And we can bring that information out to the public, as I did tonight. But I don't want to see us just keep, you know, saying, oh, we have to have this. We have to have that. Speaker 0: That's okay. Speaker 5: So what I'd like to do is just maybe highlight some of these. Speaker 0: Well, it's my understanding, for instance, the fleet mechanic we don't hire that the the the cars were not the example was that they'd be sitting there an extra day as opposed to hiring having additional costs. Mm hmm. The I.T. director. If we postpone that, it appears that we don't pay extra to our those for employees in that department, but they do work longer hours. Absolutely. But there is no additional money to staff the current staff that works 24 seven. No, they do. And I and I've heard her. So I think I would I think it is important to make a distinction here. This these the next one, again, as technology services coordinator, which again goes to, I think I g. Mm hmm. And so then you have your four positions working 24 seven without getting additional money. And that and those have missions are different. Right. The accountant, as far as I know in that department, then it's your, your department that is then working longer hours with your your set staff. So there I think these are these the first four positions are different from possibly in fact the balance of the sheet here in regards to who. Speaker 5: Right. I think the firefighter and the police officers, those are you could argue that the overtime there is more critical. It's more likely to happen because it's a public safety issue. Speaker 0: And I don't want to argue that. I'm looking at regards to dollars, though. When you're looking at the costs here, the top four positions seem to actually be what I would consider more real in regards to these dollars actual what the actual savings would be. The other ones appear to have access to other funding from overtime. That that is different. So I, I think that that could be noted somehow. So the public is aware on the balance sheet. Okay. Speaker 7: Looks like phantom savings. Speaker 5: Right. I mean, I understand some savings. Speaker 0: Mm hmm. Speaker 5: I understand. I understand what you're saying. Speaker 0: I probably choose some different terminology. Thank you. Speaker 5: So, as you can see, for 12 months, if you keep all of these positions vacant in 15, 16, you have roughly the net is 1.5 million in savings in the first in this first year and not a lot in the second year because it's only those positions are only vacant for 12 months as opposed to those very same positions. If you hold them open for 18 months, again from the data higher, you're going to see significantly more savings. Same savings in 1516, but significantly more savings in 1617, obviously, because the position is open for longer. And then you get to your 1 million in 1617. Just just to clarify, the underneath the double line, this is the total savings. But because we've already accounted for some vacancies, we've reduced it. So so there's no phantom savings there. Those are real savings. Okay. So that's that's a menu of options there if you want to consider vacancies. Other options that we talked about very quickly, reducing contributions to the fleet replacement, the equipment replacement fund. Those are internal service funds that the general fund departments, police and fire contribute to. It's not a lot. And essentially what it would do would just delay their ability to purchase fewer vehicles in the future. It's not a ton of money. So it's not a huge wouldn't be a huge delay. The Uut we talked about before we'll come back with that I think probably within I'd like to come back within the next probably 3 to 6 months on that. Speaker 0: Do we have an estimate of what the. Increase would be if we did attack on the uut. Speaker 5: I really don't know. We haven't done the analysis. Speaker 0: Some point in doing. Speaker 5: That we will be reducing the vacation payout contribution. These are what's called compensated absences. We have been funding that because we were sort of we were not doing well. We've been funding it to the tune of like $250,000. That fund is doing just fine and I think it's totally appropriate to reduce it to $75,000 this year or by $75,000 this year. And then, of course, you have a balance in your in your general fund from last year or from what we what we expect for 1516 of $1.2 million. We think you're going to have a surplus this year. You could use a portion. You could use that and carry it over or you could use a little bit more. I'm just it's just an option that you can use some of that essentially profit if you want to call it profit. Not really, but. And roll it over to the next year. Okay. So this is a summary for your consideration of all the things we just talked about. This is the across the board cut the fleet replacement vacation payout, holding the vacancies for 12 or 18 months. So you can't do both so that those numbers don't add up. If you if you if you try to add them up, they're not going to add up because it's an either or. But if you hold your vacancies for 12 months with all those things, you get to about 1.6 million. If you hold your vacancies for 18 months with all those things, you get three point roughly 3.7 of of available funds to close the gap. Speaker 0: Question member. Speaker 7: Thank you, Madam Mayor. So when you're talking about closing the gap, what is the gap? Speaker 5: The gap is 1.4. So I'm like, okay. Speaker 7: Let me rephrase that. Oh, sorry. Out to 1920, what is the gap? Speaker 5: 1920, the gap is $5.4 million. Speaker 2: On page six. Speaker 7: Right. But so. I guess. Speaker 5: And we're we, we do a biennial budget, so we're trying to balance the budget for two years. Speaker 7: So it's 5.4 plus 4.3 is a 3.1 or is it. Speaker 0: Yes. Yes. Each year this. Speaker 7: Year. So I guess then the the next question then is if we quote unquote, close the gap, where's our estimated reserves going to be in 1920? Speaker 5: In 1920 if. Okay. I don't know that. Do you understand the question? Is he saying if we use up all the reserves in each year? Speaker 7: I think if we don't use any reserve, if if we take these austerity measures and make these long term changes in 1920. Oh, you know, we we know our revenues may be 5.2 or as our expenditures are going to be, 80.7 is going to be 85.2. I mean, are we looking at still having are we doing all of this doing this exercise to have a 38% reserve in five years? Or are we doing it to have a 20% reserve? You know, we do nothing. It looks like it's 18. Speaker 8: Well, this will be one council decision how you choose to actually do it. But theoretically, if you if we decide not to have any annual operating deficits in any of those years, and we always will budget in such a way where the expenditures will will not exceed our revenues. You will always have a zero and you will technically we will continue having 38% at the end of 1920. Speaker 7: That's that. Thank you. Speaker 5: So that actually concludes this portion of our presentation. And so this time. Speaker 0: Let's go back and look at these numbers because we were looking at 1.4 million of savings. The deficit grows in the future years. Speaker 8: Correct. So that that's why my point was if we choose to have zero annual operating deficit in each year, which means in 1718 we'll have to manager expenditures and transfers out to reduce from 86.3 million down by another 3.1 million. Same thing in 1819 by the deficit of 4.3 in 1920 by the deficit in that particular year, by 4.4, you will end up having 38%. Now, some of the costs that you reduce in 1617 may be ongoing costs and maybe in the future years. Just by cutting something in 1617, your reduction will roll over into future years, and you don't have to maybe cut as much in the future years. But in the end, if you're just still trying to get to zero, you will end up at 38%. Speaker 0: Thank you. Oh, Vice Mayor, I. Speaker 2: Think I think the other thing and I don't suggest that we talk about it in detail tonight, because I'd like to have a coherent conversation about it, is that the difference between revenues in 1516, which is our year we're entering and 1617 is only $200,000. And I find it very hard I don't think I think that is overly conservative because we have houses coming out of the ground at the end of 2016 that will be sold in 17. But they're going to hit the tax roll, but they're going to hit the tax bill because it's dirt now assessment and then it's could be a house assessed on many parcels. So I, I think that's part of the realistic projection that I'm looking for is to to look at what, think what. And I understand why we are very conservative, but there's reality that's out there that's going to hit us. And I think we have to manage that expectation, too. So I'd like some analysis that. Speaker 5: We actually have done it. Absolutely, because we've had this very conversation. Selena went ahead. Speaker 8: So we did have that conversation that actually did come from Liz. Portion. What you're not seeing in the detail of it, the revenues were increased, let's say property taxes by about 3%. But there are certain taxes that you can increase, such as your single family homes. And it goes up with with disgusted on April 16th. You can increase it no more than 2% per year. Speaker 5: But but don't forget, also, Alameda Landing is in a former redevelopment project area. Speaker 2: But Marina Cove two two is not. And those houses were. Yes, it. Speaker 5: Is. It's in B whip. Speaker 2: But but those houses the land is got a much lower. Valuations go up more than 3%. Speaker 8: So any increment that you get is going to go to your successor agency through what's now a successor agency. What the direct impact to the city in this particular case is going to be is when the house has actually sold or more immediate impact, I should say. That's when the city is going to get the property transfer tax. Speaker 2: Going to happen in 16. Speaker 8: So if you were to look at the detail when we provided it, you can look we increased property transfer tax by, I want to say 15, 16%. So we can only increase it by, I think so much. And that's. Speaker 5: True. And then also, don't forget, your duty is going down. So. So it's there. I, I had this very, very conversation with Elena. And and if you look, there's there's adjustments. There's one time money in there that we cannot continue to, to, to count on. I would love to have that be. Speaker 2: More than $200,000. Yes. Speaker 8: So, I mean, technically, just as a maybe another option to think about. We're doing a two year budget. We're way more aware as to or, you know, can predict what's going to happen in 15, 16, 16, 17 is further down the road. We don't know what's going to happen. Generally speaking, as I understand it, with my annual budget and what I would have done anyway would have to come back to council and say, well, this is how we've done the year before when the audit is over and here's your mid-year update saying This is where we are today and this is our expectation. At that point in time, we will know more where we are in a variety of revenues with where the economy is going, how we're doing here. So another option is that if you choose to go with this, you will know a year from now if you do need to cut more or if you need to make that cut because it may be so that. I don't know if it's going to be true or not. I cannot have a crystal ball or I don't have one. If I did, I probably wouldn't be here. But technically, the revenues, what we've projected, if they do come in higher, you may be in a better position. And we don't know. Maybe our vacancy savings from 1514 fiscal year 1415 are going to be greater than we expected. So your fund balance is going to grow at some point. As one of you mentioned. You have to decide, well, to what point do you want to grow it? And at one point in time, you're going to actually start saying, well, you know, this is a lost opportunity for us that we could have spent putting into whatever program you wanted to put it in, which the higher the fund balance grows. Yes, it's a one time money and you may decide to use it for one time purposes. Or you can choose to say, well, you know, this year this is an important item for us that we would like to continue funded. So that's going to be up to you. It's going to be your choice. But the other way to look at it also is if we don't know what's going to happen in 1617, we will have to bring it to you anyway at midyear, or at least I would assume that that's going to be a prudent way to do it, which we'll know more. And you can maybe decide at that point in time if there's any other significant items you want to take a look at. One of the things that Mr. Van Dam said at the April 16th meeting, it's only $1.4 million. Yes, it doesn't look good, but it's a margin of error that we may have expected, which could be from the revenue that we did not projected to be high enough. But as council direction was, we do not want to say that one time revenues are being budgeted in the future years. We've taken those out. We were trying to take a look and say, here's the increases that we're expecting, provided that in the last two years we already had increases in 10 to 15%, which are already built into the base of the revenues. So just by looking at it, we are not living in the bubble and we know that the bubble bursts once in a while. We can only increase it by ten, ten, ten or 15% only for so long. Eventually it's going to slow down. So we don't have a crystal ball to say what it will be. But that's one of those things. It's an estimate that's the best we could have provided. Speaker 0: For right now. All right. At this point, I'd like to call our two speakers, Rob Rato and then John Spangler. Speaker 5: Got a little. Speaker 7: Back to your usual time. Thank you. Speaker 2: God bless you. Rob Reiner, executive director, Park Street Business Association. Speaker 4: And you know, I got to tell you, I've been coming to. Speaker 2: City council budget sessions for 16 years. Okay? And I believe the five of you have an opportunity that the city council has not had since probably 2001. Okay. You're not flush, but you're projecting a 38% reserve at the end of next fiscal year. Speaker 4: You're projecting a 1.4 million. Speaker 2: Deficit the next fiscal year. Speaker 4: You're building a two year budget. Take the shot. Go ahead and accept the $1.4 million deficit. Speaker 2: Fund these people. I will tell you what. Speaker 4: If you guys. Speaker 2: Aren't sending cake to H.R. every damn Thursday afternoon, an ice cream to it. Speaker 4: You're going to have to do something, okay? Speaker 6: They don't have time to eat it. Speaker 2: I know. I will. They go. Speaker 4: You know, you've got an opportunity. I happen to agree with a number of speakers who know far. Speaker 2: More about this than I do. I, I think your revenue projections are way low. Speaker 4: You've got a chance to set a two year budget at funding funding levels that will provide services to the people in this town who either live. Speaker 2: Here or work here. Speaker 4: That had been cut to the bone. You know that I work with the city staff in almost every department on a daily. Speaker 2: Basis during the year. You've got a great staff. Speaker 4: And, you know, I get up here and talk. Speaker 2: About the fire department, the police department a lot, and God bless you. I love you both. Speaker 4: But, you know, I t h r public works. These people are busting their ass for you and the people in this town. Give them some resources. You've got the opportunity. Elaina just set it into you know, when you start going through this process for the next two year budget, you're going to look at what revenue has come in with Alameda landing the houses. And I'm going to make a social comment that I'm not going to make on the record anyplace else possibly development out of Alameda Point. Speaker 2: I know, Marilyn, I should have. Speaker 4: Said it but you know, there are opportunities to increase revenue and that's always the part of the park that always seems to get lost. We always talk about, you know, expenditure, expenditure, expenditure. How about let's get out there and do something about that revenue? Because that's part of it also. And you know, I'm just a bookie guy that runs the business association. Like I said, you guys, the folks behind me, they know more a lot about this. But it just looks so simple to me that you've got this opportunity. And the last, you know, Elaina brought up that that slide from five years ago. I was in this room when they brought out the slide that projected a $25 million. Speaker 2: Deficit this year. Speaker 7: And I have three more seconds. Speaker 0: Yes, I'm on a roll. Speaker 2: And I swear to God. Speaker 4: The fire council members that were out there and I think you were one of them, Frank. I thought they were all going to be throats that night. Well, guess what? It didn't work out that way. Okay. Take the opportunity. Do what you've been elected to do. Show some leadership. Let's get some services and let's move. Speaker 2: On and get some stuff done. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 4: Thank you. I was that animated this late in the evening. Speaker 0: Excellent. Okay, John, you got a hard act to follow there. Speaker 2: Thank you, Mayor Spencer, members of the Council and hard working staff. I have been very impressed ever since I moved to Alameda by the quality of staff. In the city. And I've always felt I had I got my money's worth as a taxpayer, both as a homeowner and as a renter, as well as someone who's sat in these chairs for a number of hours, maybe not as many as Rob, but it's something I hope Rob is sitting down. I want to tell you for the record, I agree with everything he just said about the city budget. And I wish I could be sitting down and say that. But here's the approach I want to build on what Rob just said, which is what I what I started with. And I thank the interim city manager and other people have provided me for information on this. My first point coming in tonight was to support the public information officer. The reason for that is that despite the advances in technology that we heard about tonight and had been going on for a number of years, the city's information distribution and management. Process is still hierarchical from the top down. City sends out information out to the community and cast its bread on the waters, and then it sort of disappears. Each department is in its own little silo. Side by side. Not really communicating that much in terms of community involvement, especially across departments. If you had a public information officer whose sole job was to flatten the communication network in the city of Alameda. So that the city's communication network was flattened and more horizontal, not hierarchical, top down and bottom up so that you got more community input from more people. On more topics. One of the outcomes of that could be you'd have more ideas on how the city could raise money from new sources. That's one. Two, if you go to the ballot with a new tax measure or change in the utilities tax, as was mentioned, you're more likely to get a yes vote. The third important aspect of the public information officer is going to be transparency. There are some people in this town who wouldn't trust anybody in city hall as far as they could throw. Now, whether that is as direct or not as an impression that they might have. And I don't think it's correct. The impression exists. And a public information officer could go a long way to make transparent. Everything that goes on in the city. I'd like to go on because I've been here through what I count, about ten budget items. Speaker 0: Please continue. Speaker 2: I'll do my best rabbi to be quick, but I think this is really important to get more input input from the city all the way across. The closest example we have is public works, using this open community process on some of their public works projects. That's the only one I know of in the city. Now it goes without saying the department's going to need to be in on this. But if you go through the city website, the new city website, which is supposed to be more transparent, it's still hard to navigate. And the information is not a two way street. It's one way from the city out. And that gets very frustrating. I want to contribute more. I couldn't beard six had to pick my wife at the train station, but I might have been able to send a text message if if that option had existed in the budget session while I was waiting for her to come in. That doesn't exist now. That's one of the options to put something detailed on. As to public safety. If I were king and I'm not and I don't envy any of you the amount of work you have to do with all those numbers. I would like to see another 8 to 10 public safety officers. In this town. How the police department alone could use ten. In order to really get community policing literally on the ground, to have police officers walking the business districts, have bicycles, bicycling, bicycle peddling, officers out on the streets, have more officers out doing community education intervention and more traffic enforcement. I'm not going to tell you to even try to tell you how many people I see driving at 40 miles an hour before they get to the tubes at six in the morning when I take Linda to the train. Four or five days a week. And that's when it's dark. And that's the kind of condition in which a woman was murdered by a speeding car at Eagle and Constitution a few years ago. Huh? Murdered. Cars are deadly weapons. We're not doing enough to enforce that. It also would solve the burglaries that took place in broad daylight in my own neighborhood a couple of days ago. Somebody wanted to unplugged an air compressor and walked away with it while the woman was in the house with the door open. Speaker 0: You could right a wind up. Thanks. Speaker 2: I'm counting 3 minutes for such an item. Only tonight, but that's pretty much what I have to say, actually. Thank you. And I really think it is time to to work on putting. More people back into the service provision aspect of this budget so that it will pay the dividend dividends, including how to figure out how to get more revenue into the city. Thank you very much. Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. At this point, any other comments? Speaker 7: Yeah. Speaker 1: Oh, yeah. Speaker 0: Member de sa. Speaker 1: Thank you very much. There's a lot. Here to digest. So I think my. 5000 feet in the air. Observation recommendation. You know, this is just something for the city manager and staff to think about is and for the public to think about is. I think we need to begin from the outset of saying, you know, we keep saying we have a 38% general fund reserve. I think what people might want to say instead is we have a general fund reserve right now of $30.8 million. Right. My reading there. Speaker 2: Right. Mm. Speaker 1: I mean, I think I'm reading that right. Ending fund balance $30.8 million. Right? Right. I mean, that's a lot of money. And I realize that we're always wary of taking on costs that will continue down the down the road. When we have. You know, with regard to any amount of revenue streams that we have from the vantage point of the public, I think these are costs that that people want. So, I mean, as one council member, I think I am willing to spend I would suggest that we spend some amount of that general fund reserve towards that $1.4 million deficit. And the way that I would principal prioritize it is using the principle of. You know basically things that that assist kids. And when I think look at the things that assist kids you know I do see the $55,000 parks and swim maintenance that's on the possible chopping block. And I do see $360,000 for the school resource officer and I do see the $28,000 in materials for the library. And I know this isn't part of the general fund. I do know that the Parks and Rec Department would like a program manager. I know it's not part of the general fund, but nonetheless. I think. You know, and to make it whole. I mean, I would. One thing that I would love to go to bat for is to do that for two years now. Or 1516. How does that affect the. If we take those things off the table using that 30.8, a portion of the $30.8 million reserve, as then that lessen the $1.4 million. I haven't done the math, but I think are lessons that $900,000, by the way, do math. So then it becomes the close, the gap of $900,000 using, you know, whatever mixture of strategies that we have here. So and I want to say one one last thing. You know, I realize that the fire department, you know, needs to figure out how to deal with the need for three more workers. So I realize that. But and so I'm not precluding that as a councilmember. All I'm saying is my priority of using some portion of that $30.8 million of reserve or as these kids type of. Thank you. Speaker 0: Enemy member OTI. Speaker 7: Thank you, Madam Mayor and I really enjoyed my first budget presentation. For all the general fund entities, today is very informational. So I'm going to make one specific comment and then kind of go back to the to the high level. You know, I think if we look at, you know, the cost savings for eliminating the disaster preparedness position and that's about 210,000 over the next two years. And if you plug that into the two year budget and you basically turn that 1.4 into a 1.2, and if you net that deficit in 1617 with the 1.2 estimated surplus in 1516 over the two year budget process, and we're doing a two year budget today, you know, we have zero deficit over the two year process. So. You know, that's an idea. But, you know, I think if we're we're looking at two years and, you know, rather than look at each year as a chunk, you know, look at the to look at the big picture. So I just want to go back a couple of years. 2013, you kind of bring a little bit of my experience, you know, working at the state. You know, if you remember back then we were coming out of the recession, the state had six years of of disastrous budgets where we had massive cuts, not not unlike what we faced here at the city and that a lot of my colleagues had to go through and had to make those tough decisions. And then we, as the voters passed Prop 30, it's temporary income, kind of similar to our one time income and one time revenues that we have here in the city. We have it. You know, we're going to do something with it, but we know we can't count on it forever. And then we had a governor who basically began to do a couple of things. You know, one, he would have conservative revenue estimates and he'd come out with a budget in January. And this is three years in a row now. He's done this. He came out with the budget in January with revenue estimates that were far below what the legislature thought they would be. And then he revised them a little bit in May and upward, but they were still far lower than the legislature estimated they would be. And ultimately those estimates were far lower than the actual revenues that we encountered in the state. So we've seen it now for two years and next week we'll see them revised and we'll know whether his his revenue numbers are going to increase. But, you know, I imagine they are. But what he did was he basically said, let's put some money away to take care of some of our long term for a rainy day fund, which we kind of have at the city. We have reserves in case we have a disaster or an earthquake or any other issue. You know, put some way to solve some of the structural problems facing the state. You know, we took care of some work, taking care of some of our infrastructure. We spent some money on, you know, shoring up the teachers retirement system. So things like that that, you know, long term issues that we needed to take care of. And then the third thing was begin to grow some of these programs when we were in that austerity mode of six years, you know, rather than go back and keep cutting, we began to restore and not spend wildly like drunken sailors, but, you know, spend responsibly and invest in things that, you know, are important to us. So what I look at the decisions, you know, we're facing today, you know, we have whether it's 38% or 30.8 million, you know, we'll keep it at 30.8 million, four points of discussion if we're trying to today come up with a plan that over the course of the next five years, you know, eliminates an operating deficit, well, then that's going to be $30.8 million in the bank in our reserves in 1920. So what I'm having difficulty, you know, explaining to constituents and what I will have difficulty is saying, okay, we have 38% reserves. We want to maintain 38% reserves or 31, 30, 30, 31 million in the bank. But you at the same time, we want you to pay more tax or say to constituents, we want to maintain this high level reserve money in the bank. Yet we want to tell some of these staff members that are part time, sorry, you're out of here. We don't want you anymore because we need to be austere or tell the folks on Bay Farm that, sorry, guys, we want to keep 38% reserves and 30 million in the bank because and so you're not going to have an ambulance. And by the way, your bridge is going to be shut down during the day. So that ambulance that that now is going to have to come from the main island is going to be delayed even longer or tell the kids, you know, this this issue of police and community relations, you know, that's one of the civil rights issues of our time. And one of the important ways you can build community trust with the police department is to have these officers, you know, in the schools when kids are young and formative and learning. I got a call from a teacher today who said, why are you considering cutting that? I got a call from a Board of Education or email from a Board of Education member yesterday. So I don't know how I can go out and explain to them we're doing this so we can keep $30 million in the bank five years from now. And the same thing with the park in the swim, you know, in the library, materials and graffiti. You know, I'll tell you that in my day job, the most complaints I get from citizens in Alameda besides Caltrans is graffiti. I mean, that's something we care about. And to sit there and say, well, we're not going to wash your graffiti because, you know, we want to put more money in the bank or we want to keep the money in the bank that we have now. That doesn't mean we can't be responsible. So, I mean, I understand that, you know, we don't want to rely on one time revenues, but I think it's important that, you know, we try to come out of this. Early period and start, you know, restoring some of the cuts and not continuing to be in this cut, cut, cut mode. And, you know, I'm concerned about the vacancies. This is my last point because, you know, I think that's that's going to fall largely on the backs of the police department because of the nature of hiring, you know, the nature of how long it takes to hire. And, you know, just today we heard the slide. You know, today we had to redesign the slide because these are the vacancies we have today. You know, tomorrow they may be different a month from now, they may be different, but the police department is still probably going to have four vacancies on that slide no matter what day we do it. And I just feel if if we decide that we're not going to fill vacancies or permanently take that money off the table and and permanently cut, you know, these staff positions that we're doing it on the backs of our police officers and they're out there keeping us safe every day. So that's kind of my thoughts. You know, on a high level, I think that, you know, we have a bit of savings. I don't think we should spend it all. I think we still have to find ways that we can be efficient and save money. But, you know, at this point, you know, we have the purse smoothing, which I understand is a one time five year thing. And I think we should use some of our one time reserve money to address that and not continue to cut services and continue to cut employees. Speaker 0: The other comments member ASHCROFT. Speaker 6: And I'll try to be brief because I know we've all been here a long time, and I think I said earlier that I do think it's time to ease up a little on our on the purse strings of that 38% reserve the going over. And I do appreciate all the departments who were asked to propose 1.4% cuts for doing that. I do happen to agree with the city manager eliminating the disaster preparedness position, in part because in the reading I've done about that proposal in the years, almost three years now that I've been on the Council, it's always a bit different going in a different direction. Staff from a different perspective. And I also think that so I think we're a little unclear on exactly what the mission is going to be, but I think there may be some redundancy across the departments with fire and police that are doing some some very similar issues, addressing some very similar issues. And also, there may be some other funding sources that we can look into. So that's a code that I do agree with on the 1.4% proposals. The school resource officer, I think my colleague, Mr. Cody raises a good point and the police chief said it very eloquently too, that it's really important to build these relationships between police and young people. I come from a background as a probation officer and I worked in a small department. So with from juvenile to adult, I understand that I. All I'm saying is that I think we have to realistically look and ask for every possible funding source we've got. Are people in every department beating the bushes to look for grant funding and other sources of revenue. So I would just respectfully ask the school district, presumably this is an important issue to you, too. Can you help us out at all with it? Similar to the way the Housing Authority is helping fund the officers that APD provides them? Maybe the answer is no, we can't. But I think the ask is at least a reasonable one, because we also heard the chief police chief say it is not easy to fill police positions and on patrol on our streets. So just, you know, assistance from this is all one community. We work together. But I think it's a reasonable question to at least ask. And I think, you know, I think we've we've certainly made it clear that not only do we not need to make the departments cut so much, we definitely need to fill the needs that we heard about the I.T. woefully understaffed. And and you're not pointing any fingers of blame. But and I and I know there was an earlier council meeting where, you know, I kind of grumbled about a slide in a couple bullet points in a PowerPoint presentation. Don't don't make the case for me. Make your case. You've made your case. So I'm on board for on board to support what you're doing. But I think I think we probably are pretty similar minds up here that we want to we want to be fiscally prudent, but not at the expense of the safety and well-being of our residents. Thank you. Speaker 0: I swear. Speaker 2: I think we have more departments to hear from on the 12th. So we're about, you know, two thirds of the way there. I do think that the $30.8 million that is in the fund balance is an indication that we've squeezed and that money really does need to be put back into the system. And I think one of the things I'd like to see it is to a portion of that money, and I think there's a recommendation somewhere in this presentation, there's an option to put it toward future PERS liability. And I think that is very important as well as. Seen in some of those funds. And spending the money on some of those funds that relate to deferred maintenance in the city. I think now is the time to. Put the money in the fund. It may not be the time to quite spend it yet because it's a difficult time to get a good deal on contracts is a lot of work being done. But I think it should be at least earmarked so that we we don't save money to save money. And our goal is not at least my goal is not to set up a budget that preserves $30.8 billion 1920. My goal is to see what is our operating revenue that we can count on and to make sure we stay as close to that. And when I when I my standard is if we've got to hit that mark plus or -5%. And have that's what the fun balance of 15, 20, whatever the standard is and I think we can make our own standard based on past look back. Our fund balance is what buffers us in the downtime and we have great history that we can we can use to identify what the reserve is. Looking back at the period from 2004 to 2000 and where we are today, 2015, and we should get a good indication of what our our reserve really needs to be. So those are my comments. For now, I have a hard time losing the ambulance off of Bay Farm Island. I have a hard time losing the site resource officers at the high school. If there's another way to do it and still stay within our envelope. Let's do it. If we can't do it, then we have a choice to make. And those two stand out. At least prominently in my mind. And I the the it situation is it's a matter we have to invest cannot not invest. And whether it's more efficient to staff up or whether. Or efficient to contract up in current staff. I'll leave it to to the management to figure out what the best way to do it. Just us saying that it's a priority is what our job is. So. That's my comment. I. Speaker 0: Thank you. I'm going to ask. I remember. Speaker 1: I could wait. All right. Speaker 0: So first of all, I want to thank everyone that came out watching us on TV, all the comments, all the work that went into each of these presentations. I had requested presentations from departments. And for me, it's very. It was extremely informative. So I'm really appreciative of all the work that went into these presentations and I am looking forward to hearing from the other departments. I think I agree with the majority of the comments from my colleagues up here regards to. It is important for us. I'm I'm concerned with cuts to a staff. The the hardship that imposes on our departments. I but I see and I in the office is staff really working really really hard and trying and I'm going to stay and trying to keep up with this council. I think it's created even more work for our staff, quite honestly. In regards to cutting these part time positions on some of the departments. I think what actually happens then is that you're either working your staff too much or they're they are outsourcing or they're doing overtime. That still does not that doesn't pencil out really at the end. And it's hard on our staff. It really is hard on our staff. So I think we have to look at spending and the result spending more of the reserves, at least at this point in time, and correcting some of the. Or that be put on that the employees have been burying over time. So. City attorney's office, you know, going over business, eliminating these part time positions. I would not support that. Same with the city clerk. I really don't know. But that would even look like I don't think they can run up and down the stairs any faster. City Manager I would agree with member Ashcraft that that could remain vacant at this point. I don't see it as a priority of finance, the part time positions there. And I think that would be I would prefer not eliminating those positions. h.R. I don't know the value of not having these trainings and whatnot that this is not people cutting staff. Of the swim center maintenance. I'm concerned about cutting that. The fire, the ambulance service, that could very well be a problem for multiple reasons that we've heard this evening, but especially I think, in regards to the bridge that we have to be very mindful of that some of the SRO officers. That's an amazing long term investment. That's that's really what it is. Public works the graffiti and the Theresa. I think that that also. No. Maintenance. So. So did you sing Janitor Tara from the three, 3 to 2 days? I'm not I'm not sure that we can't have that, but I'm concerned about how they're being paid. On the on that second page, the top four positions. I think that those if we could fill those, I think that would be great. And the other ones, we may need to fill those because of the term phantom savings, which I will repeat here, if if we're in if we're creating overtime and putting so much fear and terror on our staff, then we have a problem. So. And then. So I think I'm very similar reminded as all of you. And then we'll see when we hear from the balance of our departments what what our numbers will look like. Any other comments from staff? Did you want to comment? Speaker 5: Well, I actually just would like to make a general comment to to all the departments. Just want to say thank you very much. As you can see, there was a lot of time and effort put into this. I don't think any one of them wanted to make the cuts, but we asked them and they all came up with what they thought were cuts that not that they would want to live with, but that that that you could all take a look at that you had some options. So I just I just wanted to say kind of a shout out to our department heads to thank you for all the work that you all did. And so I think well, I've really kind of what I've heard clearly we're not going to go forward with the resiliency disaster preparedness officer will take a look at some of the other things that we can save, like some of the contributions, lowering some of the contributions. But I'm hearing that there may be some appetite for using some of the reserves just in this next year. So we'll bring that back to you, see what that looks like next. Now, next week, we're just going to be doing the other departments. And then on on June 2nd, the plan was that based on your comments from tonight and your comments next week, that we would bring you a whole package on June 2nd to approve. I just wanted to make sure that everybody was okay with that. Speaker 0: Yes. Thank you. Hearing no objection. I think that means the rate. All right, so at this point, we can. Speaker 3: Oh, no. What else do we have in communications? That, if you don't mind, we would like to do one thing, right? Speaker 5: Yes. So last night you all agreed to add another meeting on the Wednesday, the second Wednesday in June and July. As it turns out, the mayor and I both have a conflict on that evening. And we are hoping that actually that we could do it on the Tuesday instead.

Regular Agenda Item

Presentations by General Fund Departments on Proposed Budget for Fiscal Years 2015-16 and 2016-17. (Finance 2410) [Continued from April 29, 2015]

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_05052015_2015-1632

Speaker 1: Six A receiver report on the Mastic Senior Center 2014 Annual Report. Speaker 0: To present this evening. Speaker 3: We told you we'd be back. Speaker 6: Good evening, Madam Mayor. And City Council and staff. I'm Jackie Kraus, recreation manager with the Alameda Recreation and Parks Department. Speaker 3: And I'm Ron Lemos and my second term as president of the Master. Speaker 6: Domestic Senior Center opened its doors on July 1980. So we're going into our 35th year. It's a former elementary school. Speaker 5: And. Speaker 6: There's 30,000 square feet of fun. Speaker 0: At Mastic. Speaker 6: The property also has two apartments that occupy the former principal's office. So we have a studio and a two bedroom apartment. And there's also a double bungalow behind us, which is used as a preschool. Speaker 3: I'm supposed to read the mission. Speaker 6: Talking to the microphone, because then we'll all be able to hear you. Speaker 3: Think it's supposed to speak to the mission. But before I do that, I want to simply thank most of you. Can you hear me all right? Speaker 0: That if you stand directly in front of it. Sorry. Speaker 3: Sounds really loud from my point of view. I want to thank all of you that came to our volunteer recognition dinner a couple of weeks, lunch a couple of weeks ago. It was a very special event. More than 280 volunteers were recognized for thousands of hours, as you'll be hearing. But it was particularly warming to have them new members, particularly new members and a couple of the older members of council there. So thank you for doing that. The mission of the Mastic Senior Center is to provide a well-rounded education, social and recreation program for adults 50 years of age and older. So 50 years of age and older. Remember our vision statement is that the mastic? I see the look on your face. Mastic Senior Center's vision is to offer a variety of quality programs and services in the areas of health, education and recreation to our seniors and to the community. Speaker 6: Bring a microphone, Jacqui. You've got and you've got a song. Here we go. Yeah. Okay. Speaker 7: So don't need it by the end of the presentation. Speaker 6: So senior served during in 2014, 148,520 visits to the senior center. So those are seniors, but there are also family, friends, neighbors, anybody seeking services to support somebody that they love or care about during that time. Our membership was 3401. As of April, the end of April this year, our membership is at 3434. So the the center is growing. The membership grows. During 2014, we've served 630 folks in tech service. We provided transit or travel and trip opportunities for 1012 people. So each month we do. Speaker 5: A monthly trip where. Speaker 6: Folks can travel outside of Alameda, but we also do extended travel and we partner with collect tours. And so some of those trips for 2014 included a trip to the Tournament of Roses Parade, the French Riviera and New York City Islands of New England and Portugal. And then we do fundraising at the senior center and. Speaker 0: And back in 1980. Speaker 6: I meant to say earlier that the city realized that they could not solely support Mastic Senior Center, and the senior community realized that they couldn't solely support Mastic Senior Center. So we are a very wonderful partnership. So we do fundraising through the Mastic Senior Center Advisory Board. So 6173 residents 18 years of age and older came out to play bingo, whereas 12,875 sales happened in the thrift shop. So if you think that there was many lookie loos, every time you go to a store, you don't always make a purchase. It's quite vibrant. Speaker 0: At our location. Speaker 3: Our demographics are really quite interesting. About 41% of the number of members that Jackie just mentioned are of the boomer generation from 50 to 69, which means if your math is good, that close to 50% or 49% of our members are between the ages of 70 and 80 plus. And believe me, if you come over and spend any part of a morning or an afternoon over there, you will see very active seniors. And if you've never seen pickleball played, come over. Speaker 6: So knowing that we were in the midst of a baby boom, we continually reevaluate our program to try to keep everybody happy, if possible and when possible, so that we are serving the 72, 80 plus crowd, but also trying new activities to bring in the 50 plus crowd. So Support Services Mastic Senior Center. The city of Alameda receives a grant through the area agency on Aging of around $25,000 per year. And we also bring awareness to the programs that the county supports. So some of those are highlighted, one being the health insurance counseling program. Speaker 5: So four times a. Speaker 6: Month we have a rep from a volunteer actually from the High CAPP office that comes out to provide information on insurance counseling. So even if you have a medical bill that you're having troubles with it and you just can't follow the tracking of following through and calling to try to resolve the bill. If you feel that it's incorrect, the high cap counselor can help you with that. And also through the county is legal assistance for seniors. So they do have limited services that they can provide, but yet they do come out to the center and then the transportation services through Measure B and Measure B funds. We have the East Bay Paratransit services. We help with applications. We have the Mr. Tip program, which provides rides help ride home from the medical appointments, the premium taxi program, and then the shuttle that circulates that community on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, which is open to all residents. However, we try to provide seating to seniors or the disabled individuals first, but in addition, we offer consumer presentations. So that's an opportunity to come out to learn about some of these topics in more detail. And not only do we provide educational opportunities, we also do fun things like we do. We do laughter, yoga. We're going to do something in October where we focus on beauty. So there's we try to serve our interest. We have a nice gentleman in our community, a retired dentist who comes out and provides dental consultation. He volunteers his time. That way you can get a second opinion for free and a podiatrist within our community that comes out to provide consultation as well. The tax preparation assistance. I'm always most pleased with that. In 2014 we served 630 folks. Speaker 0: And with that we provided refunds in the amount of glasses work. Speaker 6: And they don't work. I have $323,652 and also taxes do of 85,962. But what's really, I think moving is that people saved $80,850 because the average cost to have your tax prepared and this is an an inexpensive fee is $150. So that money saved and stayed in somebody's pocket. And then in 2014, we were able to collaborate and partner with Alameda Family Services, which is really huge for us because we've always experienced. Individuals that need case management services and we are not mere recreation, so we're not really skilled or staffed to provide case management services. And we have over the years provided information and referral to some of these other county or city entities. But we cannot follow the case through. And Alameda Family Services has been able to really help those individuals and, you know, specifically seniors. And you don't often hear of shelters that provide shelter for homeless seniors. So it's a unique area and it's something that has really helped staff and really help those that we serve. So that's been. Speaker 0: A real bonus for us. Speaker 3: In addition to all excuse me, in addition to all these big things, we also focus on food security among our population, which, as you all know, particularly in Alameda County, is a very, very serious issue. We address that through a reasonably priced lunch offered every day to individuals 60 and older. That provides an opportunity both for a nutritional meal, but also the terribly important aspect of socialization as well. An opportunity to be with other people for part of the day and be with other people over a meal is an ideal way of doing it. We have served almost 6700 lunches last year. We have also been in the participated in the process of delivering something in excess of £30,000 of food. We put out bread and all kinds of other food packages and parcels. We even have an organic garden that is growing rapidly and we have put out close to 3200 bags of organic greens and vegetables that people can pick up on their own on a monday. And believe me, they put out 110 bags out and they're gone in 15 minutes. Each bag contains one serving of a salad or green. So we do a lot on small items as well as the big items. Speaker 6: So the members of Mastic are phone microphones. Thank you. They then ask the members of Mastic are the role models for healthy active living. 23,064 attended fitness classes now that there is some duplication there. But that does show you that folks value our program and they value it enough that they continue to participate in the program. So whether it's fitness three days a week, yoga twice a week, Pilates dance, you name it, we offer every type of dance class. 24,842 participate in intellectual classes. So we're fortunate enough to offer computer classes, foreign language, and that we offer English as a second language. American Sign Language German Conversation Group. French Conversation. Spanish and Italian. Current events. Ceramics. Stained glass. We're really fortunate. And then 17,242 participated in social interaction. So that could be coming into play bridge, sitting together and putting a puzzle together and special events that we offer at the center. Okay. Yes, it is. So funding. So as mentioned prior the recreation department matchsticks a division of and they provide 85% of the funding for the center. However, the Mastic Senior Center Advisory Board, through their fundraising avenues provide 15% of the budget. And so this past year, we generated $169,710 through fundraising and donations. $23,134 went into capital projects at that included getting wi fi up and running. Finally, it was quite a feat at Mastec because the building is built like a fort. Our walls are very solid and so to get the signals to transmit and we removed the dry rot at belly banned decorative molding from the exterior of the social hall and replaced the overhang over the social hall. We went around and painted all the railings. We worked with a professional landscape. Speaker 5: Firm to come up with. Speaker 6: A drought tolerant landscape plan moving forward. And we've also explored purchasing stationery, fitness equipment to go in outdoors. We also are working on adding a bocce ball court and a putting green for our members to use. And we've been working with color consultants because the surplus that was 78,683 will be rolled into painting the exterior as well as repairing the dry rod. Speaker 0: For the building. Speaker 3: The center is managed essentially by the senior center advisory board. It's a 15 member board. We have ten active committees. So there's a lot of volunteer time put in the management of the facility and the management of the programing under Jackie's supervision. The board also manages and operates and sets strategy and goals for two primary fundraising programs, our bingo program, which generates about 40 $800 a month for Saturdays a month, we provide bingo to 100 plus people and our thrift shop, which is open two days a week and provides approximately 70 $200 a month in profit. And again, all of these are run by volunteers. We've done a direct letter campaign and we're talking about other strategies going forward to look at raising additional dollars. And the key reason for these additional dollars is to maintain what we like to think of as our asset. But indeed, it's your asset that we're maintaining with you. And we have done that to the tune of just slightly over $1,000,000 in the last 20 years. And we're putting a good deal more into painting and repairing. So if you come and visit the center, you'll see it's an amazingly well-maintained building given its age and the heavy use it gets. And a lot of that has to do with what the Mastic Senior Center Advisory Board is able to raise and manage as capital investment for you and the community. The volunteers, as I mentioned in my thank you to you for coming to the recognition luncheon a couple of weeks ago are, of course, the heart of the Mastic Senior Center program. They serve as board members. They manage the front desk, they serve lunch, they teach classes. They do tax preparation at no fee. They coordinate and assist with the thrift shop and the bingo, both of which take an enormous number of people to manage effectively and well and safely. We have over 200 volunteers who have put in just under 25000 hours of volunteer time at a savings of just under $500,000 in labor costs. And that's 12 full time staff equivalents. So that's 12 employees essentially on your payroll based on the work and the activity we're trying to do to generate support for the seniors in the community. You want to do this one? I mean, anywhere. Oops. Too fast. We're almost done. One more page, maybe. Speaker 7: Well, think again. Speaker 6: Oh. Different. So this is the. Speaker 3: This was the one time on a recent master's survey we sent out. We've done several surveys, actually. We're beginning to acquire a great deal of information about how people come to the Mastic Senior Center and what they need from the senior center. And we've developed a fairly strong program of surveying, and we looked at the AARP database of 8000 names and we sent out a survey and 90% of the respondents, 90% of the AARP audience. Are familiar with the Mastic Senior Center 90%. That's an astonishing piece of marketing and public relations. 94% of the respondents would recommend Mastic Senior Center to a friend or a family member. Most of that awareness and attention was generated through the activity guide, obviously, but also simply by driving by the Mastic Senior Center. And I guess the last point I want to make is we have, as you heard at the very beginning, just under 3500 members. That's 5% of your population and they all vote. Thank you so much for supporting the work of Mastec, for supporting the seniors and the community, and for your attention and interest to our work. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 6: I also wanted to add that on Wednesday, May 27th, we are doing a walk for older Americans month, so we'll be walking two and a half miles this year. We thought we would just come down Santa Clara to city hall, visit the rec office and head on back that from 10 to 2. We're partnering with Alameda Elder Communities and we are doing. Speaker 5: A. Speaker 6: Kind of a fair we'll have all kinds of different classes offered at 30 minute intervals and different community members talking about different services that they offer to the senior senior community. So I invite you all to come out and join us on Wednesday, the 27th. Speaker 0: And don't you have a fashion show come in? Speaker 6: We have a fashion show coming up next Thursday, and we have several. Speaker 0: Models here with. Speaker 6: Us now. So we still have tickets available. They're $20. They support the center, but it's next Thursday. Doors open at 11. Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Member comments. Speaker 9: I just want to say that sounds fantastic. As Carlos Carlos Santana used to say, Mastic is fantastic. Speaker 0: Remember, Audie. Speaker 4: Just real briefly, thank you for the presentation and thank you for all the work. I mean, Mastic is really one of the finest community assets we have. And I appreciate all the work that the staff has done and all the volunteers. So thanks very much. Speaker 0: And I'd like to add that you also have a notary, Mr. Brunetti and that's another important service to many of us that you can get there. We have a motion to receive the report. Speaker 3: A move that con. Speaker 0: All those in favor by unanimously passes. Thank you. Six P.

Regular Agenda Item

Receive Report on the Mastick Senior Center 2014 Annual Report. (Recreation and Parks Department 5195)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_05052015_2015-1627

Speaker 1: Adoption of resolution, adding additional 2015 regular city council meeting dates and council. This item is before you tonight because we on staff have been trying to spread out the big beefy items among various agendas, but there have just been a lot of them. And one of the things that's prohibited on a special meeting is introduction of an ordinance. So an item such as Site A that might involve an ordinance couldn't go on a special meeting night because we would have to have it on a regular night to introduce the ordinance. So what we were looking at is potentially adding an additional meeting the second Wednesday of the month. So you'd have the first and third Tuesday and then the second Wednesday for your regular meetings. This would be done through the end of the year with still going dark in August and basically staff is really just trying to get through the big items that you're facing, like the city manager recruitment site a the budget. And we know we've had a lot of extra special meetings lately, but this would just be once a month and it could be canceled if in fact there aren't sufficient items and that we we could keep it down to the two regular meetings a month. So really, this is open for discussion and we really just we're trying to get out of here earlier is the main goal. So with that, I don't know if Liz wants to add anything or no. Speaker 5: I think Laura pretty much has covered it. We we recognize that we've been going late. There's a possibility of going late. And we wanted to give you the option of adding more meetings so you didn't have to do that and sort of adding meetings on the fly. So this is just a recommendation. And we'd you know, we're open to the discussion. Speaker 0: New member. ASHCROFT Thank. Speaker 6: You. So when I first read this, I kind of cringed at the thought of adding more meetings because you have no idea. We read hundreds of pages of material, it seems like every every month, every couple of times, a few times a month. And I know it's hard on staff and it's hard for members of the public to come out for extra meetings. But I've talked to some staff members, including our amazing city clerk, Laura Weisinger, and I'm convinced that at least in the near term, we need to do this because as both our interim city manager and city clerk noted, we do have some some meaty big ticket items coming before us. And we don't have to go all the way to December with these Wednesday meetings, if it looks like, you know, we came out in July and we just are you know, it's smooth sailing. We don't have heavy agendas. We can always vote to go back to our two Tuesdays a month. But I think for now it makes sense. So I, for one, am going to support this resolution. Thank you. Speaker 0: Any other member comments? Ben Brody. Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'm actually not going to support this. I cringed when I saw it and still cringing thinking about it. We had four meetings in April, as well as a closed session that lasted, I think, 3 hours. And then we have four meetings scheduled in May. And I realize that, you know, we're all new working together and we're working out some of the kinks. But, you know, the message I, I take from this from staff is, you know, we could be as a council and I say we, including myself, you know, more efficient in the things that we do, more efficient in our comments. You know, we talked about road diets. Maybe we should go on a speech diet during some of our comments because, you know, a lot of the things add up. And now the mayor, you know, is giving the courtesy to the public to go over 3 minutes. And, you know, I hope that the public, you know, respects that courtesy and still stays within the 3 minutes, because if you if you have 30 people talk and they each go over a minute, that's one minute. You know, if we have five I mean, that's 30 minutes more to a meeting. If you have five agenda items and, you know, we all talk an extra 2 minutes on those those five agenda items, that's another 50 minutes, I think. So, you know, Oakland, which has a lot bigger problems and a lot longer agendas, has four minute caps on on what the council members can say. And, you know, some of us are our attorneys and we're trained to, you know, argue our motions in a short period of time. And, you know, I think the message I receive is let's try to be a little more efficient and let's try to be more respectful of the chair and her ability to and let her run the meetings. And I think we can we can maybe revisit this in three months if we're still having having these issues. Speaker 0: Yeah. The member comments. Member de SAC. Speaker 9: Thank you. From my vantage point, there are several questions. The first question that I asked was, you know, what can we do to make sure that the public is well-served? And I think the public is well-served when our staff is fresh and on their toes from meeting to meeting. So from that vein, I am open to the what's put tonight. So I'm fine with it, but and I'm even fine with moving forward with it. But by the same token, I wouldn't mind hearing what the Sunshine Committee has to say about this, but I think we can still move forward. So if they want to chime in, let them. Speaker 0: Vice Mayor. Speaker 2: Thank you. When I was on the council before we had our because we had redevelopment and there was the element of reuse and restoration authority which handled issues the base. The base is still being looked at for development. So it didn't go away, but the meeting went away. I'm for this as long as we don't start the second Wednesday of the month in May. Because we already have too many meetings in May. Not too many. But the necessary meetings may, I think, to pile on would be counterproductive. But I do think until the base is substantially under the rest of the city, that it is appropriate to have set aside an additional meeting a month. To address the timely discussion and also to allow the public to be able to participate at a reasonable hour. Again in these issues of of base development, as well as the complex running of the city that we have now. So. Speaker 0: So I appreciate vice mayors saying reasonable hour because my concern is that we will be here after 11:00, at least three days a week and probably more. And I, I would be the council. Is that something that you would entertain, that we would set a time of being done by 11:00? Speaker 6: Yes. I thought you were going to ask if we might try to do what our counterparts in Oakland do and limit ourselves to 4 minutes. Speaker 0: And my concern is being done by 11:00. Speaker 6: I mean, I think that might help us do that. Not that. Speaker 0: It's unfair. I'm sorry I asked a specific question. I'm looking for agreement by council that we would be done by 11:00 if in fact, we are looking at being here after 11:00. I do not plan to support this. I would agree with member ODY that this needs to go back to open government then because I think we do have a problem in regards to public. These are to be public meetings. Our public has already had the opportunity for years to know that we have these meetings on set dates and these would be additional dates that they may very well have other commitments on Wednesdays and not knowing and not and have their schedule ready to go without being able to participate in these meetings. And in regards to the coming of ordinances at regular meetings. I don't think it would be appropriate to bring an ordinance on a Wednesday where we have not normally had a meeting in that. Again, I think it goes to public participation and I would suggest it goes back to the open government then for approval for their feedback. I think that's what they're about and I agree with the member Odie on that. Speaker 4: Yes, the mayor, I'd like to actually thank you for your comments motion that we tabled this for 60 days and send it to the Open Government Commission for their comments. Speaker 0: Sarah Second. I'll second that. Any discussion. Speaker 2: I think that scaling up for 60 days eats up any value that we're going to get from adding extra meetings. So, you know, I do think that if we don't have to and I have to introduce ordinances at these Wednesday meetings, I see there's plenty of other activities. And just in the normal course of running the city that we place here and having the ordinance introductions to at a regularly scheduled meeting. I think we can live with that. This provides us with the with the initial debate, the ability to be able to hear initiatives among our many council referrals, to hear the follow up, which I'm checking off the boxes because we have a bunch of council referrals that hit at the beginning of the year that are about due for their their follow up and response from staff. So we need capacity. And I think that if we have these meeting dates scheduled. We'll be able to use them. Speaker 7: Anna maria. I just make one clarification. The idea of this resolution is to make these regular, regular meetings, which would then allow for ordinances to be introduced at them. I mean, we can always add special meetings like we're doing. In fact, tomorrow is a special meeting. But this the intent of this resolution is to make these added meetings, regular meetings. Speaker 2: Madam, every underscore my point is, and I think the point the mayor was making is Tuesday night's city council night. That's the regular meeting. These are add on meetings. And I think this council can choose not to introduce ordinances at the ADD on meetings so that we can have people in the normal normal course of time come to a meeting where there's an ordinance to be introduced. Like I said, there's plenty of other city business that doesn't require introducing an ordinance that we could fill these meetings with and have people get out of here at a reasonable time. Speaker 6: May I come in? Speaker 0: Member Ashcroft Thank. Speaker 6: You, Mayor Spencer. I actually wouldn't want to tie staff's hands, especially because I think in the near term there may be the need to hear ordinances at some of these special meetings. Again, this wouldn't start until June. And then we're talking about June and July. We go dark in August and we can see what happens from there on out. But I, I do agree with the vice mayor's initial assessment that this at this particular point in time, it would be a good idea to add this additional meeting per month. Speaker 0: Member, Odie. Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam Mayor. I mean it. If someone wants to propose a compromise that we just do this and June, July and then reevaluate it, I mean, I could probably support that. I just think adding six more meetings at it for the rest of the year. You know, we're already meeting enough. We need to be a little more efficient in getting through our stuff. Speaker 6: Do we need just procedurally, do we need to vote on the motion before us because it's been moved and seconded, or does it have to be withdrawn before we can consider? I mean. Speaker 4: I can outright. I don't think the votes are there, so I'll just withdraw. Speaker 0: Do we have ever met Amir? Speaker 9: I want to say that the compromise idea that Councilmember Brody mentioned is a good incremental steps. It still it it satisfies the desire to schedule regular Wednesday meetings, but in a limited manner for the next June and July and allows us to retrace our steps and move accordingly. And at the same time, I think it allows for substantive input on the part of the Open Government Commission's less than saying Commission, should they so choose. Speaker 0: We have a motion. Speaker 2: So I'll make a motion that we are scheduled to meet the additional meeting date on the second Wednesday, Wednesdays of June and July, and evaluate scheduling of the rest year. At the end of the July meeting. Speaker 6: A second. Speaker 0: All those in favor. I, I, i. Speaker 5: Say. Speaker 0: Motion carries. Speaker 5: Could we get some clarification on whether or not the ordinances can be introduced? Because that is that was one of the intent was to be allowed to introduce ordinances on these meetings. Speaker 6: I personally think that makes sense for these two extra meetings that we're considering. I don't see why we would tie staff's hands at this point. Speaker 0: So I think it's unfortunate that wasn't asked before the vote on the motion. Right. So personally, I don't think it's appropriate to do it. Speaker 2: So I move and I agree. I move that we do not unless there's. Legal ramifications is an exception in that we're compelled to take an action by ordinance due to time that we don't introduce new ordinances at the additionally scheduled. Those are the regularly scheduled Tuesday meetings. Speaker 9: Oh, second. Speaker 0: All those in favor. I oppose. Speaker 6: No. Speaker 0: Motion carries. Thank you. Four, two, one. All right, next item 60. Speaker 1: I like hearing to consider adoption of resolution establishing an integrated waste collection, ceiling rates and service fees for Alameda County Industries for rate period. 14th July 2015 to June 2016.

Regular Agenda Item

Adoption of Resolution Adding Additional 2015 Regular City Council Meeting Dates. (City Clerk 2210)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_05052015_2015-1571

Speaker 1: I like hearing to consider adoption of resolution establishing an integrated waste collection, ceiling rates and service fees for Alameda County Industries for rate period. 14th July 2015 to June 2016. Speaker 4: Madam Mayor, Members of the City Council, I am Liam Garland with the Public Works Department. It is good to be back in front of you on the issue of balancing our interest in protecting ratepayers from rate increases, along with fair wages and benefits for the sorters at Alameda County Industries facility. As you may remember, we were discussing this issue on April 7th in an informational report. I'm back here with the options clarified and ready to walk through them. And this time there is a staff recommendation around option number three. So let me lay those options out right now. The first option is the indexed increase. This is the requirement of the franchise, essentially a series of cost of living indices applied to to the franchise, and that would be for 2.8%. The second option is HCI Alameda County Industries or ACS original application for 10.58%. And the third option is the negotiated compromise that was achieved within about a week of before the information report I shared on April 7th. That compromise brought the initial rate increase for next year down to 7.7%. One of the questions that was raised in the last council meeting was to really dig in to the issue of Alamy to his fair share of the rate increase. So I want you to take a look at this picture you have in front of you. These are sorters from Alameda County Industries facility. The material going along that sorting line. You've got material from Alameda. You've got material from Livermore and also San Leandro. Interestingly, San Leandro, even though it's the home city for the facility, actually has the least amount of tons going into it. That's about a little bit over 7000 tons. The most are coming from Livermore and that's over 16,000 tons. And Alameda is right in the middle there, although that arrow is unfortunately placed toward that Saunders head. The it's over 10,000 tons. And they're this is where the the portion of Alameda is recycling going in the facility is about 31.1%. Now, the next few slides are going to walk through how we turn that percent into a number. And that number is the 8000 $849,012. That is the incremental wage and benefit increases to the orders. And so that's what I'm going to do in the next few slides here. You can see a similar table to what you've seen before, but updated and the first or the second column that says staffing agency remember that was the temporary staffing agency of formerly contracted with by Alameda County industries and they're the burdened rate essentially the all in costs for HCI were about 1391 under that I just give me one moment. It's about 1391 under the state staffing agency. And the actual rate being paid to the sorter was roughly $9 by the staffing agency. Then the San Leandro Living Wage Ordinance occurred and there was a jump. So we went from 1391 per hour on that burn rate to 1783 per hour. And importantly, that jump mostly represents a jump in hourly rate. So that jumped from $9 per hour to $14.50 per hour. So that's what's happening currently. And essentially San Leandro is rate payers are paying this incremental difference as we speak. The question in front of us is what to do on July 1st moving forward. And there the jump. There's another jump and that's the $25.60 as a burned rate per hour, although this is a little bit different in the sense that most of that jump relates to additional benefits. This is about affordable health care, sick vacation time, etc.. And you so you see the jump from 326 per hour and benefits, taxes, insurance up to $9.92 per hour. Now, in addition, on this table, you see that the the agreement that's been reached by the ILWU, International Longshore and Warehouse Union and ECI, it's not just for the next year, it's for the next four years. And so you will see increases that are not as steep for the next four years, but still increases nonetheless. Now we're going to take that, that and turn it into numbers upon which our rates are based. And so essentially what we've done here is we can project the cost of having the two shifts of orders with the new wage and benefit increases. That's about $4.8 million. We then back out those staffing agency costs. So those are subtracted out. You're left with a total incremental labor cost of about 2.7 million. However, almeida's portion of that is only 31.1%. That's where the $849,012 figure comes. Speaker 3: Next we move. Speaker 4: Through and now we've got to turn this into our rates. And here we started. If next year we were to start with our current rates, what was the revenue would be at the end of the year? It's 17.3 million or so. And so then we do some division to say, well, if we want to raise that additional $849,012, we need a 4.9% increase in rates. One more step, and that is to do the essentially that the indexed increase on top of that and with that you get the across the board 7.7% increase. So I'm hoping that that slide is clearer than the slide that was presented on on April 7th. Speaker 9: Very clear. Thank you. Speaker 4: Of course. And next, I want to talk a little bit about the how the stakeholders involved in this process all made significant concessions in order to help offset the increases on Almeida's rate payers. So if you take a look here, you can see that the ILWU deferred wage rate increases. They delayed employer contributions to the 4a1k plan until year three in order to help offset the rate increases, Alameda County and the industries agreed to forego 10% of its profit on the wage increase. So this is something that's built into our franchises the that 10% profit and they agreed to forego it for that 835,000 plus dollars. They also agreed to add an additional service or pilot, an additional service for a multi-family residence and annual boppy pickup program. Finally, the city or city staff had proposed to agree to forego the 10% city franchise fee. Again, just on the incremental wage increase and on that, I'm actually going to pause. Our assistant city attorney, Andrew Gopnik has a comment to share on that. Good evening, Madam Mayor. Members of the City Council. I'm Enrico Panik. Speaker 9: Assistant city attorney. As Mr. Garland just indicated. Speaker 4: Option three before you requires the stakeholders each to make concessions. Speaker 9: And I want to speak to you just briefly. Speaker 4: About the city's concession. And that is forgoing a portion of the city's franchise fee in order for the city to do that. We have to amend the franchise agreement. And under the Alameda City Charter, Section 18, dash one, that amendment to the franchise agreement can only be done by ordinance. So if you were to choose this option today, that portion that you see up there of the city's contribution to this deal, we'd come back to you at the appropriate time for an ordinance that would amend the agreement. The resolution that is before you that supports that recommendation does not include the change to the franchise agreement. It only adjust the rates, the repair rates. I'm available to answer any questions you have on that point. Thank you. So what staff has done is to talk directly with Alameda County Industries about this. And essentially Alameda County Industries, because of the urgency involved in this, you have three cities all acting in concert for all of their different portions of these additional wages and benefits and some bank confidence that Alameda County Industries is concerned about how they're willing to move forward. And what essentially that means is they'll have to pay the franchise fee. So even though the spirit of the compromise was that they would not have to pay the franchise fee, they will. And in turn, what I and RCI will figure out in the next few months is what's the mechanism to essentially offset that increased cost for them? And I'll bring that mechanism back to council for for council approval. It's an issue that I'm confident it can be worked through. And just given this issue coming up now, it's something that that can be worked through later and again brought back to council. I'm happy to answer any questions about that or I can finish the presentation that we can talk more about it. Speaker 0: Oh member. Ashcroft. Speaker 6: I'll have some questions, but go ahead and finish your presentation. Speaker 0: I'd actually like clarification if you have a dollar amount and what that equates to. Speaker 3: Sure. The dollar amount is. Speaker 9: Able to. Speaker 6: So which dollar amount are we referring to this? Speaker 0: 10% for city franchise fee. Speaker 4: I believe it's 90. It's a little bit over $90,000. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 4: Question Amendment. Speaker 0: Member Jodi. Speaker 4: We are getting a portion of the increase as well as part of our franchise fee. We're not waiving the entire amount, just the part that constitutes the 4.9 if we approve. Oh, well, there's like two components, right? There's exactly. There's two commands, essentially. What's going to happen now is ACI is paying this franchise fee on the incremental cost, which it had not planned on paying and the cities receiving it on that additional cost for that franchise fee. And I'll have the precise number in just a couple of minutes. Next, I want to just make sure it's super clear what the ratepayer impact is of this third recommended option. If you look at the blue cells in the upper right hand corner, those are in the 20 gallon and 32 gallon subscription categories. Those are the most common categories. About 95% of all Alameda residents are in one of those two categories. The option number three for the 77 7.7% increase. It essentially would increase from the existing rate about $2.19 per month. So that is right over there. So you compare that with that option two, we had talked about on April 7th, and you see the difference is about $0.80 or so. So we've been able to help offset that increase by about $0.80. And we're at that $2, an extra $2.19 per month. The annual impact for that. In other words, if you take that additional $2.19 multiplied by 12 for ratepayers and the 20 gallon subscription rate, they'll be paying an additional $26.28. Similarly, on the 32 gallon, the additional $2 and 76 per month has an annual impact of about $33.12. So those are the rate impacts. And remember, it's not just the jump in this coming year, it's also the rate impacts over the next few years. And so on this slide, what we've done is lined up the three options and then compared what the projected future rate impacts are among the options, option number one is the indexed increase. So there there's no there's no further negotiated wage increases under that option. Option number two is AC's original application. There you see that the the increases are between about 11 and $0.17 per per month over the next four years. Option three, remember, it's an attempt to smooth out some of those the increase. So there's not a big of a ratepayer impact that first year the the increases in future years is a little higher it's between 27 and $0.39 per month. Again, to annualize that, that means not starting this year but the following year, that as a result of this agreement between ACA and AMW, the annual impact for a 32 gallon rate subscriber would be $3.24. So with that. Oh, I just want to go over the three options staff is recommending the negotiated compromise as it's a balance of protecting that rate payer interest. Want to make sure that you know rate payers are struggling want to make sure that we're we're protecting against rate increases. At the same time is ensuring that disorders at Alameda County Industries receive fair wage and benefits. With that, I'm here for questions also. We've got folks from Allegheny County Industries and ILWU as well to answer any questions you may have. Speaker 0: Or find questions. Member Ashcraft. Speaker 6: Thank you, Amir Spencer. So thank you for coming back with more information in this current staff report. The. I'm on page four of your staff report you refer to. Yes. One minute. Okay. So on April 27th and May 4th, respectively, the city councils of Livermore and San Leandro are set to address whether their rates should account for their portions of Asia as increased labor costs in 20 1516. So do you have the outcome of those votes? Speaker 4: I have some, yes. So the city of Livermore voted, I believe on April 20, the 30th. They directed their staff to bring back a proposal that is very similar to our number third option, essentially forgoing the their franchise fee for going as high as profit on the 10% same schedule of hourly rate and benefits that ASI and I LW have agreed to. San Leandro is up later on this month. Speaker 6: OC not not May 4th. Speaker 4: They they've pushed it back. Speaker 6: Okay. And then. Okay. Going on to the. This is an attachment. Speaker 0: Hm. Okay. Speaker 6: This is exhibit one, the IOW use letter of understanding. That is anyway dated April 2nd in the last paragraph, paragraph number four at the bottom of the page there says that ECI and the union agree that if any of the rate increases proved to be insufficient to support the agreement memorialized in Attachment A, then the parties will continue bargaining in good faith towards a mutually acceptable initial collective bargaining agreement. So. At what point will we, the city, know if these proposed rate increases are going to be sufficient or not to support this agreement? Speaker 4: Sure. I'm actually going to have comment from ECI and Fred from the ILWU. Answer that question. Speaker 6: Appreciate it. Speaker 3: Mayor. Council members can't connect with HCI with the MRU. What we're trying to do is set a structure to go forward for the next five years. We knew we wouldn't get we had some elements left in the agreement to still do. However, we're bound by NORAD and all that we have to to finish out. The bigger issue for C.I. is our credit facilities with our banks are up in June. We have to have city votes on this in order for the banks to believe that we can move forward, for them to restructure our debt and for us to go forward. So it's eminent that we had to show some things, cooperation with with the union, with labor, that we basically have a deal. The intent is we get the votes from the cities. All cities agree we're going to move forward July 1st on this, and that's a commitment from us. Speaker 6: I appreciate that. I'm not sure. I've had my question answered, and maybe this is where the union rep comes in, but. He did the wording that they agree. If any of the rate increases proved to be insufficient to support the agreement, then the parties were continuing bargaining in good faith toward a mutually acceptable initial collective bargaining agreement . But if the rates are going up, doesn't that. Speaker 3: Yeah, the rates going up this hour. Yes. What we've presented should be adequate to do what we need to do here. Speaker 6: For how long? Or maybe. Speaker 3: This year. For this year. Speaker 6: But aren't we looking at an agreement that goes. Speaker 3: Back five years? Yes. And there's slight increases involved in this presentation each year, the small incremental increases in future years. Speaker 6: And is it Ace's position that those small incremental increases will. Speaker 3: Be just the initial? Yeah. Once we're done, we will be signed with a bargaining agreement shortly. We're almost we're almost complete. And I think Mr. Packer would agree. Speaker 6: I have been speaking to the microphone, please. Thank you. Speaker 3: Absolutely. Oh, we I would agree with Kent that with that, we are very close to an agreement. What you see there is similar to what we did in other cities, because basically the the although we're bargaining with a private employer, the outcome of that bargaining depends on their major contracts, which are public contracts. So when those public contracts are, you know, come and it's one of the things that Alameda County overall has lacked, it's recognized that for the holding, but it has in recognize that for delivering the recycling services. And so what we what we put in all the agreements that come before a vote, there's one that came after the vote, but the ones that come before a vote of any of any civic body have included that that if if we don't get the support of the civic body, the city council or the garbage district in other cases, then we're in a position where we're going to have to keep bargaining and. Because we look because the underlying economics shift. But. Speaker 6: Okay. So just to be clear, so it is ILWU U's position that the proposed rate increases over the next five years as as outlined in option three are sufficient to meet your needs. Speaker 3: Yes. All right. And just to be clear, at the you know, right now we're in this process that you're contemplating in which is going forward through the county, will create a standard where there won't be the kind of of of of ups and downs that there are right now in the value of the labor of the people sitting here to sort through the recyclables. So it's there. We're coming to a point of an even standard or a for recycling contract, which will shift. And the, you know, you see smaller increases because it's the lift in the beginning that goes with the medical benefits, the really big. Speaker 6: Okay. Thank thank you both for those explanations. Speaker 0: Remember, they sag. Speaker 9: So it's just a question. So just a. A burnish the point even more. So it's your both of your sense that the rate increases contemplated tonight are sufficient, but that if there are not, you can go back. You are both committed to having some kind of continuing dialog. And did I hear right that what's drive possibly driving any uncertainty that can lead to some shortfall in the revenue? Am I hearing it right that that was driving that is the the medical portion of the. Speaker 3: No, it's it's the cities. It's having all three cities participate. Speaker 9: Okay. Speaker 3: It's really and right now, as it stands, Livermore came back with, you know, they voted unanimously to follow up on the recommendation that staff gave, which is essentially the exactly the same program. They just got to go back for a second vote, just like. Speaker 4: Just like we did. Speaker 3: Last time where, you know, you give direction. They gave the direction to go with the recommendation. San Leandro will take place on the 18th. And the reason they wanted to go last is to make sure everyone else did their part and then they're going to do their part. And if there was any shortcomings, potentially make up any little differences. But obviously, we want it to be fair across the board. Speaker 9: Okay, I understand. Thank you. Appreciate it. Speaker 0: Any other clarifying questions or I'd like to ask Steph real quick? So it was my understanding that there were annual reviews, but that still take place in outside of. So could you explain what could happen that then? Speaker 4: Oh, yes. So the our franchise requires an annual adjustment. So every year I will be in front of you whether maybe whether. Speaker 3: You like it or not. Speaker 4: And those reviews, they happen in essentially you go two years with an indexed rate review, which is essentially applying those cost of living indicators. And then in the third year, there's a detailed rate review where they're we get to open up Alameda County Industries books, look at and more nitty gritty, detailed their expenses and reconcile those and come back to council with a recommendation for an adjustment for the next year. Speaker 0: So in regards to member Ashcraft questions earlier, could there be a difference in these numbers on an annual basis for the next between now and 2020? Speaker 4: Sure. These are definitely project projections. And let me just make sure we're all talking about the same thing in terms of those projected future rate impacts. So for option three, we're looking at that $0.27 to $0.39 per month. Those are indeed projections. I can't say with certainty that they will be exactly that. Speaker 0: Thank you. Then, Brody. Speaker 4: I want to be clear. The slide you just showed. Is that the impact of the just the wage component and or. I thought the slide before was the actual total impact of I mean, the stage six. I'm sorry. Slide five. The $2 in 19. That's that's what we're being asked to pay for exactly for this adjustment that would be in effect as of July 1st, 2015. And of that, $2 in $0.19 for, well, let's choose 276 for the 32 gallon. And of that, $0.27 is what's attributable to paying the increased wages to the recycle workers. I know a little different. So the, the I think you're going to the next chart. Ah yes. Yes. And that is that came out the following year. If you look at ASI and I'll use agreement in terms of wages and benefits, those go for multiple years. So if you take those assumptions and build that into, oh, what will our rates probably adjust by based on those increases we're talking in that 27 to 39 cent per month range. Does that answer your question? Yeah, I was trying to see if we could hone in on of the of the annual impact to the rate payer or what portion is actually attributable to bringing these these workers up to a living wage? Speaker 9: It's a dollar 76. All right. Speaker 4: So an annualized, that's a 12 plus whatever. Speaker 9: Okay. Speaker 4: It was like $15 a year. Speaker 9: Approximately, if you're going to pay that at 2.8% on top anyway. Right. Speaker 4: So it's that was a number I was looking for. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. What member asked Mr. Garland. Speaker 6: In your staff report, you also mentioned something near and dear to my heart, which is the multifamily pickup. HCA has also agreed to a pilot to pilot a multifamily and your bulky pickup by July one, 2015. Are you going to report back to us or are you just going to start it on a date? Speaker 4: So our plan is, if we have if this recommendation is approved, then Kent and I will sit down. We'll figure out the what the requirements and the structure of that program will be. I'm happy to bring back there's an information report or something else to the Council on on that. Speaker 6: I probably would be more interested in how we're going to inform the public, because we certainly hear those complaints about driving down the street and seeing couches and whatnot, you know, discarded on the sidewalks. And this is something that this program is meant to to address. So I just want to make sure that however you want to do it, it's an effective means of getting the word out to the community. Thank you. Speaker 0: All right, speakers, thank you. We will have poet Pedro Sanchez and Mr.. Mr. Fred Pecker. Then we're with Abbe. If you can try to limit your comments to 3 minutes, that'd be appreciated. Speaker 3: We want to start on this, Okaloosa because the car is enormous. Pedro Sanchez hit remarkable Valencia. Speaker 4: Good evening, mayor councilmembers. My name is Pedro Sanchez and I work for HCA. Speaker 3: Well, my mortgage on the door meant it was hard. In retrospect, I know it's not impossible. It's real. Open ended are people are also. Speaker 4: As we have as we have mentioned in the past, working on a recycling facility is not an easy. Speaker 3: Job. It's an honorable job. Speaker 4: But generally as with many hazards. Speaker 3: It believe Radhika and told the local residents the persistence was contenido. It is the Ramsey Clark what a ham blow is. When Lawrence declared I supported him because he was America's patron. No, the Positano said they'll continue to seek lucky. The Hassocks are rooted. Speaker 4: In what the residents deposit in the recycling containers. For example, it is great to recycle hypodermic needles and other medical equipment, but not by putting them in the recycling containers. Speaker 3: Is whether to the people this was done the scheme because there are no deposit envelopes and they'll contain a lot of them. Speaker 4: It is great to recycle all unused chemical substances, but not by deposit them in the recycling container. Speaker 3: Like a kettle. The silicone install escape togo local resident is the Alameda San Leandro in livermore the persistence was contenido and the classic lucky must are there nosotros lobo almost pasar por la linea this is sort of their companion sky. Speaker 4: What I am trying to say with this is that everything that the residents of Alameda, San Leandro and Livermore deposit in the recycling containers, we later see it in the sorting belts at AC. Speaker 3: That photograph here scheme is companeros so CNN that doesn't mean western con d'italia il trabajo can otro lado. This realism was the work on the ANC icon and material collected. It's Como resident is Ella made up of those in the photographs that my coworkers are holding them. Speaker 4: Back of me show in detail the work that we as recyclers do at HCI day in, day out with the material that you as resident of Alameda produce. Speaker 3: La Ciudad de Alameda Alley. Welcome Mucho Citrusy, ladies. Sam Puesto la mater the lograr los proximos anos settle this part of the issue. The city of. Speaker 4: Alameda as well as many other cities, have set their goal in the next few years to reach zero waste. Speaker 3: Nosotros Los K-Dramas and L.A. Classic Lucky the NCIS almost La Primera Linea produced this commercial that Lofgren submitted to settle this of the issue. Those of us. Speaker 4: Who work in recycling and HCI are the first line so that you as a city can reach your goal of zero waste. Speaker 3: It's companeros. Yo, estamos oya, keep it up. I will say this. Como representantes elektra's de la Ciudad de Alameda Ketamine Los Barcelona Society use barangay appointed adoption risk assessments. Not a romantic parakeet, although nosotros los trabajadores the Ramsey Clark of the NCAA Lofgren lagrimas Alexandrovich Saladino. Even if Ito's otros is yet the end in. Speaker 4: The Alameda Mutual crisis. My coworkers and I are here today to ask the US elected representatives of the City of Alameda to take the steps necessary by supporting option three so that we, the recycling workers at ASI, can reach the now standard for wages and benefits that other Alameda County recycling workers have. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Next speaker, Ms.. Yes. Speaker 3: Hi. Good evening once again. Fred Becker with the International Longshore and Warehouse Union Local six I. Just say that, you know, we know that there's huge support for recycling as public policy. And as we've moved forward with the campaign, which is a broad based, based campaign on including the environmental community, the religious community, the immigrant community we have. We have been very gratified to see that people realize that as you add new services, that there's a cost to them. And we look forward and appreciate the deliberations that your staff have done. And we need your support so that we can raise. The value of the work that people do in recycling to a way that people can support their families. And this is a structural change where in Alameda County, for whatever the historical reasons are, the cost of labor was was really under under bid or undervalued. And we're in the process of trying to change that. And you're part of a historic change, which is part of making recycling truly sustainable. So we appreciate your work. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 5: Good evening, Mayor. Members of the city council. I'm Ruth Harvey with the Sierra Club. We are a part of the Alameda County Sustainable Recycling Campaign, which is a coalition of organizations, including environmental groups, labor organizations, faith based organizations, health and safety organizations, and immigrants rights groups that have been working for the last three years to raise the wages and benefits of our recycling workers in Alameda County. And we are thrilled to tell you and we are excited that the city of Alameda could be joining city of Oakland, city of Fremont, Newark, Union City to raise the wages of our recycling workers to be parity with those in San Francisco and San Jose. And so we heartily support your work and the work of your staff. We very much recommend the staff recommendations to put this tough recommendation for option three and appreciate the city of Alameda being part of the Alameda County countywide. Speaker 7: Standard for wages and benefits for recycling workers. Speaker 0: From Rob and I'm Bill Smith. And those are the only slips I have for this item. Speaker 3: Rob Browder, Executive Director, Park Street Business Association. You know, some of you have not heard my my great grandfather was a founding partner in Oakland Scavenger. My grandfather was a garbage man and my dad was a garbage man. So I know a little bit about garbage. Didn't come out right. I will tell you when they were in the garbage business. The idea of recycling, as I've told you many a time, was throw the battery in the back of a truck and we'll be fine. I don't think they ever envisioned the type of recycling that we're trying to do today. And I know that they never envisioned folks working on a line, picking out hypodermic needles and all the other stuff that gets put into the recycling. And while I can assure you the membership that I represent. Would be very happy to be talking about a negotiated seven and a half percent decrease in the rates. That's not going to happen. It's not going to happen. RCI does a terrific job. From our point of view. They're very receptive to our issues that we have. They bend over backwards. They really do to provide us service in the district. They are taking the lead in putting out clear stream units and bagging the city cans for our events for the 4th of July event. And obviously, we also agree. That people deserve a living wage, especially for this type of job, that frankly. And I'll go ahead and say it. No one in this room except for those people that are doing the work would ever do this kind of work. So they deserve the increase. Asai deserves the increase, and we urge you tonight to go ahead and pass this and give Asai their 7.7% increase. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 3: Good evening, Madam Chair. Members of the Council and staff. I'm Bill Smith, resident of Alameda, and also happened to be president of the Society of Virtual Science Engineers. Update CWA 9119 out of Livermore Lawrence Livermore National Lab. And about a week ago I went to the Little Moore City Council meeting and introduced myself and I thought, I want to report back. And parts of the meeting relevant in earlier discussion tonight, how to get people out of the council chambers early and make the meeting shorter. They've got Livermore has a beautiful Bankhead theater. I'd love to see an arts center like that in Alameda. So they talked about that. That went pretty quickly. And they have they have a beautiful new city hall with lots of offices. All right. And for the staff. And then I went to the city hall expecting to go inside to get into the council chambers. No, you walk way back behind and the council chambers are two double wide trailers with a little antique or walking up. It don't even barely hold 100 people total. I think 102 of the fire marshals and the chairs are uncomfortable and the tables are, too. And so the meetings will not last till midnight. So there's it's my suggestion for you there to emulate your colleagues at Livermore to make commuting meeting short. But on a more serious note. Livermore is known as the Cowboy City, is a liberal rodeo every summer there. And they go by it and it's very conservative and. When I talked, told him about what it means to have a low wage worker, that that low wage is not free, that low wage requires a government term, but those times are going to make it to pitch in the food, the food stamps, the housing assistance for affordable housing. And I think some you've heard me talk about affordable housing here in town before and other other things. So it requires subsidies. And even The Wall Street Journal is beginning and featuring editorials on that these days, too, that these low wages are really not good. So I really urge you to support and follow your lead and your colleagues in Livermore and vote for unanimously for this. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. That was our last public. Speaker Member Comments. Speaker 2: Vice Mayor I think I'd like to make a motion that we adopt the recommendation of the staff. All right. Adopt the resolution that establishes the new integrated waste collection ceiling rates in what was described as option three. I appreciate the work that's been done to get us to option. Speaker 4: 3/2, Madam Mayor. Speaker 0: All right. Any discussion member ASHCROFT just briefly. Speaker 6: I think that on page four of the staff report, Mr. Garland did such a nice, well-stated description of what we're doing, why we're doing what we're doing, that this 7.7% increase balances almeida's interest in keeping rates reasonable with ensuring Ace's sorters receive fair pay and benefits. And I think that really and it was just said by our articulated by our previous speaker but that when you're when you have people who are working full time and yet they're prepared, bear with me and my finicky iPad that you have people who are working full time. And yet until this agreement was reached and by the way, I also want to congratulate ECI, because I know they came a long way, too, in the negotiations. And I read your your statement, your letter. And I do understand the financial implications of your requirements to the bank who's financing your operation. And I think for all of us who put our bins out on whatever night you put your remember to put your bins out, you're just so happy that the next morning when you come out, they're empty, they've been emptied, and you put them back where they belong. And you don't really think much about what goes on after the truck picks those those containers up. But we want to see the workers treated fairly, but we want to see the company continue in business. And I think the city ILWU and ACI all did a good job in coming together. But it means that this will this is the cost. And I think it's a modest one. But to provide fair wages and benefits, which include medical benefits, sick pay, vacation in a modest retirement fund. I think this is both reasonable and just and that, as Mr. Smith just said, there is a cost to society when workers go without these basic benefits. So I'm delighted that I think we're moving towards supporting this this option three this evening. Thank you. Speaker 4: Member Ody I thank you, Madam Chair, and I want to echo the comments made by my colleagues previously and the Speaker's, you know, to get where, where we are today on this. It's just amazing and it's a testament to everyone that worked together. ACA, the Sierra Club, ILWU and working towards this is the third time this has been before us. I'll try to be brief, but you know, if you remember the situation that occurred just recently before the San Leandro Living Wage Ordinance, these workers were employed by the staffing agency. And then there was a lawsuit because they, the staffing agency, felt they shouldn't comply with the San Leandro Living Wage Ordinance. And then RCI took it upon themselves to bring those workers into ACA, comply with the living wage ordinance, give these workers a well-deserved and, you know, well overdue increase in pay, and then they collectively bargain with ILWU to, you know, bring them out of poverty and give them the respect that they need. So I think if you look at a dollar 76 a month, $21.12 a year, you know, to have all of these families now have a living wage, be health insurance, not on Medi-Cal anymore, you know, not not costing the state additional money. You know, and see, starting to put money away for retirement, which probably two years ago when they were making $9 an hour, they never dreamed of. I think that is a very small price to pay for for restoring dignity to these families. And I'm going to be supportive of this as well. Speaker 0: Member Data, thank you. Speaker 9: Just a minute. Continuing clarifying questions. So if we pursued option one, the increase would be 2.8%. And in general, from year to year, we adjust the wages based upon the index, which in this case is 2.8%. Now, the way that I'm reading option three is that in addition to the index, there is the adjustment to account for the wage and benefit impact stemming from the living going to a living wage, in which case the adjust. It isn't 2.8%, but in total it's 7.7%. And within that is the 2.8%. So the question that I have is so when I read table three is that makes that mean that the 7.7% from 2016 to 20 15 to 2016 is also going continuing for the next year, for the next year, or is the next year really just subject to the the the typical index adjustment that we do from year to year based upon some index? Speaker 4: It will be a tip, actually. Let me pause and let's hear here from Marva Sheehan from age. Okay, with that answer. Speaker 7: Good evening. I'm Marva Sheahan with HFT consultants, and we're the consulting firm that has been reviewing the numbers and putting together with staff and with ACI next year. Speaker 5: And actually to your response, your question that. Speaker 7: The increase that you're seeing on there, the $0.33, the 39 cent. Speaker 5: Numbers are. Speaker 7: Attributable to the sort of wage increase. That's just that subject. Okay. Next year is what we call a cost base. Speaker 5: Year or a detailed review year where we will. Speaker 7: Go in and look at the collection operations in detail and look at those cost and come up with what the rate increase will be. Speaker 5: The sorter piece. Speaker 0: Will. Speaker 7: Be another element, but next year we're looking at everything in total. Speaker 9: Okay. And that's important because I think the message that I'm trying to drive home to the community is that in this instance on here on May 5th, 2015, we're making an adjustment to reflect that the workers need a living wage, but we're also making adjustment based upon the usual way we make adjustments, which is the index and the per the way that we make adjustments. The following year, we're going to do the cost approach, which you just mentioned, but then we'll get back on track to the index approach. Speaker 7: Then we'll do the index. I believe it. You go to two years index and then back to the cost base. Speaker 9: Long story short, we are we are not saying that we're we're plugged in to a 7% increase all the time because because we will be we will have already baked into the cake the the the living wage effects. Now, having said that, though, there is also, you know, the fact that we will need to take into account uncertainties with regard to health benefit impacts, but that will still be dealt with in the usual way of doing things next year, which is the cost approach and the subsequent years, the index approach. Speaker 5: Okay. Speaker 7: I'm sorry. I think health care is actually a good one. We will in the index year, they tend to go up by the index of the 2 to 3%. But I think any of us know we've yet to see health care premiums only go up 2 to 3% in actual life. They tend to be for some reason, in double digits no matter what. Those are the things that we'll. Speaker 5: Look at when we see what the. Speaker 7: Actual cost of things or have incurred for the drivers. And again, the detailed review is on the collection costs. We do not get into historically, we've not gotten into the detail costs on the Murph. That will be something that we will be discussing with ACA next year. Speaker 9: And Amir, final point. One is I appreciate the charts that you put in. There are very graphical and the way that, you know, you had your bar charts really nice. I really like that. And the second and final point is, last time I raised the point that I wanted more information with regard to San Leandro and Livermore and I and I feel like I have that information. So I'm certainly ready to move forward. Speaker 0: And then I want to commend all the council members for your comments. I join in with you on those comments. I commend members of the community for coming forward. These are multiple meetings now. Staff great job on the report and negotiating this compromise. I think it truly does meet the needs of the workers, the ratepayers and ECI. So I really appreciate everyone working together on this. And as to the workers, thank you for showing up one more time. Do we? So we have a motion to call the question. All those in favor. Motion carries unanimously. Thank you. Speaker 1: Item six Public Hearing to consider adoption of the Community Development BLOCK Grant Fiscal Year 2015 through 2025 year strategic plan in the Fiscal Year 20 1516 Action Plan and authorize the city manager to negotiate and execute related documents, agreements and modifications.

Regular Agenda Item

Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of Resolution Establishing Integrated Waste Collection Ceiling Rates and Service Fees for Alameda County Industries, Inc. (ACI) for Rate Period 14 (July 2015 to June 2016). (Public Works 274)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_05052015_2015-1115

Speaker 1: Item six Public Hearing to consider adoption of the Community Development BLOCK Grant Fiscal Year 2015 through 2025 year strategic plan in the Fiscal Year 20 1516 Action Plan and authorize the city manager to negotiate and execute related documents, agreements and modifications. Speaker 5: I'll go ahead and get started. My name is Claudia Young. I'm the Housing and Community Development Program Manager for the Housing Authority, and we administer the CDBG and home funds for the city. It's like. So every year we receive an annual grant funded by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. We receive CDBG and home funds. The CDBG funds are specifically meant to target low income populations 80% and below. The purpose is to develop viable communities through the provision of decent housing, economic development and a suitable living environment. The City is a member of the Alameda County Home Consortium, which is required by HUD to undertake a five year consolidated plan. As a part of this process, the city is required to complete a strategic plan every five years to identify priority needs and develop broad policy objectives for the use of CDBG and home funds. This is included in your packet as Exhibit one. The Broad County Home Consortium policy objectives are identified include preserving and increasing affordable housing and supportive services, reducing housing discrimination, preventing and addressing homelessness and addressing non housing community development needs. In addition to the priorities identified by the Home Consortium, jurisdictions are required to annually evaluate local priority needs. This is a process. This process was completed in January 20th, 2015, when the Council held a public hearing and approved the priority needs, which were included in our notice of funding availability. The city's priority needs include affordable housing, homelessness, public services, economic development and public facilities and infrastructure. In addition, the Social Services and Human Relations Board refined the priority needs for the public services category. This is included in your pocket as Exhibit three. And they chose to specifically refine it to preserving Almeida's safety net services. In the consolidated process with the strategic plan, the city also develops an annual action plan that identifies specific objectives and proposed use of CDBG funds on the annual basis. This year, for year 1516, our entitlement grant is 1,000,039 953 and this is a reduction of 3.1% from the previous year. And we have an estimated program income from the current year of 150,000. The public services funding this year is a 15% cap, which totals out to 170,493. We had seven sub recipients recommended for funding. And I noticed that I left out echo housing. But Alameda Food Bank Building Features Family Violence Law, Legal Assistance for Syrians Eden 211 and then in other continuing community development projects, we have the Affordable Housing North Housing Clearance activities, which is investigative work specifically for the 90 unit homeless accommodation only, economic development for Alameda Point Collaborative for their community based development organization, residential rehabilitation programs and our continued support for the former Continuum of Care. Everyone Home Plan. So today I'm seeking council's approval to submit the five year strategic plan for years 15 through 20 and the annual action plan for fiscal year 1516. I'm seeking approval to submit and also to adopt the budgets for both CDBG and Home for 1516. This concludes my presentation and I'm available if you have any questions. Speaker 0: Irvine questions it. Speaker 6: Do. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Yang. I have just a couple questions. So on your staff report, page three is a table that lists. A number of organizations activities, the category they fall into in the recommended funding, and the one recipient organization that that constitutes economic development is our mid-point collaborative community based development corporation or C BDO receiving $100,000. Can you tell me first of all, what is the Albina collaborative community based Development Corporation? What what do they do? And where does this $100, $100,000 go in a year? Speaker 5: So they do job training. And actually, the executive director, Doug Biggs, is here and and he's speaking later. So he can work on that. Speaker 6: Okay. And he's planning to speak later. Did you say he's one of the speakers? Okay. Okay. We'll wait for him. And then on their apologies, they have an iPad. This just quits on me every time I try to look something up. So. It's exercising my limited patience. Okay. So the exhibit I wanted to look at is the exhibit three, the letter from the Social Services Human Relations Board. And on page two of that letter, it is noted that the prior to Shrubs March 26, 2015, meeting city staff informed us that they would like to designate the remaining CDBG public service funds $6,753 for rent conciliation services rather than allocated to existing projects. And I had noted earlier that there were I mean, as there are every year, more requests for funding than dollars available. So can you help us understand what how this works? Speaker 5: So actually, every single public service application that came in received their full asking for this year. Okay. And we did have 6753 left. And so right now, we've set it aside for a reconciliation program, if needed. If we decide later down the road that we don't need it, then we're going to go ahead and reprogram those funds back to the public services. And I believe Shrub has made the recommendation to split it across the board. Speaker 6: So I must be confused at the paragraph at the bottom of page, one said the board evaluated and scored four applications whose requests total 1000 now excuse me, $145,893. 6000 oh 6000 less. Okay, that's not what I'm used to hearing. So. Okay, so you took that that overage and applied it to the reconciliation if council decides to do that in another item. Speaker 5: Correct. And we can always reprogram it back. Speaker 6: You can reprogram if needed, if more funds come available. Speaker 5: If we decide not to use it for reconciliation services, then I'll be back in or about September so we can reprogram it back to public services or anything else. We decide. Speaker 6: Okay. I appreciate that. Thank you. Speaker 0: Any other clarifying questions? I have a question on the staff report on page three where it has that chart. Is that a summary of. Speaker 5: It's a summary of exhibit actions. Speaker 0: Okay. So and that was not included in the presentation with the dollar amounts. So is it possible to share that on the screen so that the so that the public can see what we're actually referring to? The breakdown. Speaker 5: Exhibit four. Speaker 0: And then I can call the speakers. I think it's important to share with the public why we're. But we're actually. Referring to. So I'm going to go ahead and call the speakers while she's working on that. The first speaker will be James for perjury, and then Patricia, the DA, and then Aaron Scott. And the last speaker will be Doug Biggs. Speaker 3: Thank you. Good evening, Madam Chair. In council members, my name is James Trujillo. I'm the new executive director at Legal Assistance for Seniors, one of the agencies you're discussing. Although I'm the new executive director, I've been a staff. Speaker 4: Attorney at Legal Assistance for Seniors for. Speaker 3: The past five years, and I'm excited to start a new role working in a different capacity with the agents, with the agency. And second, I want to take a moment to thank you for your previous funding and for continuing to consider funding us. This is absolutely critical funding and allowing us to provide the services that we do provide to the seniors in the city of Alameda. A brief overview is we provide direct legal representation for free to seniors in several areas of law. We provide community education to seniors through the mass senior center. And we also house the Health Insurance, Counseling and Advocacy Program for Alameda County. And so you heard Mastec discuss four times a month that there is counseling involved for health insurance and that actually is run through legal assistance for seniors. That's one of our programs, although it's not really included in this grant. I don't want to take up too much of your time. I just want to introduce myself and really express my appreciation for the council and for the work that you do and for considering further funding to help us do the work that we do. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 5: Good evening. I'm Patricia Beder, and I'm here representing building futures with women and children. I am the development and communications director there and including included in our proposal, which you're considering, is some funding for our Midway Shelter, some funding for us as leaders of the City of Alameda Domestic Violence Task Force, and a little funding for homelessness prevention. Housing assistance. Moneys. Like the speaker before me. I want to thank you for your past support for our work and for your consideration tonight. Because when I'm with the support and when with your consideration in the will, when that kind of thing happens, that mother sheltered at Midway and served in a safe environment and provided with an array of services, can leave midway with a key in her hand. And you know the key, that annoying thing to us, that you keep losing them and you don't know where they are and you get extras of them, so you will always know where they are. That key is something very precious to to a woman who leaves a homeless shelter with housing. That's our biggest priority at Midway. And you probably you may know that Midway leaves leads Alameda County in shelter residents exits to permanent housing. When funding like this is available, that family that needs help with back rent and utilities in order to avoid becoming homeless and entering the shelter system can count upon that little bit of help they need to get back on track. And then finally, the victim, Alameda based victim of intimate partner violence can know what services are available right here to her or him so that the safety planning can take place in the, you know, exiting that violent relationship can take place in a safe way. Thank you again for your consideration and it's good to see you. Yeah. Good evening. My name is Aaron Scott. I'm the executive director of the Family Violence Law Center. And I want to thank the council and also the Human Relations Board and city staff for all of their hard work sorting through the applications and making recommendations. And thank you for your continued support of our work. The grant that you give us supports direct legal services to domestic violence victims who live in Alameda. We provide assistance with restraining orders and related family law orders. And restraining orders have been studied and shown to be one of the most effective tools in breaking the cycle of violence. Since domestic violence is one of the leading causes of homelessness for women. Speaker 3: It. Speaker 5: Also helps them remain in safe and stable homes. So we thank the council again. And also just want to underscore that it's a relatively small grant for us. It pays just for the legal services, but it keeps us anchored here in the city where a countywide agency we're active in. The Domestic Violence Task Force were actually written into the Alameda Police Department's protocol. They call us whenever there's a domestic violence incident. And without without this funding, it would be difficult for us to remain so firmly anchored in the city. So thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 4: Good evening, Madam Mayor. Members of the City Council. I'll wear two hats tonight, so I'll start off as executive director of the Alameda Point Collaborative and answer Councilmember Ashcraft question about the community based development organization. Funding CBD oil at it is CBD oil community based development organization. Not Corporation is a specific designation by CDBG for organizations that comply with very strict guidelines around doing community development. And you have to have a board that represents the the community you're serving, which our board does, and the funding allows you to do economic development program. So we've used it to build out some of our social enterprise programs, which then employ residents in both permanent and part time and and training capacity. So the ultimate goal of it is to train and prepare low income residents of the area for employment, permanent employment. And we target 40 people, 40 residents a year. That's our goal. And over the last five years, we've done some amazing things with that, getting people into workforce, developing social enterprises that employ people out of the base. This is also, as you may be familiar with CDBG funding. There's so there's different pools of funding. There's public service, there's rehabilitation, there's blight and whatnot. Public service has a cap on the amount of money you can spend. You cannot exceed that cap. So we're always rubbing up against the ceiling. CBD oil funds, which are only allowed for designated seed CBD oil organizations, are not included in that cap. So in actuality, you get to do much more services because you're doing it on a community based development organization funding. I hope that makes some sense. It allows us to do a lot more services for the community without negatively impacting wonderful organizations like the Food Bank Building for futures for women and children that also need to provide public services. Well, now switch hats. Good evening. My name is Doug Biggs. I'm the president of the Social Service Human Relations Board. And I do want to clarify before I start those remarks that the Social Service Human Relations Board only reviews public service dollars, does not review CBO dollars at all. So this year, we played a little bit of a different role in in the process, both developing the RFP and actually doing the scoring. In the past, the housing authority would do the scoring and we would look at their recommendations. So this time we kind of reversed roles. Scoring Matrix was developed in a dance that all members of Shrub participated in the scoring. We did receive four applications and all four were deemed to be highly competitive, highly worthy, really met all the goals and the needs that SSA Tabi was looking to fulfill. Speaker 3: So all four programs were. Speaker 4: Recommended for funding. As Claudio mentioned, the total amount requested was less than what was available. I think for us the takeaway from this is really it's a sad one. People have given up. People have given up on CDBG over the last decade. We have been the federal government has reduced the money so much that so much of what we used to fund is now out of the picture. We're down to the bare, bare, bare necessities. And organizations have just given up looking to CDBG as a way to support them. And that's a sad state of affairs to be in. We did look at allocating the remaining funds, but as was mentioned, staff asked that it be set aside for conciliation services. That is clearly within the realm of authority and is appropriate to do. We do want to though track those funds in the concept of public services and have them come back to us and report on how those funds were actually spent, what kind of services came out of that, because we know that next year will be looking at this again. So in in conclusion, we strongly support the staff recommendations and ask that you approve the allocations as recommended. Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. He was our last speaker. For comments and emotions. Speaker 6: So I will move adoption of the Community Development BLOCK Grant for fiscal year 2015 to 2025. Your strategic plan and the fiscal year 2015 2016 Action Plan and authorize city manager to negotiate and execute related documents, agreements and modifications. Speaker 2: I could. Speaker 0: Any Council comments? Member Song. Speaker 9: Yes, I think I certainly support the what's in front of us tonight. The key thing to remember, though, is the speakers who are here represent roughly 15% of the dollars that we are deliberating over. And so when you look at the details of what we're funding, the remaining 85%, I think it underscores, if nothing else, our abiding partnership with the Alameda Housing Authority, which needs to be strengthened. And for the reason that in the report there's a reference to there was some time ago 1700 households desiring to to get 90 units that were available at the Breakers. I mean, that certainly suggests a crying need for affordable housing. But also to suggest for our continuing partnership with the Alameda Housing Authority, which is which is what this is all about. So I support this. Speaker 0: You know the comments call the question although some favor. I motion houses unanimously. Thank you. Speaker 1: Six Ih introduction of ordinance amending the Alameda Municipal Code by adding article. Well to Chapter six concerning the rent, the review of rent increases and adding Section two Dash 23 to Article two concerning the creation of a rent review advisory committee and recommendation to provide direction to the city manager regarding a study to analyze the impacts of rising rents on Alameda Resident. And a revised ordinance was passed out of the RDS tonight with a correction to the numbering. Speaker 5: Just so everybody knows, the grocery workers in this one. Speaker 1: Ended up having the same numbers, three number. Speaker 0: Has it been corrected on line? Speaker 5: Yes. Thank you. Good evening. I'm Debbie Potter, the city's community development director. I have a brief staff report for you. On January 20th, the city council directed staff to prepare an ordinance to strengthen the city's rent review process. Based on five discussion points on which consensus was reached through a community engagement process led by Mr. Jeff Canberra. Council directed staff to incorporate the six discussion point. If consensus was achieved because no consensus was reached on the sixth point, which was whether or not there should be a threshold amount of the rent increase before you could access the rack process. Staff has prepared two ordinances which we have called in the staff report Ordinance A, an Ordinance B for council consideration. Both ordinances provide similar language on the five points where there was agreement. And I'll just run quickly through the those points on which there there was consensus and and which are reflected in the ordinances. The first is that tenants must be notified of the availability of the city's rent review process and how to access that process when they receive a notice of rent increase in Ordinance A. Every tenant receiving a rent increase will get this ordinance if there is no threshold as there is no threshold rent increase required in ordinance B, only tenants whose rent increase is at the threshold or higher would receive a notice regarding the rent dispute resolution process. If a property fit. If a property owner fails to notify the tenant of the rent review process, the proposed rent increase is null and void until the property owner properly notifies the tenant of the process.

Regular Agenda Item

Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Fiscal Year (FY) 2015-20 Five-Year Strategic Plan and the FY 2015-16 Action Plan, and Authorize the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute Related Documents, Agreements, and Modifications. (Housing 235 and 236)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_05052015_2015-1527

Speaker 5: B, only tenants whose rent increase is at the threshold or higher would receive a notice regarding the rent dispute resolution process. If a property fit. If a property owner fails to notify the tenant of the rent review process, the proposed rent increase is null and void until the property owner properly notifies the tenant of the process. If a tenant requests a hearing before the rec, both the tenant and property owner are obligated to participate in the process. If the property owner fails to participate in the rec process, the rent increase is null and void and the rent cannot be increased for 12 months. Both ordinances specify that retaliation is prohibited if a tenant exercises his or her rights under the ordinance, and that any rent increase that's imposed in violation of the ordinance is a complete defense and an unlawful detainer action. Lastly, rent increases would go into effect if Iraq hearing is held after the effective date of the increase. If the amount of the increase is reduced through the hiring process, the property owner and tenant would work out a credit to any and any agreed upon overpayment of rent, which is how rent increases are handled right now. That's the current situation now. All of these concepts are addressed in both ordinances. Ordinance does not have a threshold rent increase amount that must be triggered to access the rack process. This approach is current, is consistent with the current rack process and with racks recommendation that no threshold be established under the new ordinance. Ordinance B provides for a threshold in an undetermined amount. You'll notice that we set it up with X as the threshold increase, and that's because there was no no consensus. The tenants were proposing 5%. Some property owners were proposing 10%. Some property owners were proposing 15%. So if the council wants to go with with a minimum threshold increase, staff would look to council to set that percentage amount for the rent increase because there wasn't consensus. If the council approves the ordinance, B would need to establish the threshold. It should be noted that as drafted, there's also an informal conciliation process, the process that was just described as part of the CDBG hearing. The tenants and landlords. I think we're both supportive of the idea that if there was a threshold increase that had to be triggered before you went to the rec, there should be an informal conciliation process for rent increases that are less than the trigger triggered amount. But they also felt like the tenants in particular felt that if you didn't reach a resolution through the informal conciliation, you would still then be able to access the rec process. So it it is set up so that audience be so that there is a minimum threshold that triggers the rent increase. There's also informal conciliation. If informal conciliation doesn't work, you still get to go to the rack regardless of your threshold increase. While staff provides referrals to echo housing and encourages parties to work out an agreement. Informal conciliation is not part of the current process. Staff has identified one time funding through the CDBG program for one year to fund informal conciliation, but council would have to identify funding after the first 12 months of the ordinance to fund the informal conciliation on an ongoing basis. The other thing is that with with with the intent to step up the program and make it a little bit more robust than what we have now. The Housing Authority staff will be tracking their hours over the next 12 months to see what the workload is and how that workload increases. And when we report back to council in one year, we'll be able to be have more precise data about what it costs to run the program. And it may be that we, the city, would have to increase its support of the housing authority to fund the more robust program. But for one year, the Housing Authority has agreed to track its hours and work under the current Staffing Services Agreement and the current funding levels. Lastly, the council asked us to draft an ordinance in addition to the enhancing the rent review process, to also look at formalizing the RAC itself and to come up with language that would look at things like, you know, the membership of the rack terms, appointment memo officers duties of the rack. So all of those have also been captured in both versions of the ordinance. So that was Council's request on that. And then lastly, there was some discussion on the 20th of January about whether or not the council wanted to move forward with a study that would analyze the ongoing impacts of rising rents on Alameda residents. So staff has prepared in the staff report an outline of what such a study would consist of and has identified $35,000 to fund such a study. If the council wants to move forward with that study, and we estimate it would take about six months to complete. So at this time, we're requesting that the Council provide direction on the study and introduce an ordinance to create rent review procedures in the city. Speaker 0: Thank you for taking questions, Brody. Speaker 4: I have a question on the retaliation. I will. Two questions. When I see it in the in the text of the notice. Maybe I didn't. I couldn't find it in the. Speaker 5: And so it's Section six, dash 56.12. Speaker 4: My page starts with 57 different ones. Speaker 6: On the draft ordinances. We're looking at the start it section six dash 57 1.1. Speaker 5: Oh, I'm sorry. They changed the. Speaker 6: Success. 57.12. Speaker 4: Okay. So I don't see anything in there that says. That if you attempt to evict a tenant six months after requesting a hearing, that's considered retaliatory. Speaker 5: Uh. Speaker 4: And then my my question on that is, I don't know if we can we can blanket say that it's deemed retaliatory. I if I recall correctly, from my practice in this area that, you know, it's a presumption that is retaliatory. But the the landlord would be allowed to present evidence to rebut that presumption. Speaker 5: So I would defer to our city attorney on this. Well. Speaker 7: To be very honest, our intention on this is not to have the city really doing a lot of enforcement. The idea is to provide a process to try to work out amicably rental disputes, if you will, on the amounts, and then to really have the tenant have an opportunity to get pursuant to this this ordinance, be able to have some some justification for not having to pay increased rent. And then if a landlord took two steps to do unlawful detainer or what have you, this would be a defense. So we're really falling back on state law because the city is just not in a position to be enforcing various complaints or what have you under this. Speaker 4: Yeah, I understand that. But we're basically saying we're deeming that any effort to evict tenants six months after a hearing is deemed a retaliatory eviction. And, you know, a court would look at that statute and say. I mean, at least what I would think in my opinion is that a court would look at that statute and and say, any time you do this, regardless of of whether or not it's true or whether it's a presumption or it can be rebutted, you know, a tenant is going to have a cause for retaliatory eviction or they're going to have a defense for retaliatory eviction. And there could be valid reasons why a tenant or months after filing a complaint is evicted, may be nonpayment of rent, maybe nuisance, whatever, you know, owner move in, whatever the the different grounds are. But I'm just worried that we're you know, we're we're being so precise. And firm in defining that as a retaliatory eviction. When I believe the the law is that it's a a presumption of retaliatory eviction that can be overcome. That's a lot to be rebutted by a landlord. Speaker 5: So is the suggestion to substitute the word presumed for deemed. Speaker 4: I don't have the civil code in front of me, but housing. Speaker 0: Yeah, I would agree with that. Speaker 4: Presumed to be a presumed to be a retaliatory eviction, which I believe there's a civil code section that that. Yes, that 1940 2.5. And also one more thing. I mean, that's in the notice, but I didn't see that in any of the of the actual ordinance that that we're assuming that this is a presumption that can be rebutted. Speaker 7: I think the intention was to rely on the civil code. And so if we have misstated it, I I'll try to look it up right now. Speaker 4: I don't have Westlaw access anymore, so I can't read it. That was that was my clarifying question. Speaker 0: Member Ashcroft. Speaker 6: Thank you. And I'd like to hear the answers to that, too. But I also bookmarked a paragraph on page three of the staff report. It's right there in the middle of the page, the paragraph that starts under state law. Housing providers must provide 60 days written notice to tenants if rents are going to be increased by 10% or more must provide 30 days notice, rents are going to be raised by less than 10%. But the further into the paragraph it says that as part of the are a CS review of the original draft ordinance, the chair observed that recently some housing providers, rather than providing a notice of rent increase, are instead electing to provide the 60 day notice to vacate. By providing that notice, the current tenant is required to vacate and the housing provider may then impose on the new tenant whatever rent the market will bear. So I have two questions. This is troubling to hear of this, although I also and this is where my fervent desire for a data collection and a concern to study that comes in, because if we're going to make good, informed decisions as a council, we want to be relying on good data. And I'm not questioning what anybody has heard. But but, you know, it could be anecdotal, it could be just happening once. But do you have any idea what kinds of numbers we're talking about of this example that I just read? And within what time frame is it just starting to happen now? Have we seen it for a year or so and do we have documentation? But more to the point, is there anything the city can legally do to prevent this practice of issuing a 60 day notice to vacate without even getting to a rent increase? Speaker 5: Question or so the information. So without it, I mean, this and this is an issue that Councilmember Odie brought up in January about the issue of just cause eviction without a just cause eviction ordinance in the city. There is there isn't anything the city can do. The state law allows on a 60 day notice for somebody who's lived in a unit for more than 12 months, they have to be given a 60 day notice. But they can be evicted without, you know, without cause. So there are some jurisdictions in the state of California that have just cause eviction ordinances, that require that there has to be cause loud music disturbance, you know, nonpayment, you know, a whole variety of of reasons that you would be able to evict. But. But not to get around notifying tenants of a rent increase. If that then becomes the requirement here that you have to notify people of the rent review process. That kind of thing. So that's that's the answer to the question, I think, about what the city can do regarding whether or not we're seeing more evictions that are just 60 day notices without a rent increase. That is a relatively new phenomenon, and I think it's probably the profile of that issue has been raised as we've heard about more and more rent increases and the discussion about, you know, putting more teeth, I guess, into our rent review process. And if people are less interested in in dealing with the process and that kind of thing, this could be a strategy that they would pursue. It's possible. Speaker 6: Well, I might suggest that they're not mutually exclusive propositions. I think the rack, obviously, is the rental rate. So it's talking about rent increases. But I think we probably should consider, if again, to my point, I would like to know, you say that this is happening more frequently. Speaker 5: Well, I know I said we're hearing about it more recently. We've only heard, you know, anecdotal, a handful of instances in which this has happened that we've heard about our staff. Speaker 6: So I, I would like some attempt to quantify and see if that is a problem, you know, that our tenants in Alameda are facing. And perhaps that's something that if we were to decide to do, a consultant study could be on the within the deliverables. Speaker 0: At this point, if we could try to do clarifying questions, we have at least seven or eight speakers. Speaker 6: Right. And I was clarifying for me from the the staff report. Let's see here. I think that's all for now. Speaker 0: For de sa. Speaker 9: Is to clarify in question the way that the system now works is that when a tenant has concerns about rent increases, they fill out their form, they participate in the process and the involvement of the property owner. She or he can get involved or not. And whether or not right now in the current whether or not they get involved when the rent review advisory board makes a determination. For the most part, it's oftentimes a letter saying that if you can, you know, become something other than that, then what the tenant is concerned about. And oftentimes and sometimes that letter is brought up to city council for the mayor to sign. So it's basically a letter. And I raise that because. What's different now is that and I'm going to read from the staff report that explained that if a housing provider failed to appear without good cause, or if a representative of the housing provider did appear but did not have the authority to act, the rent review advisory committee would make a finding to that effect. A tenant then would be able to cite to the ordinance that the rent increase was void as the defense in an unlawful detainer action that a housing provider might file against the tenant. And all of that that that the ability for the tenant to a site that is because of the ordinance. So here's the question. Now within the context of what we just said, within the staff report. The property owner could still attend the meeting. And choose to not agree with the rent review advisory committees. The key thing is it's just that we're we have a mechanism to get the property owner there. Speaker 5: That is correct. The mediation process itself is strictly a voluntary process. But what we're doing under the proposed ordinance is mandating the participation. But any any outcome, any final mediated solution is voluntary. Thank you. Welcome. Speaker 0: Thank you. Right. I'm going to call the speakers now. Speaker 5: Thank you. Great stuff. Speaker 7: Councilmember Odie, I did find the site in the civil code. And what what the law says is in an action brought by or against the lessee pursuant to the subdivision, the lessee shall bear the burden of producing evidence that the lessors conduct was in fact retaliatory. So based on that, I would suggest that we just change that language in the notice that says housing providers efforts to evict a tenant within six months of a tenant's requesting a hearing may be used as evidence of retaliatory conviction. Eviction, that conviction, will that work? Speaker 4: I depend on you, but I think that would work out. Speaker 0: Thank you. Angela. How about then Ken Peterson and then. And 11. Speaker 5: Good evening, Mayor and vice mayor and members of the City Council. My name is Angela Hawk about I'm the founder of the Alameda Renters Coalition. And I was a part of the housing discussions that led up to these ordinances that are before you today. And I want to say how excited we are at the prospect of having a little more strength added to the Rent Review Advisory Committee. And we think that these new ordinances are going to give renters more tools to fight rent increases as they come into their mailboxes, especially excited that they're going to be noticed of the existence of the Rent Review Advisory Committee. And I want to take a moment and really encourage renters to use these tools because they're going to be available to them. And now we have a renters coalition and a group of landlords who want to make sure that the Alameda renters get to stay in our awesome city. However, we are now faced with greater challenges, as I mentioned earlier. We have now, at least to my knowledge, in the last three months, at least five probably more notices of 60 day notice to vacate properties. And this is disrupting families lives. It's taking kids out of schools. And we think that it's an ethical for landlords to do such a thing without providing the full return of a security deposit, support for moving expenses and cleaning good referrals to new housing. And I really urge the City Council, after dealing with these rent review increases, to find ways to address also these 60 day increases. I'm hopeful that the community of Alameda can come together in the way that we did with these rent increases to find new solutions. And I really look forward to looking to working with our great landlords here because we have been able to to find new homes for people. And I think that that's the Alameda spirit. So I want to thank you guys and thank city staff for all of the hard work that they've put in to make these ordinances. And I hope that you will see fit to vote for the ordinance without the threshold for the rec. And I thank you very much for your time. Good evening. If. Speaker 0: Mr. Peterson. Speaker 3: Thanks. I actually intended to talk on the question of the AMP contract and so that's been continued. I understand. So relinquish my time. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 3: Thank you very much, guys. This late. Speaker 0: Then. And only. Speaker 3: So hard. You. Thank you. Speaker 5: Good evening again. Once again, I'm Andy Balaban, the immediate past president of the Alameda Association Realtors. And here, on the request of our current president, Mr. Tony Berg, to speak on behalf of our members, the Alameda Association of Realtors would like to go on record as being in support of the proposed ordinance for the Rent Review Advisory Committees, Rules and regulations with no threshold as outlined in staff presentation. A We believe that renters and landlords should have the option to have the committee mediate whenever a tenant may feel that a rent increases undue or excessive. We urge the City Council to adopt the the ordinances as outlined in Option A, including all five agreed upon points brought forward by the community. And once again, where there is no threshold for a requirement for a complaint to be filed in regards to rent increase. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. The next speaker is UTC. It has these three letters here and then Barbara Duncan and then Garfield can cross. Speaker 5: Good evening. I'm Amanda, and I've lived in Alameda for about 51 years, and in September 2014, I received an increase of $600 more a month. After living. Speaker 1: There for 27. Speaker 5: Years. Of course, they asked me if I could stay if I hadn't paid that amount, but I could not stay. So recently I moved into another unit. And at least will be up in August of this year. And I know the rent will increase again. So I'm asked, can the city council and the mayor please do something about these landlords that raise these to rent outrageously and Bigfoot with no court? Because they want somebody else or they want to protect a unit for relative safety because seniors and people with fixed income really need. Need your. Speaker 4: Help. Thank you. Speaker 0: You. Hello. My name is Barnaby Duncan, and I've. Speaker 6: Lived here. Speaker 0: About 45. Speaker 5: Years. Speaker 0: Okay, I understand that you didn't know what what it. Speaker 5: Looked. Speaker 0: Like. I just got one Saturday. Okay. Speaker 5: In housing. Speaker 0: Housing made a recommendation, and my landlord signed it. Speaker 5: Two months ago. Speaker 0: Saturday, I get this that I have to pay $170 more now. Speaker 5: Would anybody like to see this? Because this is what you're going to see when when you ask the people, let me see what. Speaker 0: Kind of. Speaker 5: Paper you got. Speaker 0: That's kicking. Speaker 5: You out, because this this. Speaker 0: Tells you right now either pay it or leave. It gives you no options. And I thought I had the. Speaker 5: Best landlord because. Speaker 0: You haven't done it. But it came. Speaker 5: Last Saturday, so. I guess they're all doing it. There's four units in where I live. Speaker 0: All four of them got it. Speaker 5: The same letter. And on a Saturday. Speaker 6: And if that's. Speaker 5: Okay. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 6: But did you tell us how much what was the dollar increase? Speaker 0: It was 170 for me. The man in black is 200. And the guy on the side, I don't know, he wouldn't give them. Speaker 5: Amount, so. Speaker 0: That's fine. Speaker 6: Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker, Garfield came across and then John Spangler. And then John Sullivan. Speaker 4: Good evening, city council members and mayor. Staff members and. People in the audience. I'd like to thank all the. Support that I've received. Speaker 3: Through. Speaker 4: The city. Last year I applied to the RAC with about 30 other tenants and we received a. A recommendation that that. Speaker 2: Lowered the rent from a 25% increase down to a 10%. Increase. Speaker 4: Of course, most of us had the. Had the eye on the horizon that this would occur again, which it has, and we received yet another rent increase. Speaker 2: But there were people in in the units this year that had to. Speaker 4: Leave because. Speaker 2: They got to rent increases and they did not apply. Speaker 3: To the rack. So that is. Speaker 4: Sort of a problem is like I. Speaker 3: Have to go to the rack to to maybe get a recommendation that will try to quell the. Speaker 4: A desire by these landlords or by my. Speaker 2: Landlord or a land management company, you know, to. Speaker 4: Raise it more. You know, again, you know, it's like, you know. Speaker 3: To get away with. Speaker 4: More because I guess the state allows that. But anyway. Speaker 3: I, I'm going to get more to the point of me standing here and I support the Ordinance A. And support the Alameda Renters Coalition position on that proposal. Speaker 2: For an ordinance. Thank you very much. Speaker 0: Thank you. John Spangler, John Sullivan and then Karen Bass. Speaker 3: Thank you, Mayor Spencer. Members of the council and staff. First, I want to say how much I appreciated hearing Debbie Potter give a staff report. I have missed that. She is very good at what she does and it's always a pleasure to hear the thorough reports that she offers to this body. Second, I as a member of the Steering Committee of Al Mehta Riders Coalition, I want to reiterate, we are not opposed to all rent increases. We understand that landlords are trying to make some amount of money that's on a positive balance. And we commend the people who are providing housing, especially the local landlords who are. Speaker 2: Providing housing to a great number of people. I think. Speaker 3: They and we oppose. Speaker 2: The egregious increases that we've seen of 30% in successive. Speaker 3: Years. That sort of thing, which is not just apocryphal, it's not a rumor. Speaker 2: So that's why we have supported this ordinance. We support. Speaker 3: And I personally support ordinance A. Speaker 2: With no threshold because there is. Speaker 3: No other place for renters to go. And most renters are. Speaker 2: Facing declining incomes or stable incomes, not rising incomes. As Councilmember Desai presented in January to this body, the census data that he's able to find shows an increasing disparity in incomes between the two groups. Speaker 3: Ordinance A maintains the status quo. There is no current threshold. There has been no flood of applicants to to. Speaker 2: The RAC, as has been feared and stated by some landlords. We don't anticipate any change in that. Speaker 3: I want to also say that I appreciate Councilmember Ashcroft's points. And I believe Councilor Odey also. Speaker 2: Mentioned earlier the 60 day eviction notice issue. Speaker 3: I hope that the RAC will be able to address that through. Speaker 2: Further research in this by this body and by. The city staff so an ordinance can be crafted to add to the the tax authority. Speaker 3: So that it does have the chance to deal with that. In addition to issues of the physical condition of rental. Speaker 2: Units that are substandard and other issues that renters are dealing with in Alameda. But we like what we see tonight. Speaker 3: We appreciate your support for Ordinance A with no threshold. Thank you very much. Speaker 0: Thank you. Dan Sullivan and then Karen B. Speaker 3: But evening Mr. Spencer. Members of the council and staff. I'm John Sullivan and. Appreciate you. Take a look at the take a look at the hand out it. It's fairly brief. And essentially, I would be leaning towards, you know, Proposition B, I guess it is Ordinance B or whatever, what to a few, you know, minor changes and number one, I guess would be the trigger and that the trigger to be at the 10%. And understand that there are many years when there is no possibility of an increase. And you've we've we've demonstrated that in a lot of literature that has been handed out to you. One other item if a tenant avails the tenant can, of course we recognize that they can avail of the conciliation service. And if they do that, if a tenant does that and decides not to go along with the recommendations of the conciliator. I did say there should be no right of appeal in that case because the tenant that's been given one chance should be no right of appeal up to the board. An excellent section 6.56. That was talk of a. Somewhere in the audience there. It's specified that the the landlord should call the tenant. There should be something in there that would reverse also that the tenant should contact the landlord before moving forward. And now number six, 56.10. Amid the one year penalty and this kind of barters on rent control, really, there could be some liability, I think, for the city. And remember remember that if. That the landlord has to wait through the 30 or 60 days anyhow before he can really notice. So he is he is being penalized in that respect. No. The last one, I think is a no brainer mandating the city of residency that a landlord cannot be a member of the review board unless he lives in the city. I think that's a. I say that's absurd. Really, I believe. And, you know, he pays taxes, real estate taxes. He provides good housing in the city. He employs managers and so forth, who must live in the city that pays payroll taxes and whatever. And. And yet he's denied a voice. You might say. I think that doesn't you know, that doesn't really add up. One thing. My kind of a pet. The duration of mine. Is that last one there, the excessive 15% or more rent increases. And there's an attachment which you've all seen already. But please go through it again, if you would. I really feel that where we are. Not helping a lot of the tenants by. By turning away from this and not taking action. I and there's the question that, well, I'm asking you for extra notice to be give like hundred and 22 notice or longer to help the tenants. And maybe that's against state law which states 60 days notice but at least maybe in the interim. Get it in? Yes. In documented in the ordinance that it be part of the recommendations from the city council to the rent review board that they consider and. Asking suggesting that the if the rent increase so be, you know, be at least to rent increase in order to be at least a double of the time of six . It is 120 days notice. I really feel that somebody somebody somewhere has to, you know, step out of the box and address that issue. It is very serious. Thank you. Speaker 0: Karen Bay. Speaker 4: I'm sorry. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 10: Good evening, Mayor Spencer. Members of the City Council staff. I'd first like to thank Geoffrey Canada and all of the members of the community that came together, the tenants and landlords that came together to create this compromise. And that's what this is. It's a compromise. Everybody's giving up something. And that said, I'm here to support Ordinance B, I think there should be a threshold. With all of the increases that landlords have faced over the last years with parcel taxes and school taxes and fees that are going up. I think that it's a given that our expenses are going up and that those some of those expenses need to be passed on. Also, the survey that was done, if I recall, I renewed hope most of the increases that have been given or that were within the 5 to 10% range so that very few people have given 30%, 20% increases. So we're talking about a small group of people. And I just. Don't feel comfortable. Punishing a small. Punishing all landlords for actions and behaviors of a small group. The Costa Hawkins Rental Housing Act exempts any form of rent control on single family homes, condos and new construction. So most of the landlords that will be affected by this ordinance are small mom and pop owners, many of which purchased their properties to. Purchased their properties as retirement income as they move into their later later years. And I fit in that category. So with this ordinance, we will not solve the regional housing crisis, but this is a great, good faith effort to address some of the concerns. And I believe that while I believe that the shift needs to be to focus on really getting to the core of the problem and solving the problem, we're not Wal-Mart. We're not a corporation. We're we're our neighbor. We're neighbors, we're friends with small business owners. And the idea that with that, that a small group of people are being asked to carry the burden, the full burden of this regional housing crisis, I think is unfair. So, again, I'd like us to shift hopefully this ordinance passes tonight. I'd like and again, I'd like us to shift our attention on addressing the core problems, the lack of supply. A lot of the cities, Bay Area cities, have come up with some really creative ways to address the problem. And I hope we I look forward to having that conversation with you tonight. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. And our final speaker, Katherine Pawlenty. Speaker 5: Aaron Council Counsel I wasn't going to speak, but there are a couple of issues that haven't been addressed that I feel are related to this issue, and that is the fact. That. I keep hearing how people are still finding housing and staying in Alameda and the very sort of poignant picture of the mother with her bed in a garage and her daughter. They're stuck with me. And since my landlord, who has been very fair up until recently like bunnies but is talking about it, that she can get $1,000 more for the three bedroom that I rented. Speaker 0: From her four and a half. Speaker 5: Years ago. And she wanted a long term tenant. I wanted a long term rental to get my grandchildren through school, to stabilize them, because I've talked with property realtors. They're doing a very strict one third rent two ratio in terms of income. So those of us I retired this past year, those of us on a fixed income, it is a serious downsizing. Me and the two teenage children, 13 and 15, boy and a girl. We would only qualify for a one bedroom at current rents. And I'm I'm sorry I hear about the landlords talking about their expenses going up and all of this, but rents, I follow it closely. Rents have gone up 50% in only two years. And by Mr. Lindsey's and some of the property I attended one of the property owners meetings and they've done the statistical data. They have a 20% turnover each year. They don't have to penalize the current tenants to this degree to be able to make their living, to make their profits. And everyone has had of the property owners have had tremendous increases in their property values. New people buying in at those property values know what the current rents are. Have are are buying in at that rate with full knowledge of the current values. So I feel like there is an informed group and there is a great deal of greed going on. And what really distresses me is when the city this is a great mechanism to at least bring people together to talk to lower it. But what I'm hearing from the people that have gotten it and got their landlord to come down to 10%. Then they're getting another 10% and 13 months. So they're back up to it. I at the end of the year, within the 13th month. They've got that extra 10% on top of the 10%, another others. So it's going up over 20% in 13 months. And that's a pretty sad solution. But that's where we are currently. This rock, the the rock is doing good work. Speaker 0: I understand that it's. Speaker 5: Mediation, but all the. Speaker 0: Power is with the property owners. Speaker 5: And I understand all the limits that are encompassed with rent control of all the small groups that are kept out. So the mom and pop operations that need that income. But I really go back to my landlord and. Speaker 6: I, before I moved in, agreed it would. Speaker 5: Be a long term rental. I want to keep the children in the school district. I'll do that if we have to move into a studio just to keep the community and Alameda. But don't. Speaker 0: Please don't say that we've. Speaker 5: Kept you know, that we're keeping people in housing. It's such a serious downsizing and it is a crisis and people are afraid. Speaker 0: Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Council comments. Member Audie. Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam Mayor. Thank you for letting me go first, because I'm interested in hearing my colleagues on this. Usually we come to these meetings 99%, our mind's made up. So I'm still amenable to hearing what my colleagues have to say. I just want to make a couple of quick points. One, we're not doing rent control. I mean, this is not an ordinance that implements rent control. What we are simply doing is enhancing a program that we have in place now with, you know, we're just tweaking it. You know, we're we're giving notice of it to tenants and we're requiring landlords to show up. And then we're having some repercussions if they don't show up or, you know, if no, their rent increases denied. So I some of the words that, you know, I've seen on Twitter and, you know, in the blogs and even tonight, you know, are a little disturbing. And when there's no punishing of landlords with this process, you know, what we are considering today is not punitive in any way, shape or form. And. When. And on the flip side. As a tenant, I can feel the pain of everyone. But when a landlord is giving a rent increase, they're not penalizing a tenant. Now, if they are penalizing you, that's retaliatory eviction. You take on the law or take them to court and sue them. And then if they really are penalizing you, then they'll be found. They'll be found to be retaliated against you. So I think that. It's important to know that this is a mediation process. And thank thank you, Jeff, for all the hard work on that. We should try to find ways where we could work together and collaborate and not use the loaded words like penalize and loaded words like like like punish. So those are things I wanted to say, first of all. Second of all, I said this when we first talked about this, and there it is in the first whereas clause in the ordinance. Whereas there was a strong demand for rental housing in the city of Alameda, which which demand may result. It's a little bit awkward, but, you know, which may result in a shortage of rental housing. And that's. Now that's the situation we have. We have a supply issue of housing here in Alameda. And my personal feeling it's not going to be fixed by rent control. It's not going to be fixed by, you know, having an enhanced and better rack process. It's going to be fixed by addressing the supply issue. And I encourage all of you that are here today, you know, that are suffering from this this shortage. You know, to come out when we have when we consider other projects like Side A and other projects that will help alleviate that supply. So. I was supportive of this process, supportive of the results that came through. You know, right now, my concern about putting in a threshold is that we're taking one. We're taking away rights that tenants already have today. There is no threshold. You have a 5%, 2%, 10%, whatever it is. You can go and avail yourself of the process. I'm concerned that if we add a threshold, then you are depriving certain people, certain tenants. You know, I don't know if it's due process, equal protection. We'll leave that up to the city attorney to decide. But I'm worried if you're basically denying access to a process that we have in place to help mediate rent disputes and rent increases to certain people just because the number is not at a certain threshold. So that's what I'm concerned about. I'm interested to hear my colleagues thoughts on this as well. And I do believe and this is what we've been asking for since I before I was even here in October, was the data to see the extent of the issue. And if if the issue is, you know, more than anecdotal, I understand, you know, it's pain for people and it's real when you're the one on the receiving end of the notice. But, you know, I'd rather make a decision based on a study than, you know, what I what I see on Twitter. So I've been in favor of moving forward with with gathering the data. Speaker 0: Remember Daisuke. Speaker 9: Thank you very much. Just a quick comments for right now. I'll have more to say. I think from the outset I've always said that. I want to have our official bodies that we have empowered to deal with housing related issues, in particular the Rent Review Advisory Board to weigh in on the subject matter. And. And to their credit, they have. And particular issue that they've certainly made comments on have to do with the threshold. You know, I've heard that from what property owners have to say, I heard about their concerns. I've also heard about concerns raised by by the tenants and the and in organizations. But I was what I was reading. And those are all important input. But what I have always been looking forward to hearing is what the Rent Review Advisory Board has said, and they're the people who we entrust to deal with this matter. And and I'm impressed with the time and thoroughness that they that they gave to this project. And one of their advice is, you know, no threshold. You know, and I know that pains the the property owners to hear that. But. But it is an advice, too, from coming from people who I ask for their advice. So on that score, my ruling is I can live with Ordinance A in that if it has no other because it comes from the review advisory boards recommendation. Speaker 0: Amber Ashcraft. Speaker 6: Thank you. Mary Spencer. First of all, thank you to everybody for informing us with your comments. And also, I was gratified to see Victoria Johnson from our Housing Authority meet up with them. What is the tenants we heard from about her? Notice that's how Alameda responds to our residents in need immediately. Thank you, staff. You do a great job. And I want to also disclosed that I have met with representatives of the landlords groups, representatives from the Alameda Renters Coalition and Mr. Camber, who did a great job in bringing these different groups together. I also favor the ordinance, say, as the RAC has weighed in and suggested we follow, because I like to keep things simple when you can. We have plenty of complications that we deal with all the time. So why added if we have if we don't have to? There is no threshold now and the process seems to be working quite well. I think the biggest issue was lack of awareness and I think that will be cured by requiring that a notice of rental increase include the language of the availability of the the process and to the by the way, I would go one step further and actually require that information about the availability of RAC services be included with every lease that is executed in Alameda. So that's something to consider as far as there was some worry and correspondence I think from some landlords about frivolous claims being brought. The one of the things in its document that the RAC does is to take into consideration take financial hardship into consideration, which is another reason not to set a threshold, because what someone's financial hardship might be, you know, might might rise even before a 10% threshold is met. At the same time, I think it's important to understand that you might bring your case before the RAC and still not get the resolution you have hoped for. But what we're trying to do is bring all the parties to the table. And I think we accomplish this with the with the penalties that would ensue if if either the landlord I know I'm not supposed to say landlord, the housing provider or the tenant does not come to the proceedings. But once we find that, once you get people face to face in the same room, by the way, I don't favor telephone conferences, but actual face to face meetings, you have a greater likelihood of resolving the situation, but not at all times. And I agree with my colleagues. I think Mr. Odey stated that it is a matter of supply and demand and I'll touch on that too. I But I do think that the lack of threshold has worked so far, and I think that our RAC and you know, we are going to bring some new faces, some fresh perspective in although the other has been doing a great job. But I just think it's, you know, should operate the way any board and commission does in the city. I think they're more they take their charge seriously and I think they're more than equal to the task. One question I do have and this goes to my, again, fervent desire for a consultant and to gather objective data for us is I really would like to know, first of all, how many rental units in Alameda would be covered by this ordinance because there are certain criteria. How many of these units are owned by Alameda residents? How many are owned by out of town, out of state owners? And the reason I ask that is that I've heard it both ways. I've heard that the majority of our rental property owners are Alameda residents. I've heard that the majority are out of town residents. And if we're relying on the presumption that somehow this informal, you know, local landlords putting pressure on local landlords not to make an excessive rent increase is to have wait. Then if more than half or at least half of our landlords are out of town representatives, shouldn't they have a seat at the table too? We've got two landlord seats. One of them could be held by an out-of-town landlord and that's something I think a consultant could look into. What is the currency vacancy, current vacancy rate for rental properties? And again, I'd like to see that broken down by size of unit type of unit. How many renters have faced rent increases above a certain percentage in 2013 and 2014 who were forced out of Alameda and then to quickly jump. Two other things we need to do, because as with just about any serious problem this body, the city council faces, there is no one magic solution. Trust me. If there was, we'd be, you know, we'd be going after it. So I think it's going to take a combination of ideas. Of course, we need to simply add more housing stock, but we don't do that overnight. But we have some some good potential in the pipeline. I think we also need to explore ways to increase the number of affordable units, even from some of our existing housing stock . And some of you may have heard, I want to say last week on KQED FM, there was a great forum moderated by Michael Cat. Michael Krasny the it talked about Oakland and people being displaced by gentrification and rising rents. One of the panel members was Libby Schaaf and some of her staff, and there was a reference to section 236 tax exemptions, housing authority people. I'm looking at you because I haven't had a chance to do research, but this has to do with this is the state tax code and landowner landlord being able to get a property tax exemption for committing that for 35 years. That property would be used for low income rentals exclusively in low income as defined in state code. And there was a landlord who was quoted in in this forum that had voluntarily come forward to the mayor and said, I'm doing this with my building and here's how it's done. I've also heard some creative ideas floated in the community. I've bounced them around off of city staff. In the real estate community, no unanimity. But one possibility would be the city could consider waiving the transfer tax on a purchase of a new rental property for a number of years. In exchange for that property owners agreement to to hold rent increases at a certain level and perhaps for certain criteria of renters, seniors, disabled, low income. But then someone else is city official in another city suggested I mean, we're all very possessive. I mean, if that's okay. Oh, I'm saying. Do you need to do that? Okay. Okay. You want to figure out my sentence? Okay. So instead of because we are concerned with our revenue to our general fund and that's where transfer tax goes. This particular city official suggested the council could decide to set aside a portion of their general fund revenues to be used as a forgivable loan for some of these rental income property owners who are facing increased taxes, increased costs when they buy new property, if, again, for a certain period of time, they would agree to holding the grants at a certain certain rate and for certain classes of renters. And again, this is something that should be explored by staff and perhaps a consultant. But just the point I'm trying to make is there are some other creative solutions we're all going to have to look at to help address this very real problem. Sorry, Mayor. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. So this at 1030, we would need a motion to consider remaining agenda items, which are six F, 66 H, nine and ten A and our clerk. Could you share the importance of six F and six G? Speaker 1: Yes, thank you. Six F and six G are required to be adopted tonight if the notice is going to go out with the business license. Otherwise, they would have to individually fill every one as an extra step. That would be quite consuming. I'm willing to go. Speaker 6: Back. Speaker 3: And I'm. Speaker 4: Really consider other items then. Speaker 5: And. Speaker 0: Then. Would that be to address the balance? Speaker 4: The balance, yes. Speaker 0: Second, all those in favor. My motion passed unanimously. Thank you. You make sure you finish. Speaker 6: Okay. Speaker 0: And vice mayor. Speaker 2: Yes. I wanted to point out that two things that both of these ordinance do, they put what's in one of the whereas is in a little more concrete and that's fair and reliable process to resolve disputes. And our main at least my main mission is looking for something that ensures fair treatment of the difference. Between what is before and what is in front of us now is also adding the Section 2.23. That's the creation. Of the Rent Review Advisory Committee. I think that's important also to make sure that we we do. And then lastly, on the order of a threshold amount, I'd like to see no threshold amount because. There's any number of reasons why a smaller percentage might be a tipping point or egregious. Just as much as a larger percentage that hadn't been preceded by any any increases might be considered a fair and a fair increase. And the Rent Review Advisory Committee would have the charge of evaluating each case individually without the constraint of a of a threshold. And also tenants will have the same rights that they currently have under the current process. I support Ordinance A. Speaker 0: Thank you. But I speak real quick. Okay. I wanted to speak more so with regards to your warehouses. The first paragraph. There is strong demand for rental housing in the city of Alameda, which demand may result. I think we could strike that second demand which may result in the. And I agree with them. If I had trouble reading the third paragraph, the sentence reads Whereas when housing providers have information about a rent increase, when that rent increases have, I think there should be rent increase. Singular has worked a financial hardship. Speaker 6: I caught that later and they've got it. Yeah. Speaker 0: And, and in regards to this, it is this is something that the tenant has to prove that it is a financial hardship. I'm not sure why this is actually here. When I went in. When that rent increase has worked I financial hardship on the tenant and someone else because that suggests to me that it was a that the tenant must show a financial hardship in order to bring this. And I'm not sure that that's actually currently what happened to that rack. Looks at the individual person's income and expenses to determine of make a finding to that effect. So I would think that that language should be stricken so that we're not in the position of asking our rack to make a finding to that effect. Speaker 7: If I may just get some clarification so we can help. So first of all, these are whereas this they're not. So they're just kind of setting the stage for what the reasoning is for putting this ordinance into effect that in following what you're trying to say. Manama I guess my only question would be just any rent increase is not necessarily going to mean that they have to avail a tenant would have to avail themselves of this process. So I think the intention was to try to say if there's a rent increase that the tenant believes is unfair or they have a problem meeting that financial burden, then this is something that they can they can pursue. So I think that's what we were trying to get out. Speaker 0: And I would suggest language should be modified to something to that effect as well. Speaker 6: And just just along those lines, if you look on to the duties of the committee at the end, it it does include that. After hearing the parties and taking into consideration such factors as the financial hardship to the tenant. So I think that the initial language is consistent and I would at want to hear whatever modifications are before I. Agreed to approve this. Speaker 7: I'm sorry, Councilmember. I didn't understand where you were looking. That there's some additional language. Speaker 6: Well, I'm just looking at the duties, then, of the rack. I'm sorry. Which are in the last page. Speaker 7: Okay. Speaker 6: The two dash 23.4. Speaker 7: So Manu, Mayor, are you suggesting you don't think financial hardship on the tenants should be considered then, is that. Speaker 0: No, I think that is this is a factor that says such factors as in regards to the duties. So tenants do sometimes come and speak to that and share that. I think you're rare as however it says very clear. It says when that rent increase has worked, a financial hardship as opposed to being part of a list. So I think there's a difference between the two and I'd like to be able to continue my comments at this point. Speaker 6: I was just trying to understand what you were just in the ultra. Speaker 0: Actually the council suggested some language in the alternative. Or she'll come back the. In regards to the as that paragraph continues and speaks to a committee of residents representing housing providers. And I support that language and I appreciate concerns from landlords that live outside of our city. However. Everyone up here. We all are required to live here. A school board. Everyone's required to live here in the city of Alameda. Every commission we do make decisions that impact people outside of our community. All, all of the time. And they are always for every commission that is a requirement to reside here in the city of Alameda. I don't think not. Which commission? Speaker 1: The Transportation Commission allows it to be people who have businesses here and then also be a school district representative who's not required to necessarily live in town. They work at the school district. So it's sometimes work here, too, just in a very small case. Speaker 0: Right. So I would say that for me personally, I can I actually think it should always be residents. That's that's what I'm used to here at the council level and at the school board level who make the. Really? The decisions. Speaker 7: I'm sorry. Are you reading for membership? I'm having trouble. Speaker 0: It's a row now, referring to the third. Whereas on here it says a committee of residents. I want to speak to that. And that's something that's come up. That's just my position. I think maybe other people are don't want that included there. Speaker 7: They want to remove the committee of. Speaker 0: No, I like it as is, but other people have spoken to that. So I just want to just make it clear it's here. It is here. So if we want to have this, I think that whenever you have suggested this be research. Speaker 6: Well, I'm suggesting that that it might be something data we'd want to look into with the consultant. It's something to consider. I know, for instance, in the city of San Leandro, they have one landlord member who's a resident owner and one who is not. So I yeah. And again, I'm I'm open to hearing what the council as a body feels about that. But I also feel like I don't have enough information at this point. Speaker 0: All right. And that paragraph continues, a neutral form for a tenant to voice a concern about the rent increase. And I'd like to add. And the housing provider to respond. The other. The flip is if that is not provided here and then. My major concern with this is and we had a speaker speak to this Pastor Hawkins, it intent it excludes certain landlords from rent control. And I'm and I would like a legal opinion in regards to can we establish that one of those types of owners, such as someone that someone that rents a family residence, would be excluded under Costa Hawkins. Then can we establish that they must provide this notice? And if in fact they don't appear under 6-5, 7.3, it says, then any rent increase, accomplished violation of this shall be void. I, I would question whether or not we can make an ordinance that would make a rent increase invalid for a landlord that owns a single family house or any other type of housing that is excluded under California state law under Costa Hawkins from rent control. I would ask that that be looked at before we have a mandatory panel. Making anything mandatory for those owners that are excluded under Costa Hawkins. Member, Desai. Speaker 9: Madumere, are you finished right now? Because I have three points that I want to address, but I can wait. Speaker 0: Although I just want to make sure. All right. Thank you. Speaker 9: Yes. Okay. My three quick points are in terms of out of town representation on the wrap. I concur. Again, I defer to the recommendation put forward by the Rabb regarding making residents. I hear the concerns of of the of the property owners. But from my perspective, two issues. One, property owners have been active on the RAB process. So I think their their views are well, well included. And the second thing is that, you know, it's a recommendation coming from the RAB on whom I've relied quite a bit on this matter. Second issue is on funding this. Earlier we had passed the previous thing that allowed for roughly 60, 60, $77,000, which really isn't much to to help this process. While I'm not going to pursue this tonight. One of the things I do want to report on earlier today is I figured, well, you know, since I do rent out two rooms, I should I should get by, as I indicated or some earlier today. I should get a business license. It turns out that because I it's my owns, it's a single family home because it's a single family home. And even even as I ran out two rooms and even as I, you know, include that in any of my tax returns, you know, business deductions, blah, blah, blah, but I am not required to pay the $20 business license per room. So it's something that we might think about in the future as a possible revenue source. I calculate that if given the number of single family homes that are renting rooms, I calculate roughly, you know, $56,000. I mean, not much, but maybe enough to cover. Okay. The third point is on the issue of Costa Hawkins, not only on the point raised by the mayor tonight, but I thought I heard a possibility of some legal action regarding against the Ordinance A or B, in which case maybe one language that's missing from the ordinance right now. I think that we always use some kind of severability clause, maybe because I don't think I see that in here. So it's something that we need. I think we should contemplate that if some portion or one particular part of the ordinance is subject to the courts and in fact loses, and that doesn't mean everything else is is moot. I mean, so that's I would hope get direction from the council on that. Thank you. Those are my three points. Speaker 0: So. In regards to the 35,000 for the consultant the consultants report. I would be interested in knowing. The type, the percentage of how of rentals that are excluded under Costa Hawkins. What percentage of rentals here in Alameda fall under Costa Hawkins in which that would not be eligible for any type of rent control? Because for me, the reason why I've been strongly supporting this is that I see it as a way to best try to address. The highest percentage, if not all, rentals within the community and under Costa Hawkins, we there. I think there's actually a significant percentage of rentals that would be excluded under a mandatory rent control. And and then that goes to my earlier concerns in regards to anything that is mandatory for those units. I think this works because I think this goes to addressing all renters within the city because it is voluntary and that's that . So then that's my concern. And then for me, my focus in regards to in addition to what units would be excluded is the effectiveness of these changes. Once we move forward with this, how effective they are, the type of renter, you know, if we can figure out how many renters are actually receiving the notice, if it's impacting if they feel at that point that it's addressing the concern as successful, almost like an exit from the the rack and exit interview from rack and see if they if, you know, if they think it's working. And also any comments from the landlords. So that I actually think that the result would be to continue to strengthen rec moving forward as a voluntary effort that then addresses the needs of, I think, all renters within the city of Alameda. Yes. Member Ashcroft. Speaker 6: May I just ask you for clarification? I was trying to take notes, Madumere when you were talking about trying to address or assess the whether the majority of rentals wouldn't be subject to rent control. You're not proposing rent control. You're just trying to see if we can bring them all under the umbrella of this voluntary. Speaker 0: So my concern is that when that or when we're looking at this profile of rental market market conditions. There. It would include an increase in rent across the board. And it may suggest then that we as a council could make changes that would go to addressing all of those concerns. And I think it's so for me, it's important to recognize that Costa Hawkins, by definition, would exclude and I think a major significant number of the rentals. So that I think it's important to strengthen the rec. And I'm not suggesting rent control, which is does not address all the rental industry. Speaker 6: I just kept hearing you say it. But so so you're saying you'd like that quantitative data as well? Yes. Speaker 0: And I think it's because I think it's very important that the community and we understand at most we so this for me, this is very important that this be voluntary so that we can address all the concerns and any data in regards to. I would like to know what percentage of rentals would always be excluded under rent control. Costa Hawkins. Speaker 6: Thank you. Speaker 0: And I think that's actually where the benefit to our entire community comes from by doing a voluntary BRAC. Yes. Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam Mayor. So, just so I understand. So on. In the tasks of the scope of work for the study, you'd like to see a number that says under Costa Hawkins, these number of units and maybe which ones are single-family, which ones are built after? I think after 79 or whatever it is that. Speaker 0: I've. Speaker 4: Known, and if I. Speaker 7: Yes, I can clarify that it's Costa Hawkins basically will apply it and we are not doing rent control, let's make this clear. But it's four units built prior built prior to 1995 and they are duplexes or apartment buildings. They are not single family homes, they are not condominiums. They are not anything that is separate parcels. Speaker 0: But it's my understanding apartments built after 95 cannot have. Speaker 7: Right control and the rent control under Costa Hawkins applies to duplexes, apartment buildings built prior to 1995. Speaker 4: Thank you. Maybe the so is the gist of through the chair or to the chair is the gist of your question. If the council at this council or some other council were to consider rent control, think quantity, quantifying what number of units is the universe that might be subject to it and which ones would be exempt regardless of whatever. Speaker 0: Yes. Because at the end, I think we're going to end thinking that rack is. Well, I think that that's information. I would like to know. Speaker 4: You know, I mean, I have no problem with that. But I do. You did raise a point earlier that maybe this is a closed session, maybe this is something in public. But, you know, are we going to run afoul of Castro Hawkins with. I don't think we are because this is not rent controlled. But are we going to run afoul of it with this rent ordinance? And maybe given that there's some threats of litigation. Speaker 0: Well, there's actually a side. So my concern is that it's not it's a it says that the rent increase would be void if if these measures are not taken. And I don't understand how if we could not apply rent control under Costa Hawkins to a certain rental. How can we say a rent increase is void? Speaker 7: And I think we probably are getting into some legal issues that maybe it is best if council wants me to come back, we'll have to not take action on this. You're asking a number of legal questions. We can go back and look and come back with some information for counsel. I guess one thing I would ask, though, listening to you, Madam Mayor, is you're saying you don't want to do these kinds of things, but you want to strengthen the rack. And I guess I'm not sure how we strengthen the rack. That was the intent of this, trying to find ways to strengthen the rack. Speaker 0: So my question first to you is that I need to know if this is legal that's being presented to us to approve. And I don't believe that they should. And so I'm asking you to to come back and let us know. Speaker 7: I can come back and look at these specific questions, but I can tell you that we didn't bring you something that we thought I missed. Speaker 6: Yeah, well, that was my question. Speaker 2: Mayor, I think. Vice Mayor, when the Mayor pointed this out, I read it differently because I was reading sections 6.57.3 as providing. The tenant. With a tool. To use as evidence in their case. And that is proceeded though, and you could read it the other way that's preceded that this ordinance would void a rent increase, which is rent control. So how do you reconcile? That's the question that is there wording that can reconcile it but still provide the tenant with the protection that's intended here. And I think. Speaker 7: I'm hearing you and we will have to come back. I can't I've tried to do things sitting here and I can't. Speaker 2: Yes, I'm just saying what I. I think the question is, again. Speaker 6: You have Mr.. Speaker 0: Mayor. Speaker 5: The one thing that I might point out is that. If the if the rent increase is not valid because it wasn't properly noticed under our ordinance, if the property owner then notices it properly, they can move forward with the rent increase so that it's it's not a permanent bar. If you properly notice pursuant to the ordinance, then the rent increase can be imposed. However, it is true that the way the ordinance is structured that if there is a failure to participate in the hearing, you are barred from increasing rent for 12 months. But you have the ability to care, that you have an ability to prevent that from happening by participating in the process. And I would say that there are several jurisdictions San Leandro, the county of Alameda, there are other jurisdictions that have these requirements on their books. So that we were really looking to best practices when we did our research on these ordinances. So we're not in a completely unchartered territory. There are jurisdictions. Speaker 0: So I wouldn't it's not, you know, if it's being challenged legally by a landlord. Speaker 5: It has not. Right, John? There's been no challenges in San Leandro or the county. Speaker 0: Because I was sitting on a school board. Right. So so I can tell you my experience of sitting on a school board and having a case go up and be challenged and the school district losing. So I really appreciate this being thoroughly vetted at this point. Thank you. Speaker 4: Madam Mayor, of the continued. Speaker 0: Scrutiny. Speaker 4: I. I do concur with your thoughts echoed by Councilmember Daisuke about the composition of the the board. Maybe I'm a little parochial here, but I think it should be Alameda, INS and Alameda only. But that's my thought is are we able to move this? May I. Sounds like we have a consensus on at least A versus B. Yes, I support move this or do we want to move this. I think because we remember we did the the the we the but we knew that we had a second reading. So we had an opportunity to and not approve the second reading if we didn't. Speaker 6: I don't think. Speaker 0: I don't support moving forward at this time. Speaker 7: Councilmember o.T We can't do that because he's got too many things that are just asking. Yeah, no, I appreciate it. But what we, what we have to do is we have to have pretty solidly what the ordinance is. And to have a tweak, which is all we did in the Wheaton matter, was just one one week. Speaker 9: So so maybe the motion that there has to be one tonight should just be picking between A and B and then subject to the concerns raised by the mayor and other council members. Speaker 0: And we're Ashcroft. Speaker 6: I well, I don't know how far we can go. I think what I would want to see is that we make sure we're giving staff, particularly the city attorney, clear direction on what points we want researched and brought back to us. So given I mean, we could say we just want you to study Ordinance A, because that's the that's the will of this body. But I'm not sure we can do much more than that. Speaker 4: It'd be more efficient if we didn't have to rewrite two ordinances. If we knew we were leaning one way that you only rewrite if necessary. Speaker 0: So is there. Was there anyone that's on council that supported me? Option B, no. Okay. So then I think your. Speaker 6: Direction. Speaker 2: That's. Speaker 0: That's the direction that. Speaker 2: America. Yes. There are two other points of consensus. One is that we were going to give direction and there was a laundry list of data that we want give direction on the other half of this recommendation to go ahead with the study. That's independent of the actual wording here. Yep. And to my way of thinking, nonresidents should not be on the on the rack. Speaker 0: So we have a consensus. I go to residence Iraq. Speaker 2: So I'd like to see it go forward with resolution of this issue of Costa Hawkins. And does this constitute. What it would affect. Does it have particularly a6-5? 3.5, 7.3? Speaker 0: And keep residents an option. And thank you. Member Ashcroft. Speaker 6: Just for the benefit of the folks who are listening in who might not have taken real property in law school. Can you just cause to Hawkins tell us briefly what it is to do. Speaker 0: That I'm sorry, it's almost 11 another because you have the motion to extend the meeting beyond 11. Speaker 2: So moved. Speaker 4: That. Speaker 0: All those in favor I motion carries unanimously. Thank you. You may. Can you. Speaker 6: Just. So we're not talking in code to the public. Costa Hawkins is the name of, I think to legislators who. Speaker 7: Yes. I mean. Speaker 6: And just generally speaking, it. Speaker 7: And it basically is. And please feel free to add what you you want. But but Costa Hawkins is rent. It's the Costa Hawkins Rental Housing Act, which is in California's civil code 1954.50 at SEC. So anyone who wants has on their Internet, whatever can look it up. It is a law that was passed by the state legislature which authorizes limited rent control provisions. Speaker 6: Thank you. Speaker 4: So maybe I will motion. I'd like to do this into one to prove the staff recommendation to do the study on the impacts of rising rents on Alameda residents. With the extra data point that the mayor suggested. Speaker 0: I think there are suggestions from. Their Council member. Speaker 4: Brother data points. Speaker 0: Member. Speaker 4: I'm open to friendly amendments and the motion. Speaker 6: I mean, they were. They were in the record. Do you want me to read them again or. Speaker 0: I take the staff. Me? Speaker 7: I think we. I think we have them. Unless you all wanted to vote on them. Speaker 0: And is that. Does that need to be a motion? A direction? Speaker 7: I think the direction is fine. Speaker 0: That's direction. Speaker 7: And I guess the question I would have, do you want the study information to come back at the time we come back with the redrafted ordinance? Speaker 6: No, I don't. I think staff is saying it'll take about six months and I will. Speaker 7: That's why I want to know. Speaker 6: But I don't to my personal views. Speaker 4: Get the ball rolling on. Speaker 6: It. Yeah, my personal opinion is the meaning of the ordinance doesn't doesn't require that we have the data. But I think the council and we need this data moving forward. So and I'm told by staff it'll take about six months to complete the study anyway. Speaker 0: And I'm looking for data. I want to clarify moving forward to how successful I want to make sure you heard that not just Garth Hawkins, but how successful when I think how successful RAC has been feedback about RAC. Speaker 4: I mean, we don't need to study for that though, right? Speaker 5: That no, we'll do that. Speaker 6: Internal staff can gather those numbers. Speaker 4: So then I'll amend my motion to, you know, authorize the. Speaker 0: Direction you just said give any direction. Speaker 4: Well, don't we have to approve the study or. No, we're good. Then I'll give direction. Speaker 0: Mostly direction. All of us. Speaker 7: I don't have. Yes, we're good. Speaker 0: Okay then. Thank you very much. Speaker 4: I'll stop talking. Speaker 0: Okay. So my understanding is we can now move on to the next agenda item. The six f. Speaker 2: What can we put a summary for people watching? What do we do with the ordinance? When is it coming back? Speaker 4: Yeah, good point. Speaker 6: Maybe June ten time is. Speaker 4: What are we doing any? Speaker 2: We asked the city manager. All right. Speaker 0: So would you like to give us that? You have information gross to when you expect us to come back at this point? Speaker 5: Well on the study, I think about six months. But the ordinance the ordinance ordinance. Speaker 6: When when can we calendar this ordinance again? How much time a city attorney need. Speaker 4: When we have extra meetings? Speaker 2: No regular meetings. Speaker 7: Once I. Speaker 6: Met him. Speaker 0: You know, and. And we should take a very short recess if. During a during an item deliberating. Yes. When they're deliberating, we'll take a quick recess next. Speaker 3: Much. Speaker 5: Yeah. Speaker 0: Jim is going to try to help us find our. Speaker 2: Here she comes. I see. Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. We're going to resume. STAFF Did you want to report? Oh. Speaker 7: So Council wanted to know when we could come back with the newly revised proposed ordinance along the lines of the ordinance A and we believe we can do it before you break or four August, so we hope to get it to you in July. Speaker 0: Wonderful. Thank you. All right. Next agenda item six. Speaker 1: A public hearing to consider adoption of resolution confirming the Webster Street Business Improvement Area Report for fiscal year 20 1516 and leaving an annual assessment on the Webster Street. Speaker 0: All right. And. One moment. Speaker 9: Madumere. I'll have to recuse myself from this. Speaker 0: All right. They continue. Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam Mayor, and city council members. I'm Eric Von Stein with the Community Development Department. Tonight, the city council is holding a public hearing to levy an assessment for the Webster Street Business Improvement area. We're asking that the city council renew the assessment by adopting a resolution confirming the Webster Street BIA annual report and levying an

Regular Agenda Item

Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding Article XII to Chapter VI Concerning the Review of Rent Increases, and Adding Section 2-23 to Article II Concerning the Creation of a Rent Review Advisory Committee; and Recommendation to Provide Direction to the City Manager Regarding a Study to Analyze the Impacts of Rising Rents on Alameda Residents. (Community Development 481005)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_05052015_2015-1553

Speaker 0: think that historic is actually a huge part of the attraction of Webster Street. And I'm concerned that that focus seems to have been dropped. So I would like I would like some consideration of focusing on the historic significance and of Webster Street. Speaker 6: Yes. Fair to make a motion. I move that council, adopt a resolution confirming the Webster Street Bar Report for fiscal year 20 1516 in levying an annual assessment on the Webster Street BIA. Speaker 0: Second. Speaker 2: Second. Speaker 0: All of us in favor of motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Six G. Speaker 3: Oh. Speaker 0: Yes. You may continue. Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam Mayor. And city council members. I'll keep this presentation very brief. Tonight, the city council is holding a public hearing to levy an assessment for the Park Street Business Improvement Area. The same procedures that I previously outlined for the Webster Street BIA also applies to the Park Street Pier. I would also like to know today the city has received no protests for the Park Street Pier. Staff recommends that the city council hold a public hearing, adopt a resolution confirming the Park Street by report, and levy an annual assessment on the Park Street BIA for the fiscal year. 20 1516. That concludes my presentation. Available to answer any questions. And we have representatives from the Park Street Business Association which manages the park. There are also here available to answer any questions. Speaker 0: Speakers from Rado also. Rob Rado. Thank you. Speaker 4: We're going to assess you for that shade you broke earlier. Speaker 3: All right. All right. Rob Reiner, executive I'm still the executive director of the Park City Business Association, soon to be Darva. I've only got 20 or 30 minutes to talk to. No, I'm only up here if anybody has a question. I'm shocked and amazed that we don't have any buddy saying they don't want to be part of the bill. And God bless them all. Questions. Going once. Going twice. Does anybody know if the Warriors won tonight? Oh, good bye. Speaker 0: That was up to you to provide us that information. Speaker 4: We're not checking our phone. Speaker 0: Well, all right. Do we have a motion? Speaker 4: Oh, I'm not. Speaker 2: A moved. Speaker 6: Back in. Speaker 0: Any comments? All those in favor of my motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Next six H. Speaker 1: Essays A recommendation to select two City Council members to serve on the Joint Subcommittee with the East Bay Regional Park District. And I see that our representative on that board has stayed this late in the evening. So thank you, Doug. Basically and this is the follow up to the council referral that first came forward from Vice Mayor Matarese and then was brought back when a resolution was adopted by the Council to talk about the specific McKay property. And then the East Bay Regional Park District Board went ahead and voted that they would approve the having members on the subcommittee as well. So this is back before you tonight to approve your selection.

Regular Agenda Item

Public Hearing to Consider Adoption a Resolution Confirming the Park Street Business Improvement Area (BIA) Report for Fiscal Year 2015-16 and Levying an Annual Assessment on the Park Street BIA. (Community Development 227)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_05052015_2015-1626

Speaker 1: Nine A recommendation that the City Council establish a procedure for appointments to regional boards and commissions and guidelines for how appointees reflect city policy and city council directed. Then it was placed on the agenda at the request of members. Speaker 0: Member Ashcraft. Speaker 6: Thank you. Mary Spencer. So very simply, the city charter specifies the procedure for appointing members to our internal boards public utilities, civil service planning, social service, human relations, library and historical advisory boards. And I think we just added in. Well, no, we didn't quite. But we're going to contemplate adding another procedure for the rental rent review advisory committee, I feel. And in those cases, for all of our internal boards, the, the mayor nominates the appointees and then the, the council votes and the language is in the charter. But the charter, for whatever reason, is silent on the procedure for appointing representatives to our regional boards and commissions. For example, the Alameda County Transportation Commission Association of Bay Area Governments, a bag, Waste Management Authority, League of California Cities and so on. So although in some cases in League of California Cities is one of them, it's specifically mandated by the Regional Board how that appointment is made. But for the rest of those regional boards, the charter is silent and those boards are silent. My recommendation is we have talked about a rules committee being formed one of these days, and I think that this is something that the Rules Committee should look into. My recommendation would be that the same procedure applies for appointments to regional boards and commissions as applies to internal boards that the mayor makes his or her recommendation and the council votes on that, and that's how it's done. So that's part one. And then when it comes to representation on a regional board or commission, the and this is something that I've had some discussion with the city attorney about all those issues, stepped out of the room. But since actions taken by regional boards and commissions can have significant implications for the city, for example, our ability to secure funding for transit improvements or alleviate traffic congestion. And I think it's important that there be some guidelines that create a procedure for how the city's representative represents the will of the council or the, you know, guidance of the the city. If there's been a vote, for example, how that position is represented on these regional boards and commissions, and then for all of us who serve on these regional boards and commission a procedure to report back if we voted on some matter of civic significance to the city, what that vote is. So I'm not looking for a vote, you know, to create the procedure now. But it's something that I'd like both the Rules Committee, when we do establish a rules committee, I don't think we've done that yet to look into these appointments to regional boards. And I would like city attorney to bring back information for us. And I believe there is caselaw there is attorney general opinions and some other procedures that govern how a representative to a regional board represents the city on that regional board. Speaker 0: The other member comments. Speaker 9: Remember data on the two items. The first one my comment regarding. Nominating and placing persons on external boards. I think the straightforward way of just you had indicated the mayor nominates and if the the board so chooses the board can then vote on if. For the most part, I've never seen any controversy around that. I'm not I'm not sure that one needs a rules committee altogether. I think it's just you that do. Speaker 6: It the way. Speaker 2: We do. You meant the council, not the account. You said the board votes on it outside. Speaker 9: The council account. Yes. So I think that's pretty straightforward. On the second item, as I sit on the California League of Cities. I'm more than happy to hear what other council members have to say. I myself, when I attend meetings, I live tweet so that if the public is so interested, they can follow. In the last meeting, for example, there was a vote where one member had wanted to expand the the work of the League of California Cities, Housing and Community Development to include specifically homelessness. What to do about that? And the Housing and Community Development Committee decided not to include homelessness as one of its work items. I, in fact, voted to include it. I was fine with including it. But, you know, certainly that's an instance when, you know, I'm making this decision on behalf of the city. So I have no qualms in. Speaker 2: An American. Speaker 0: Vice mayor. Speaker 2: And I think lead California cities is a little bit different because it's not a taxpayer funded. I mean, cities fund it, but but the Waste Management Authority and the transit authorities are directed. Those are mandated taxes. And I think I served under a previous mayor. I think the prerogative of the mayor is to represent the city at these boards. And that I've seen, at least in my experience. At this at this level, I think it gives that he is the office that's representing there. But I do have expectations. I have expectations when I serve one or two times as an alternate staff recently on the agenda. And reminded me of which agenda items that were in the city's interest that we have had votes on, etc.. So I think that that partizan expectation I have and there's an expectation of a report back. And I think whatever liaison committee we have or whatever external committee that that usually happens in council communications. I think we have a lot on our plate. I. I have respect for the past practice. It seemed to work. And until I hear that, there's a problem. Think this is really a back burner item and at some point there is a problem, we can address it. But I think the issue of prepping and the issue of reporting back is how we how we manage this. And I'm not an informal way but in in a practice that seems to have served the. Speaker 0: I'm ready. Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam Mayor. My my feelings are pretty similar to what the vice mayor just expressed. You know, as far as part of the appointment, I mean that's I mean that's typically been the mayor's you know to the victor goes the spoils right. I mean. That's your job, your prerogative. And, you know, if somebody feels slighted, then, you know, try to make sure you have a relationship with the person who makes the appointments. I mean, I don't know what else to say about that one. The second one, you know, I'm a little bit concerned about, you know, the the direction, you know, given to us as we serve on these either as alternates or representatives and and making sure that, you know, we follow as our is we represent the city. So I would think that we represent the policies that have already been adopted by the city. So I would be concerned if, you know, somebody was representing a different policy at one of these regional boards. And I think that was kind of the the impetus for for this referral was to make sure that, you know, say, for instance, on Acts, you know, that if if we have spoken as a community and we have spoken as a council to be supportive of something that our our representative represents us, you know, same with Waste Management Authority, you know, a bag and so on. And then, you know, I know I've heard reports back from League of Cities, but, you know, I'm not recalling very many reports back out from from some of these other other regional boards and commissions. And I'd like to see something, you know, written down that, you know, there was a policy that, you know, we knew how we were directed to vote. And I you know, if the policy is that you agree to serve, then you agree to sit down with staff and go through the agenda. You know, maybe that's what it is. But I'd like to make sure that, you know, we're all fully briefed and fully prepped and that we're representing the city at these boards and commissions with the proper, you know, authority and proper positions. Speaker 6: So so to address something, Mr. Councilmember, what you just said and the to the victor goes the spoils. And if someone feels slighted, I didn't bring this because I felt slighted. I not that I was appointed, but I didn't feel slighted. But my concern was simply that these regional bodies are significant to our city in many ways, not least of which has to do with funding streams. So I feel that those are decisions that the entire council as a body will be held accountable for. So I would at least like as much say in and it really is just maybe a formality, but at least it's a way of bringing it to the public. And, you know, we're all about transparency up here. So that just like tonight, we considered the representatives for this East Bay Regional Parks Liaison Committee, and the public could see it in the public could, you know, hear who the appointments were. And, and it was from a referral from council member Vice Mayor Matariki. So I'm just saying I think that we should treat all of our appointments equally. I think they're all equally important and I think the implications of our service on a regional bodies could be even greater than, say, the Historical Advisory Board, which would at least come before the council. And I do agree with Councilman Brody's assessment about the importance of having just some oversight, not oversight, some direction in policy. And this is something I was saying the city attorney and I have had conversations about. There is some. But when it comes to the representative of the city serving on a regional board and carrying out the the will of the council, the will of the city, there is, I believe, some attorney general opinions, some case law, some other procedure that could be spelled out for the council so that we're just not not only the council, but the public is clear about that. And I, I don't think it has to be very long and involved, but I would like to see that done. Thank you. Speaker 0: So I would not support asking council to do more work at this time. I would support I agree with the member vice mayor's comments. On this entire item. And my only concern would be that the member that has brought this item served under the prior administration, and it's my understanding that this item was not brought at that time. And I do believe that the members of our council that serve on the Commission's report back on what I would consider issues significant to the city. And there are. So I support the prior practice in this entire regard. Their motion. Speaker 2: I have one more comment. Vice Mayor I'd like to maybe address this to the Interim City Manager about the the assurance that when these regional bodies produce an agenda that someone has to attend, whether it's the primary or the alternate, that the practice is, I've been away for four years, but the practices that whether it's public works , whether it's but most of the time it was public works or whether it's planning and community development for a bag that there's there's a briefing, it's done. And I experience this with CMA that no longer exist. That the city engineer sat down with me and said there was the vote in 2006 and now it's coming before SEMA . And this is this is critical to the city to implement what we did. That's what I'm looking for. And is that something that happens? And can we be assured that it will continue? Speaker 5: I'm not sure if it's happening right now. Um. Speaker 0: So. Well, let me out. So you serve on a transit liaison committee. Do you receive a staff briefing for it? Speaker 2: Usually a staff person comes and we talk before we go. And that first meeting got postponed till July, but. Speaker 0: Yeah, so it sounds like you do all right. Speaker 2: It hasn't happened yet. It did in the past. Speaker 0: Okay. Speaker 2: The May the April meeting was canceled, so there was nothing. Speaker 6: So do we send a staff meeting with the council? Speaker 5: You know, I don't know. I don't know. So how about. Speaker 0: Me? You know, sometimes. Yes, sometimes not. Sometimes staff. Depending upon what the items are, staff does brief, for instance, on waste management. And there is a change here in regards to our delegate our primarily is on now member. But staff does brief the representative on that item and attend a meeting and is very is always available during the meeting. League of Cities Member If you and I were there, I don't think. Speaker 6: Actually that it's Tony. Member Councilmember Desai is our representative. We just we attend the East Bay division meetings sometimes, but he's the actual. Speaker 0: Sorry, I meant the annual conference. That's that we just attended. I don't think. Go. Oh, all right. Speaker 6: Yes. And you're the representative to that one? Speaker 0: Yeah. Okay. On that one, did you have staff? Staff. I don't know. Speaker 5: So I think there are definitely sort of the thresholds of where when when staff attends and when they don't. And I think primarily it's when money is involved that we make sure that we're there. For example, waste management, particularly with rate increases. AC DC Obviously, I think that's absolutely critical, so. Speaker 0: We'll find out. Mr.. Speaker 5: That's right. Yeah. I think maybe the league California cities, you know, that's less of a I think I mean, if we have staff, I think that would be helpful. But it's also not as critical, I think, as the ones where there's money attached. Speaker 6: Although I will just add that staff, of course, doesn't attend the closed session. Speaker 5: Oh, right. Speaker 0: Correct. And that's a good it's a good point. In regards to closed session, I'm not sure what report out we could do on items in closed session either. Speaker 5: You know, I don't think that's a big deal usually. I mean, it's okay. Speaker 6: Well, it probably depends on what the item was, but. Speaker 0: But if it's in closed session, I don't think. Speaker 2: It can report it to us. Speaker 6: Yeah. Yeah, I think that's the way I think council as a body would want to know. Speaker 0: All right, so. Does that satisfy you in regards to. Your concern? Speaker 6: I think a little more clarification wouldn't hurt. Speaker 2: I don't think that up until now, I don't think we need to set up a committee now. We I think we have to you know, we have to make sure sign signees set. I just want to make sure that the briefings are done and people are reporting out after. Speaker 6: Right. Well, I think if I heard Councilmember Desai correctly, you said earlier, just do the appointments. I mean, the appointments are obviously all made. So this is going forward. Do them the way we do our internal bodies just, you know, bring them out so the public can in No. Two in the council can vote in. It's really a formality, but at least it's public. Speaker 9: Yeah, I'm fine. Speaker 0: I so that there would be a change to require. Council to approve as much as what you're asking the. Speaker 6: As much as we do. Any other appointment you make, Madam Mayor. Speaker 0: So I don't support any change, as has been the practice and precedents, far as I know for the history of our city. And I would see. Speaker 6: And what what I recall from the previous mayor, Mary Gilmore, is that she actually pulled the different members of the council asking their interest in particular serving on particular bodies. And then she made the appointments. But she, you know, she please check with us. So we we knew where to put them. And then we got a list that was emailed to us showing us what our assignments were. So I'm just one it was just one of those areas where it was interesting to me that the the charter was silent about appointments to regional boards and commissions, and yet it prescribes the procedure for the internal ones. And again, to my point, I think the regional body parts are just as important to the public. And so, you know, I don't think we're asking for a major change. Speaker 9: And just I just want to make sure to say for the League of California Cities, you do have to get voted. Speaker 6: Exactly that, because. Speaker 9: I think that's my impetus for this. I hear what you're saying, but. Speaker 6: Do it like the league. Speaker 0: Any other member comments? Mamelodi. Speaker 4: Yeah, I'm not going to talk about the appointment process, but you know, just to echo the vice mayor directions and then that we also get some direction there, you know, on informing on what the city policy is in this area, if there is one. And if there isn't one, well, then great. Tell us there isn't one. I mean, that's that's really all I was asking for. Speaker 0: Is there emotion? Hearing them moving. Speaker 6: Well all our moves that we. Adopt the the recommendations that I've heard from. The. I think at least a majority that we use the same appointment procedure for regional boards and commissions as the League of California Cities prescribes in as we do for internal boards and commissions. And that we have some clarifications of what, if any, city policy we have towards with regard to representing city policy on a regional board and commission. Speaker 0: And if we could bifurcate those two. Speaker 4: Yeah, I'd like to move to to split the question on that. Speaker 6: Okay. Okay. So the first one is establishing the procedure for appointments to regional boards and commissions. Speaker 0: You're a second. Speaker 9: I'll second because I don't think it will. Speaker 0: All those in favor I others oppose. No, oppose. Speaker 4: Abstain. Speaker 0: But motion fails. Two in favor, two opposed and one abstention. The second part of the motion. Speaker 6: The second part is to have the city attorney come back to us with guidelines on what, if any, city policy we have. Or what city policy we might consider toward. Representation of city policies on regional boards and commissions. Speaker 0: Is there a second? Speaker 4: I'll second that one. Speaker 0: Any comment? All those in favor I. Pose. Pose. Abstention. And one abstention. Motion carries three in favor. One opposed and one abstention. Thank you. Next item. Ten Council Communications. Speaker 1: And a consideration of Magu's nomination for appointment to the Golf Commission, the Public Art Commission and the Housing Authority Board of Commissioners.

Council Referral

Recommendation that City Council Establish a Procedure for Appointments to Regional Boards and Commissions, and Guidelines for How Appointees Reflect City Policy and City Council Directives. (Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_04292015_2015-1631

Speaker 1: I would hope I mean, obviously this last election with a total change of slate of the people that we could change as far as in our city government. I think it clearly send a message that we don't want business as usual that has happened in the past and other words, last minute pushing things, items through. So I would hope that that's a clear message. And if it won't, if it wasn't a clear message, it will become a clear message in next a period of time in two years. But hopefully you understand the importance of making sure people have adequate time and you give plenty of notice as far as it. And maybe take the Sunshine Ordinance a step further to show your good faith on that issue. Thank you very much. Speaker 0: Thank you. Any other speaker slips on either of those. So at this point, is there a presentation here? Speaker 2: Good evening. Mayor and council members, we're here today to speak to two very. Speaker 0: Very qualified. Speaker 2: Executive recruitment firms. We are Bob Murray and Paul Chmura. Paul Chmura is from Avery and Associates and he will make a presentation to you lasting approximately 25 minutes or less. He will start out probably giving his presentation and then there will be time for questions. During that time, Bob Murray will be waiting outside and when Paul, Mr. Chmura has finished. Speaker 0: His presentation, I will take him out and. Speaker 2: Bring Mr. Murray in to speak to you. And so we can just start up. Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Speaker 5: Q Thank you very much. Good evening. Thank you, Madam Mayor and Mr. Vice Mayor and fellow Council members for the opportunity to meet with you and present our credentials near need for a new city manager. I know that as a relatively new City Council decision like this of is of critical importance to you to help you provide the stewardship to guide the city forward. And I can appreciate that you would have many questions and wonder how a process works and how you would have a good level of involvement and opportunity to ensure that the people brought forward and the person that you select is best for your city. So I would like to to keep the majority of my presentation very brief and try and respond any questions you might have. But in the way of introduction, Avery Associates, we're based in Los Gatos. So of the major recruitment firms in California, we're the only one that's Bay Area based. I think that's very advantageous for Bay Area communities because it does allow us insights and knowledge of many of the dynamics that go on here in the Bay Area. And we know there are some very special considerations in trying to come into this particular area. We have an extensive track record for city manager as well as other public sector assignments. As a matter of fact, currently we're winding down or getting close to winding down the search for the city of Emeryville, City Manager. And we recently completed the city administrator search for the city of Oakland. So we've been up here in your backyard talking to your neighbors. And over the past 12 months, we've finished assignments for the cities of San Mateo, Sunnyvale, Sal, San Francisco, Pacifica. So we have a real recent experience here in the Bay Area, specifically the peninsula in the South Bay areas. So we certainly have a very active and robust database, I think you'll find with all of the major search firms. We we all have a very strong database and have relationships with people who would be candidates for a position like this. There are a number of challenges that you're going to face in a search. You all have heard about the demographics for public sector servants and the fact that we're losing so many to retirement. That's really proving to be a challenge for many agencies. I think one of the advantages that a community like Alameda has is that you're very well-regarded, a very positive reputation, and I think could be very attractive. The fact that your community is so engaged and involved, I think many would see that as a positive in the fact that several of you as a matter of fact, the entire council is relatively new to your assignments. I think many would see that as a wonderful opportunity to try and connect and move forward with with you as a council. So I'd like to just close by by sharing with you, I think there are a number of differentiators that our firm provides that would be of interest and perhaps great value to you. One is again the local connection that we have. The second is the manner in which we vet and evaluate our candidates. Your speaker earlier talked about the importance of really doing thorough background research. We use a methodology called behavioral interviewing and in addition, the work product that we provide to you includes a pretty thorough assessment of that interview, as well as to initial reference interviews that we've conducted and have documented and would present to you during our overall candidate presentation. I think the other highlight of our offering is that we don't limit the amount of interaction that we would have with you as a council or trips to the city. That's one of the advantages of being here in the Bay Area, notwithstanding the traffic. But we would be here as often as is required throughout the process to ensure that we bring your search to a successful close. So if I may, I know you have a number of questions, so I'll just end the presentation there. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Member Ashcraft. Speaker 6: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Camera. And thank you for the materials you presented. I found them very informative. And I'm just going to ask you some questions from the that pamphlet that you have or the booklet that you shared with us that I know was also provided to the public as one of the attachments to this meeting . So on the first page of your cover letter, you mention, actually my question was how many other searches do you anticipate conducting if you are engaged to conduct the search for Almeida's new city manager? Speaker 1: Hmm. Speaker 5: Generally, at any given time, we would have between 15 and 20 active searches. Bill Avery, my partner and I, I run lead on all of those searches, although we don't do it together. So at any given time, we would have different assignments. Our recruitment team includes research outreach specialists. We have folks that help us with our background. We have administrative support that help us out with a lot of the clerical duties. I think the the important part we have found with recruitment is because there are different times and places where the activity level is much greater. The real important aspect is to kind of stage and make sure that your recruitments are properly structured and organized to ensure that you get the kind of attention that you would require. Speaker 6: And then also on page one of your cover letter, you mentioned that you've had extensive interaction with city council, city managers and assistant city managers. Based on our labor relations practice, can you explain to us what that means? Speaker 5: Sure. The. Prior to the last two years, Bill Avery's major focus was labor relations. As a matter of fact, we had two practice areas. One was the labor relations activity which he headed, and then the second was search, which I headed more recently as that level of activity has tended to wind down, he's started to engage more frequently on the search side. Speaker 6: So what was the labor relations practice? Speaker 5: He would work with various client cities, city councils, managers in handling contract negotiations and grievances or for his clients. Speaker 6: I'd say thank you. And then the you mentioned in the now I'm looking at the proposal page one, and you mentioned that Mr. Avery had served in the past as a city manager. When where was that? Speaker 5: Bill was the city manager for the town of Los Gatos. Okay. Many, many years ago, as a matter of fact, he was at that time, I believe, the youngest town, a town manager at the ripe age of 26. Speaker 2: Wow. Speaker 5: But shortly after, chose to go into the consulting business, which he started in 83. And that's the organization that remains today. Speaker 6: And in that same paragraph, you talk about you had 19 years of high technology experience, which provides the basis for many of the recruitment strategies and tactics utilized by the firm. Can you tell us a little bit about that? Speaker 1: Sure. Speaker 5: In the older days of public sector recruitment, it tended to be a very passive activity where you would post job announcements or advertisements and wait for candidates to come in. I came out of high tech where it was a very competitive, probably the most competitive recruitment market in the private sector. And so I just introduced a number of different approaches where we developed and established databases. We did a lot of proactive outreach and approached potential candidates that might not be looking for another position. I think over time that's now become more commonplace. I like to think that we pioneered a lot of that, and over the years I think all the firms have gotten much better in doing that. Speaker 6: And. And then. And I want to leave room for my colleagues to ask the questions, too. But just a couple more on page two of your recruitment proposal. You talk about the recruitment strategy and services provided. And this is the the process of possibly involving the community and the city manager search. And so there were three options. One is the creation of an online survey accessible to the public through the city's website. Two is convening a community meeting to solicit input on the ideal qualifications and attributes for the city manager. And three is the Council identifies representatives from the community who would then be contacted and interviewed by the consulting firm. And my question is simply, do you ever use a hybrid of, you know, one or two or more of those? Well, it's a hybrid, if it was to, I guess. Do you have a combined those methods? Speaker 5: Yes, we have. In the past will develop a an online survey, utilize SurveyMonkey as the portal and handle the community input thusly. We've also conducted community meetings, community discussions to identify the ideal attributes that they would envision in their perfect candidate. And so we've done that as well. There have been some communities that have asked us to do both. Some communities tend to prefer the electronic methodology. In either case, we would be open to doing two of those activities, especially recognizing that many communities here locally tend to look to their community for input. Speaker 6: Thank you. And then my last question is on page four of this proposal. You note that upon request, your firm will also arrange for summary background evaluations on the city's final one or two candidates, and that the costs of these investigations are considered independent of the recruitment expenses I listed below will be invoiced separately. Do you have a ballpark range for us of what those investigations tend to run? Speaker 1: Right. Speaker 5: They will run around anywhere from 400 up to $800. And it's really depends on how many different communities that the candidate would have lived, how many different states, because it would have to be a county by county record search for their criminal records, their civil activities and those sorts of background checks. Speaker 6: All right. Thank you very much. Thank you. Speaker 0: Madam. If. Vice mayor. Speaker 1: Mr. Kimura, thanks for the presentation. I had a question. On the past 18 months. You list a number of cities. Where you've been successful at hiring city managers or searching for city managers that I assume have been hired. What was the average time from start to finish and the longest and the shortest of those? That's the first question. And then the second question is what happened with Emeryville? Because they were. You got a candidate that got hired and now you're looking for them. Speaker 5: Yes. Emeryville has been now a client for three times. Um, we have been successful in finding them a good city manager. And, actually, I apologize. This is our. This is our third time. The current city manager chose to accept a position with the city of Oakland. And as a result, we were asked to come and conduct a search to replace her. Speaker 1: And then the shortest, the longest and the average time to get a city manager. Speaker 5: Well, as far as the timeline, it will range anywhere from, I would say, minimum from five months. Speaker 1: To what what did it range for these if you. Speaker 5: Oh, okay. Generally, we're looking at anywhere from 5 to 7 months. In some cases, it's gone out to nine and ten months for a number of different reasons. Um, the reason the city manager oftentimes will take a little bit longer is if there are a current sitting manager, they'll have a contract that would provide for definitive terms of how soon they can leave their current role. So even though you may have made the appointment or made the selection, it may be anywhere from 30 to 90 days for that tender. Speaker 1: This the list of of can of completions, it was minimum, say, five months, maximum of nine. Speaker 5: Yes. Speaker 1: Thank you. That's all I have. Thank you. Speaker 0: Any other council questions? Comments. Remember Day Shop? Speaker 7: Oh, sure. Thank you. Thank you very much for taking the time to come out this afternoon. Really appreciate it. I guess the question I have is you mentioned the possibility of working with the community to ascertain attributes and other things that residents and business owners might be interested in and the profile of a city manager, whomever she or he may be. Do you profile cities in in advance and say, well, on the one hand, we'll certainly get input from residents the council so chooses to go that direction. On the other hand, based upon my knowledge and working experience and who I know that I have a sense as to, you know, what kind of attributes work so that you go into it not not in a vacuum, but have a sense as to what might work. I mean, because you come from a. Small town, Los Gatos, which is a nice town, obviously. Bedroom community. And like Alameda. But. Silicon Valley a lot smaller. A lot more zeros. Yeah. But, um. So. So do you come into it with a sense as to the profile that you think might fit so that, um. I don't know how many people on your database. So of the 50 know you in advance have a sense that maybe 25 work. Speaker 1: Mm hmm. Speaker 5: The we typically would not come in with a preconceived notion. There are several different elements of starting a search. And this is really comes from my private sector experience. In order to fill the need, you really have to understand what the expectations of the desires are. And that's what makes the discussions with all of you on an individual basis so important, because that provides really the foundation for what it is we think we're going to be looking for. I think we have a general sense, given the community profile of things that will be important. But until we hear that from you, until we hear that from your community, we're not going to really solidify our profile. And that's the basis of that we use for the various job announcements that we've put together like this were their marketing pieces, but they really incorporate the common interests, the common themes that we're hearing from all of you. You're not going to agree on every little detail. And that's why we try not to get into that level of detail, but really some of the bigger, broader picture issues that are going to be important in your consideration. Speaker 7: Thank you. I appreciate that very help. And I appreciate it because in a way it gets. Incorporated into your your handout like a glass to me. Speaker 6: Good in Matt if you. Speaker 1: And. Speaker 7: And it gives kind of a sense as to the prospects what kind of town we are. So I think that's a great approach. Thank you. Speaker 1: Absolutely. Speaker 5: And it's interesting, if I may add on to that councilmember. Oftentimes in our discussions, you hear a lot of the same words, the same terminology. And yet it's really important for us to try and connect with what it is you're conveying and what you're saying and how that relates to this particular community. Because everyone always wants leadership, but how does that translate into what's going on here locally? And those are the kinds of things, the subtle things, I think, that are really important for a recruiter to pick up the nuance that they need to pick up in working with all of you. Speaker 7: Thank you. Speaker 0: Remember. Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Mr. Cameron, for taking time out of your schedule and making the presentation and sharing your background with us. Councilmember De Sorkin kind of touched on one of the issues I was concerned about, and I appreciate you. You going into, you know, how you would evaluate the culture of Alameda. I mean, a lot of towns, a lot of cities think they're special and unique and no offense to them, but we are. So there's Culture Point number one. I am also interested in, you know, the the whip the methodology of use to go about it involved the community and, you know, understanding the culture. But you have or have you in the past I say this because we did this last time, you know, involved the community and, you know, the interviewing or the narrowing of of the candidates. And then the second part of that question is, you know, how many candidates do you anticipate based on your history and our size, that you would present to us as finalists. Speaker 5: When we would come back to you? Generally, we would recommend and have detailed presentations on maybe six or seven candidates. We'll also have materials on additional people we've looked at so that during the course of that discussion, you may hear or see something that you really like or perhaps you like better in the back of candidates. So that's where we can finalize your candidate selection. Are we come to you only with recommendations? You make the final choice as far as process put in this business. We've seen it done every single way. I professionally I feel that it's most effective for the council to start with a long list of candidates and maybe narrow it down to a shorter list. And then at that point, engage your community panels or perhaps your department head panel and other iterations of that evaluation process, and then ask them to provide inputs and insights to you, not decisions or not go or no go, but inputs in terms of what they see, what they feel the candidate offers , and where they may have concern areas so that as you further meet with the candidates, you can determine if in fact those concerns are valid or if you feel comfortable with what the candidate provides as a as a just kind of a style. Speaker 4: Then one last question. Thank you for that answer. In the pool. Maybe this is something you base on, you know, the culture and the interviews you have with the council in the community. But are we going to be able to see, you know, maybe. A diversity of candidates as far as their experience. You know, some candidates that might be not city managers yet, but, you know, city manager material, some that may be looking better in a smaller city looking to move up, some that may want to do laterals, some that may be at the tail end of their career and, you know, wanting a smaller city. I mean, are we going to get some diversity in that or do you kind of focus in on, you know, one particular type of candidate? Speaker 5: No, I think that, first of all, a lot of that's going to be dictated and determined by all of you as the council in terms of what would be ideal. I would anticipate that because of the size of your operation, the magnitude and scope of this particular city and the job I would be it would take an unusual talent, unusually talented individual, to come in as a first time city manager. This the city is could be perhaps far too complex for a first time city manager. Now, could a city manager from a smaller organization come in? Absolutely. One from a bigger organization could come in, be successful as well. You know, Los Gatos was brought up as an example. And there are very, very in many respects a similar town to Alameda. But the the type of person that would work there is going to be very polished, professional, very strong with community relations and is going to be very capable. Someone like that could be an outstanding candidate for you. So I don't know that there is a kind of a formula or a recipe. I do know that there are several environments that probably are not going to work for a place like Alameda. And, you know, we would discuss that again as we profile together with you. Speaker 4: Thank you again for your time. Speaker 0: So it's my understanding where you have a tight schedule. Mary Jo, I appreciate your time also and your answers thus far. I have a question in regards to being green, and I think our community is green. How significant do you think having the hard copy of brochures is as opposed to doing it all online? Have you ever done it all online? Speaker 5: We have on several occasions done it online. One of the. One of the values of doing hard copy. And I appreciate issues of sustainability that we're all so sensitive to right now. But one of the values of doing hard copy is we want as much visibility to your position as we can possibly get, and we don't have hard data on it. But we hear so often that a good candidate learned of this position because they saw the brochure on a friend's desk, or it was shared with them by a peer at an association meeting. So there is, I think, a level of value. And again, it's all antidote, all. But we think there there can be value. Now, at the same time, we can minimize the numbers of printings. We can minimize the numbers of mailings that we would do. And frankly, if it really became a significant issue for the council, we'd find a way to do it without. Speaker 0: So let me ask you, I want to follow up on this. Who do you mail to? You have how many of these brochures do you mail? Speaker 5: We would mail anywhere from 150 to 350. Speaker 0: And you have a list that we. Speaker 5: Have city managers throughout the state, and there are some larger organizations that maybe an assistant city manager, county managers, some people outside the state. Speaker 0: Okay. And then how many do you pass out then that you have at this table? So you think people see them. Speaker 5: For a city manager, a brochure? We wouldn't hand this many out because unless we were at the League of Cities and it just coincided with that meeting or the city managers meeting in January, we might have a supply of 25 that we might hand out. Speaker 0: And on on your letter, you'd note that there's internet posting on sites such as the Icmje. Is that for city managers, then? That's correct. So city managers can be looking on that site? Yes. If they're interested in a job. Yes. So you think that when you've hired these city managers for other cities, that they did not look at the website that they found out about it really? From a hard brochure? Speaker 5: No, I think well, I think there are a number of ways they evaluate and find it. One certainly is online. That's probably one of the more common mechanisms now. Another is through referral, where they may have been told or informed of the position by others in the industry and in some cases through outreach, direct outreach that we've done. Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. And members member Ashcraft, just. Speaker 6: A follow up to the mayor's question. Is it possible to use recycled paper for your printing? Speaker 1: Yes. Speaker 6: Thank you. Speaker 7: Number one real quick logistical question. I anticipate that there is no reason why a good candidate can't come from Southern California. Do you make the arrangements for staying overnight? Is that included in the budget? Would that be included in. Speaker 5: The cost of the interview is not. We will coordinate and work with the city to ensure that the process is is set up and structured to ensure the candidates are here. Speaker 7: Great. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Appreciate your coming out here this evening. And now we're going to proceed with the next interview. Thank you. Speaker 5: Thank you very much. Appreciate the consideration. Speaker 0: The next will be Bob Brown Associates. Good evening. Speaker 1: Good evening. Speaker 8: Thanks for inviting me this evening. My name is Bob Murray. I founded Bob Marine Associates in 2000. I bring over 30 years executive recruiting experience in the public sector. I've probably done during that time 125 city manager searches throughout California and the West Bank. Alameda presents a unique opportunity. It's one of California's jewels. I, I think back about the searches that I've done. And oftentimes it's difficult to compare cities. The search that I've done that best compares, I think, is for Coronado, California. They don't you know, they have a strong military presence in San Diego. Coronado actually has some of the presence there, but almost an island community. Very narrow isthmus connects it to the southern part of the San Diego area. So I bring a lot of experience. I've done a number of searches for city managers in the local area Walnut Creek, Concord, Martinez, Mountain View, Menlo Park. So I'm familiar with the dynamics of executive search, certainly in the Bay Area and some of the issues you are likely to face as you go about recruiting a city manager . I think our approach to executive search is different than most. And the fundamental approach that Bob Marine Associates takes to search is to try and make sure that that what we do is driven by your needs as the representatives of the residents of Alameda. So everything is focused on learning from you both individually and as a group, what it is you're looking for in a new city manager, the background, the skills, the experience, knowledge of the field. And it really starts by gaining that fundamental and just standing by meeting with you each individually, to solicit from you your perception of the issues, challenges and opportunities facing the community not only at the moment, but in particular as you look to the future. What are the issues you'll be addressing? You'll ask the city manager and his or her staff to assist you. So based on that, we undertake a very aggressive recruitment effort on your behalf. There's no need to hire a recruiting firm if you simply think that running ads get you the job done. It really requires a firm with the experience to research quality candidates, to use a network they've established. We've established over the years to reach out to folks and ask them to apply for the position. Executive search is all about soliciting the interest of people who may not be looking for a new job. I think importantly, you're facing one of the tighter markets in city management for candidates in several years. I used to be we get 80 to 100 candidates every time we did a city manager search. Now, that number varies between 25 and 45, maybe 50. You're also doing a search in a far different environment now and was the case in the past. I think you are now working in an environment that demands transparency and community engagement, even in the search for your chief executive. I think it's very important we've taken that approach with a number of communities, most recently in Redondo Beach and in Tucson, Arizona, where we helped the council design processes by which the community was engaged both at the beginning of the search and at the conclusion when candidates were selected. I think you need to approach that diligently and carefully to ensure that you get quality candidates. But we're here to assist you with that. We offer the, you know, industry guarantee. But I think we're one of the leading firms, not just in the West, but in the United States. We've done searches all over the country, probably notable. We've been hired to do searches in three of the largest cities in the last two years that have become available. And you don't get those assignments unless you're tops in the field. Those include Phenix, Dallas, Tucson. We were recently hired by the city of San Jose. I've got good news and bad news today. The good news is they're going to promote someone from inside. The bad news is they don't need me anymore. I got fired before I started. Never happened before? No. That's for so. I appreciate very much the opportunity to be here. I know you've got a packed house, a lot of stuff on your agenda, so I'd be happy to entertain your questions. Speaker 0: Thank you. Council Members. Member Ashcraft. Speaker 6: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Murray, for your presentation. So how much of your work recruitment work is done in percentage wise? How much of your recruitment work is done in California versus other states? Speaker 8: I think the firm right now, probably 80 to 90% is in California. The remaining part of it is in Arizona, Washington, Oregon. We've done a lot of work in the Midwest and in Florida in particular, but at present we're undergoing a transition and we backed away from some of that that's now handled by a former colleague. But I trained to be a recruiter and she's decided to be a recruiter on her own. Speaker 6: I see. And if Alameda were to decide to engage your firm, how much of your time would we would we expect. Speaker 8: As much as you'd like and pay for. Speaker 6: It as much as you like and pay for these? Speaker 8: I have a very. Lois, I'm being. I have this warped sense of humor, so. Speaker 1: You know me. Speaker 8: I have about four active recruitments right now. Most typically people are doing eight and ten in the industry. So I have quite a bit of time and it would be a priority because of the quality of the community. You know, if we do well here, are successful here. You're a great reference. I would certainly spend more than enough time. Speaker 6: And then finally in in the last say. Five years. What percentage of your recruitment work has focused on finding city managers versus all the other ones? Speaker 8: I can tell you in the last four years we've done 40 city manager searches and I personally handle probably 35 of those. Speaker 6: And were there other positions that you filled more of? I mean, just you listed a number of different. Yeah. Speaker 8: Well, I think city manager positions are are not filled as frequently as others. So we do a lot of police chief work. A lot of fire chief. I think I remember a finance director for the city of Alameda. So we work in a variety of areas. I'm doing a CFO search for Las Vegas Valley Water District right now. So we handle a variety of positions across industries. You know, I think one of the things that's unique, certainly about Alameda, among others, that you have your own power company. I've done searches for general managers, for power companies as well. So I bring an understanding of this community having done work here before, of what you're about, and certainly have done searches across the board in the public sector. Speaker 6: Thank you. Thank you. Speaker 0: I swear. Speaker 1: I'm. If you could. Explain to us, Mr. Murray, your most recent city manager placement experience in the Bay Area. How long did it take and what would you say the biggest challenge was in getting that fit? Speaker 8: Martinez was the most recent search. I finished that early this year. The search took in total about 90 days from the day I started until the council was interviewing candidates, and then it took another three and a half weeks or so for them to close the deal. I think the challenge there in the council would agree was the circumstances under which the previous manager left. It was very unfortunate. Manager had anger issues exploded publicly. So the city has over time had a reputation for being difficult for managers. We got an experienced city manager for him who was was very good. His name's Gentleman's name is Rob Bolick. And I would welcome your colleague Rob Schroder, the mayor. There is no me four years and I think would speak well of the work we've done. Speaker 1: Thank you. Speaker 0: Remember. De Saag. Speaker 7: Thank you very much for coming out here. And I note your comment regarding engaging the community early on. I think that's absolutely important and I look forward to understanding, you know, what, what might be your particular model in engaging the community. But my question also has to do with in addition to engaging the community, to find out attributes or whatever that that they think are important is your firm, you know, because you've got at any point in time, you know, access to a wide range of city prospective city managers. Does your firm do you have a presumptive idea as to what might fit in certain towns like Alameda and and if you have that kind of approach. Oh. How do you arrive at it? Or maybe you don't. Speaker 8: Sure. I'm not. I don't know if you'd like me to go into detail about some of the thoughts and how we've helped communities engage their residents and then remind me of the second part. Speaker 7: But the second part is. Speaker 8: Well, when I get out of your word, because, you know, it gets murky. Speaker 1: After a while. Speaker 8: So several we've seen we've taken a couple of approaches depending on our client. Oftentimes, we're asked to meet with community leaders one on one, you know, at a conference room and learn from them. It might be a business community group. It might be, you know, Part Street versus Webster, just a different business interests in town, the residents, you know, Alameda Point. All of those things are people that you may wish us to have us meet with them. Oftentimes. So I say to city councils, that's a great idea. But for every person you ask me to meet with, there'll be three or four who say, Why didn't they ask me? So I think even more important news for you to host a meeting, a public meeting and call it a town hall meeting or whatever. Invite anyone in the community to participate and solicit their comments, as you said, regarding the attributes of the ideal candidate and their notions about issues. All of that can be in advance of us beginning our work to actually solicit the interest of people. In fact, I think it should be because if we're out there recruiting before you've heard that and before we've heard that kind of well, it doesn't make sense. And we're happy to facilitate those sessions. And I've done that a number of times. In Tucson recently, we had 100 people. Make comments regarding the city manager in Redondo Beach during a very controversial time. Ten people. So, you know, you never know. In terms of quality candidates. And would we have a notion? Sure, I wouldn't be a good recruiter if I didn't. But that has to be driven by my understanding and learning from you. What's important in Alameda? So what might be someone who might be a great candidate in Redondo Beach or Concord or Martinez may not it now. I mean, your your issues are different. And so I want to gain a great understanding that and then look at our contacts, look at who's out there, do the research and encourage people to apply who could do an outstanding job on your behalf. Speaker 7: Thank you. Speaker 0: And Brody. Speaker 4: Thank you, Madam Mayor. And thank you, Mr. Murray, for taking time out of your schedule to come to us today. I really appreciate that. And I also appreciate Councilman Murdoch's question about community input and your answer, because that's what I was going to ask, but I don't have to. So we have more time. So the one question I will ask you, though, is. You know, the talent pool that you're going to draw from for recommendation for our city manager? I mean, do you envision it including or not including, you know, non city managers that are ready to move up, lateral city managers that are just looking for something, a change, but, you know, are doing equivalent work in equivalent sized cities, you know, or even larger city, many city managers from larger city managers that may be willing to and then maybe at the end of the career and want a slower pace than, say, an Oakland or a San Jose or one of those larger cities. And, you know, how how will you go about, you know, deciding what the mix of the finalists and how many finalists do you envision providing to us? Speaker 1: So let me. Speaker 8: Start with the mix in the positions candidates may have held. First of a lot of it depends, again on our discussions. No. Are you looking for an experienced city manager? Is that the only kind of candidate? My comment to you would be, if that's the case, you're probably going to not do as well. As you might do if you were considered willing to consider people at the second level, assistant city managers, possibly even some department heads from larger communities, you know, city 250, 300,000. There's some real talent in those areas. So first again, I'm going to beat this dead horse until it's bloody, I guess. So much of it depends on your expectations. I'm really here as a resource. I mean, I think your group should include people who have served as city managers, assistant city managers, possibly department heads. I think then it gives you a good mix from which to choose. And typically, you know, it used to be I'd struggle to get to eight people to to recommend. Now it's more like five or six. It's just not that deep pool. What's occurred with the transition of baby boomers is folks that have been city managers for years are retiring and a lot of the talent in the public sector is retiring. The shadow of the baby boom represents about a 25% reduction in talent. McKinsey did a study in 98, said the war for talent is coming, and they were absolutely right. And so the other thing is you see people with less experience in candidate pools of 40 somethings, you know, and you look out to current managers and a lot of them look like me from the back of a room, you know, gray hair. Hopefully they can still stand up. You know, all of those things. So it's a tight market. The good news is Alameda has a great reputation, a lot of cachet. I remember one my my folks looked at buying a home here. It's a great community. Speaker 4: Thank you. And as a recovering attorney who lived by the billable hours, I appreciated your work sense of humor. Thank. Speaker 0: Good evening, Mr. Murray. I have a question in regards to technology, how to utilize technology in your searches. Speaker 1: Well. Speaker 8: I like Al Gore. Invented the Internet. No. But we are kind of a leader in the use of technology in the public sector for executive search. I think it's been ten years now that we developed. A lot of people call it different things. It's it's really a database that contains the names that present of over 23,000 people. And so if a candidate is interested in a search we're doing, they apply online. We don't. We get very few paper resumes. We get very few resumes via email, although of course, we'll accept them. But almost everything we do is online. Our system resides in a server farm in the cloud that lives in Arizona. And so everyone applies through that system and becomes part of our database. And one of the things that it's allowed us to do on the back end is keep our costs down, remain competitive, because a lot of the information candidates provide becomes part of our reports to you. So it serves a dual purpose. It's an easy way for people to learn about the position to access it. We know historically we get somewhere between 20 and 25,000 hits a month on the system. So it's very well received in the community. So we're we have a we're on Twitter, we're on LinkedIn, we're on Facebook. We make all of our positions known on social media. I stopped counting my contacts on LinkedIn when it got to 3200. But but there's a reason people follow you on LinkedIn when you're recruiters, because they know they're going to hear about the positions and they want to have direct access to you. So I think, you know, we're not the bleeding edge of technology, but certainly we make effective use of it, particularly social media and automated application tracking, all of those things. Speaker 0: What about hardcopy brochures? Do you still use those? Speaker 8: Absolutely. HardCopy and PDF. Speaker 0: How do you use the hard copies? Speaker 8: We send them to people in the mail. Speaker 0: How many do you mail? How many do you think you'd be mailing? Speaker 8: We print usually between 103 hundred, depending on on the audience that a client and we agree should be approached. Okay. So in your case, a broader group you're talking about, it might be a greater number. We use a database, not only ours, but a database we also subscribe to. It gives us the names and addresses and email contacts. So we do it both hardcopy through the mail and by email. And you folks participate in the structure and the you know, nothing we put in that brochure. Speaker 1: Will. Speaker 8: Be there without your review. Speaker 0: So some of the people that you recruit don't find out about it online then that you think they actually need a hard brochure. Speaker 8: You know, if it can get past our secretary. We've won the battle. You know, if you think about it for a moment, I know some of our brochures never cross a manager's desk because someone on his or her staff doesn't want them to leave. So, you know, it's got to be the brochure. It's got to be electronic media and it's got to be personal phone calls. We'll make 70 or 80 calls on a recruitment, and that's all the stuff we do that's fundamental to executive search is to reach out to people and call them. Speaker 0: And in regards to your community meetings, do do anything online for your community members. Speaker 8: We have we've worked with cities to come up with SurveyMonkey exercises that have received some response. We've done that in a number of communities. We recently did it in Redondo Beach, where community engagement was very, very important. Goleta, California, Tucson did that as well. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 1: You're welcome. Speaker 0: Any other council questions? All right. Well, thank you very much. Appreciate you coming out. This is the end of this concludes our interview process. Speaker 1: Okay. Speaker 8: Well, thank you very much. It's my pleasure. I wish you luck with the search, and I'd be delighted to have the opportunity to help you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 1: Thank you. Speaker 0: Yes, Chief. Speaker 1: Thank you. Well, just corruption. There's a powder keg like. Amanda. The forerunner of the parking lot. Thank you. Speaker 0: All right. Our next agenda item is three A and we have one presentation from staff three. We're going to go forward because we have or amuse, but we have one staff presentation. So I have staff's presentation and then we'll have speakers on all four of them or use at once. And then we will have our council discussion on all four of them. I use that once and then we will vote individually on each MRU. Speaker 2: Yeah. Speaker 0: Thank you. If you have if you plan to comment on three A, three, B, three, C or three D, you could turn in your slips. And then we're going to receive a staff presentation. I'm schedule a little early. Speaker 6: Little 557. Speaker 2: Should we take a. If you want to. We need. No. Just open. Speaker 0: Okay. We're going to we're 3 minutes ahead, right? Speaker 2: Yeah. Speaker 0: Okay. So we're going to take a three minute recess because we had scheduled this item for 6:00. Thank you. Speaker 2: Okay. All right. All right. Um, we want to. Tonight. Speaker 9: And try again. Thank you, everybody. Speaker 2: We appreciate you coming out this evening. Speaker 0: We are ready to resume. Hello. Americans, please take their seats. We are ready to resume. Thank you. All right. We're going to start with you. See if you can find a seat. I'd appreciate it if you would take a seat, because that's what our fire department likes. Thank you. And we're going to start with Steph's presentation, and that goes for all four of the employees. And then we're going to have public comment on all of the employees at the same time. So that's item three, A, three, B, three C and three D, and then we will have our comments and we will vote individually

Regular Agenda Item

Presentations from Avery & Associates and Bob Murray & Associates to Discuss Their Qualifications and Process for the Recruitment of a City Manager for the City of Alameda. (Human Resources 2510)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_04212015_2015-1508

Speaker 1: Authorize the acquisition of one police boat and trailer for 202 832,000. By approving an agreement with lake assault boats plus a. Authorizing the applicable sales. Speaker 0: And we have the speakers on this. And so is it all right if I call? Because at this point, okay, we have three speakers, Kurt Braun for the lap and then Rob Rado. Speaker 3: Good evening, Curt Brown. Speaker 9: Waterfront homeowner and lifelong Alameda resident. Speaker 3: I support Alameda. Speaker 9: Having a police boat. The recent. Speaker 3: $8 million law enforcement and salvage. Speaker 9: Expenditure shows that an ongoing problem with infractions does exist, and the sheriff and Coast Guard boats are not being used to patrol the estuary. Speaker 3: So that job. Speaker 9: Now falls to the cities of Oakland and Alameda. Speaker 3: And the old boat that Alameda has is irreparably damaged. And and the new one is state grant funded. So I have no. Speaker 8: No fiscal. Speaker 9: Impact on the on the general fund. Speaker 3: So. Um. Um. The Department of Voting Waterways. Has also has. Speaker 9: Grant moneys to actually operate the boat. So I'd like to put a plug in for the the aware funding that's also available from the voting waterways and. Speaker 3: To abate whatever vessels become abandoned derelict in our waters. And we don't want our estuary to revert back to the dump site. Speaker 9: It was becoming just two years. Speaker 3: Ago before. Speaker 9: The cleanup. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Rock the lap. Then Rob Rado. Speaker 3: At a mayor council. I would like to second Kurt's position of support for the patrol boat, given the extensive shoreline of Alameda with really literally millions of dollars of assets along that shoreline, waterfront housing, marinas. It's absolutely critical that the police department have the equipment necessary to patrol and do law enforcement from the water side of our island. I think that Chief for Larry has done an excellent job parlaying both the support from the Division of Boating and Waterways, as well as other grant funds, so that there will be zero impact on the general fund of the city to support this critical piece of equipment that's necessary for officers to be out on the water . One of the things that point I made earlier in a discussion about this was that the boat be an all weather capable boat. And Chief Larry has definitely met that requirement with a fully enclosed pilot house for his officers. So I strongly encourage the council to support receiving these grant funds to get this necessary piece of equipment for the Alameda Police Department. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 3: Rob Rando Park Street Business Association Executive Director. And I'll make it unanimous. We believe we believe that you should support this agenda item this evening, as I've said it numerous occasions, including the last time we were all here last week, I believe the police department in this town does a fantastic job of keeping us incredibly safe in one of the most urbanized areas. In the entire country. I'm not going to pick on Oakland tonight. But you know what I mean. Any tool that the police department can receive to increase their vigilance, especially as the other speakers said on our coastline. Because we're an island, you remember, right? We're an island. Okay. You know, that is a good thing. We urge you to approve it quickly so we can move on to other things on the agenda this evening. Thank you very much. Speaker 0: Thank you. I remember they sort of pulled us, right? Speaker 5: No. Speaker 0: Oh, remember? Speaker 8: You think I didn't pull it? I think the. Speaker 6: Because we had the three spot. Speaker 8: All right. But actually, Matt Amir, thank you. For the reasons contained in the staff report and outlined by our three speakers, I'd like to move approval of Agenda Item five to authorize the acquisition of one police boat and trailer for $202,032.33 Bitcoin. Speaker 0: Any comments. Speaker 6: And I just want to add, I mean, I agree with all the speakers. Thank you for the comments you made. And I did meet with Chief Hillary last week because I had a few questions, but I think one of the speakers alluded to the fact that we are replacing a police boat that is 15 years old and this new one is also estimated to last for another 15 years. And and it's being built custom built for our needs. And better still, it is all grant funded. So, again, commendations to chief for Larry. We love it when our department heads find funds outside of our general fund. So thank you, Madam Chair. Speaker 0: And I also want to thank Chief Larry for reaching out to all of us to answer our questions in advance of the meeting. Any other comments? All those in favor. Speaker 9: I either both. Speaker 5: Oppose. Speaker 0: A motion carries unanimously. Thank you. All right. Six a. We're moving on to the regular agenda items now. Six A. Speaker 1: Doctor resolution commending Johnny Russo for his service to the city of Alameda as city manager. Speaker 5: On. Speaker 6: A. Speaker 1: No. Speaker 0: All right. So now I'm going to read the resolution. Now that we have his name cleared up, John. A Russo. Whereas John Russo began his service to the city of Alameda on June 13th, 2011, and John Russo, through decisive action, was able to create an efficient and responsive city hall building employee morale by providing a consistent message of excellence and accountability. Accountability. And. WHEREAS, under his leadership and based on his personal philosophy of openness and transparency, John Russo facilitated the city's first ever Sunshine Ordinance, which was adopted on November 1st, 2011, and promotes transparency and responsiveness in local government. And. Whereas, under John Russo's decisive and determined leadership, the city made significant strides to put the former Naval Air Station and as Alameda back into productive reuse, including the no cost conveyance of 900 acres of former military property. Ex executed the Nassau Alameda Tidelands Trust Exchange Agreement with the State Lands Commission approved a rezoning amendment, master infrastructure plan, environmental impact report, transportation demand management plan and Waterfront Town Center Plan and establish an exclusive negotiation agreement for a first phase development of a 68 acre mixed use site. And first, through his collaborative approach, John Russo was instrumental in working with the public safety labor groups, whereby safety employees now contribute more toward their pension and health care than any time in the past leading the way in Bay Area Cities. And. Whereas, Gianni Russo balanced the city's general fund budget while increasing reserves, maintaining service levels and creating a 22 year plan for repairing and replacing all city sewers and roads. And. WHEREAS, during his tenure as city manager, John oversaw tirelessly, advocated for more parks, played a critical role in identifying funding and support for estuary park athletic fields , the Alameda Point Sports Complex and the Jane Sweeney Open Space Park and protected the beloved Chuck Greca golf complex to sustain it for future generations to enjoy. And or, as Gianni Russo focused on reestablishing a robust economic development program, creating jobs and growing the City of Alamitos tax base. In an effort to fund central city services and work, Johnny Russo is committed to providing the community with professional, courteous and efficient service, oversaw the remodeled permit center and launched the new Alameda Your Service Program for commercial development projects and rose through his insightful directives as both the city manager and a public utility board member, Johnny Russo has made a major contribution to the operation and future success of Alameda Municipal Power AMP. And with his innovative recommendations, AMP has been able to accrue significant resources to enhance its green program and efficiencies customers and various. Johnny Russo has been a strong advocate for the city of Alameda, both locally and regionally, evidenced by the numerous grants the cities received during his tenure. Securing a regional seat on the rest on the Water Emergency Transportation Agency Leader Board and earmarking Alameda County Transportation Commission Measure B funds for Alameda is complex but essential transportation efforts. And. Whereas, Johnny Russo never saw an In-N-Out Burger that he didn't like, brought a refreshing sense of humor to the position of city manager, serenaded the office regularly and perfect pitch and will be greatly missed. Now, therefore, be it resolved that the City of Alameda does hereby express its sincere appreciation for Johnny Russo's years of service to the Alameda community, it further resolved that the City Council of the City of Alameda does hereby congratulate Johnny Russo on his many accomplishments as city manager and wishes him well in his new position as city manager of Riverside. Speaker 5: Oh, right. Speaker 0: Okay. I understand. We need a motion. Oh. Speaker 6: And then we can make comment. Speaker 5: Yes. Okay. Speaker 6: Well, I will. I move. Adoption of the resolution commending John E Russo for his service to the city of Alameda as city manager.

Consent Calendar Item

Summary Title: Authorize the Acquisition of One Police Boat and Trailer for $202,832.33 Recommendation to: (1) Approve an Agreement with Lake Assault Boats, LLC for the Acquisition of One Marine Patrol Boat and Trailer for $185,235 Plus the City’s Payment of Applicable Sales Tax for a Total Aggregate Amount Not to Exceed $202,832.33; (2) Amend Police Grants Funds Revenue Budget to Account for the California Division of Boating and Waterways (DBW) Grant in the Amount of $80,000; and (3) Amend Police Grants Expenditures Budget in the Amount of $202,832.33 for Both the DBW and Citizens Option for Public Safety (COPS) Grants. (Police Department 218)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_04212015_2015-1569

Speaker 6: Well, I will. I move. Adoption of the resolution commending John E Russo for his service to the city of Alameda as city manager. Speaker 0: All right, now discussion. You want to make comments? Speaker 6: Thank you, Madam Mayor. Well, I would just like to say, and I think that many of us who know John know that, knows that he has a big personality which has enabled him to achieve some very big accomplishments in Alameda. And those were enumerated in the in the resolution and especially the conveyance of the Naval Air Station. We're going to be talking about that tonight and for some months to come. And your work with labor groups, it goes on and on. Suffice it to say that, John, you leave us better than you found us. And I know you're moving on to the city of Riverside, a much bigger city with a bigger population, bigger challenges, your equal to the task. And the city of Riverside is in good hands with you. And we'll miss you. Speaker 0: We do have four speakers. Three have them speak at this point. Speaker 6: Should we vote? Speaker 8: Well, I think we're supposed to have public comment before. Actually, we do know. Speaker 6: Well. Speaker 0: All right. I'm going to go ahead and call the speakers Gray Harris, then Jeff Del Bono, then Helen Soares and then Dianne Lichtenstein. Speaker 2: Good evening. I'm Greg Harris. I'm here as the co-president of the city of Alameda Democratic Club. I wanted to thank John and Alex. I'm going to do six A and B all at once in the interest of time for their service to the city of Alameda. I was formerly the president of the teachers union in Alameda. And during that time, the school district was going through some rocky times. The city of Alameda also went through some rocky times. And then John and Alex came. And the rocky times kind of evened out and smoothed out kind of like the school district is hopefully doing now. And now you're going to leave. So I am sad about that. But I also know that Riverside is lucky to have you. And we really appreciate all the time and work you have spent here. Helen Source most everything's been pretty well covered, especially in the resolution. But I just wanted to reinforce see a team that John is a symbol. This fine team of professionals have brought a high standard to our city, a high standard of excellence. His knowledge of how cities work and the regulatory process and expertize and guiding careful development to enhance our city, and most especially redirecting Alameda Point from our three times, going down the same rathole and teeing the city up for success with his strong start for actual development that will strengthen our economy for years to come. Credibility and address are social needs. What a big thanks. And I wish you and Alex all the best. And thanks to both of you for being such fine team leader sitting. Good evening, Diane Liechtenstein. I am not as eloquent as little Arnie Rich or certainly as a proclamation or as Helen. But I do know all the wonderful things that have been said about John. And since he has been here, he surely has propelled our city along. And I wish him and his family all the best. Speaker 0: Thank you, Jeff de Bono. And thank you for waiting. And then I'll be Karen, be. Speaker 8: Mayor, council, city staff. So I have one word quitters, but I'm going to do it in the efficiency of time. Two, I'm going to combine the both A and B, and I want to thank both of both John and Alex for their service. I think everybody knows the history with the firefighters here before they came. I know that for me and for every single guy that sits in the station, and I think I can speak for every police officer on the street. John and Alex brought dignity to city hall. They brought respect. And that's what we felt in the firehouse. And that's what we felt as employees here when they got here. The collaborative process, the mutual respect, we had to open communication. And it wasn't always easy at times. I know. I know sometimes. Like I told the guys in Riverside, when you have a problem with John, sometimes you got to work through Alex to get back to John because, you know, we don't always we don't always see eye to eye, but the mutual respect that was shown brought a lot back to this city. And I hope that continues forward. I think Riverside deserves deserves to have you, especially with how conservative it is down there. But I thank you again for your service. And Alex, I know that you reached out to the fire department personally and worked hand in hand with our fire chief and some of our employees, such as Jim Colburn, and really put the effort and time. And I don't know how to thank you guys. It meant a lot to us. It means a lot to us. And I think we've accomplished some great things here. I hope we can accomplish other great things that's unprecedented in the state of California in the future. Meetings coming up. But once again, thank you again, both of you guys. I consider you guys friends and thank you very much for your service. Speaker 0: Evan Bayh. Speaker 5: Hmm. That evening, Madam Mayor, the city council and Mr. Russo. I'm so glad that I didn't miss this part. I just wanted to say thank you from the bottom of my heart. You have been, I think, one of the best city managers we've ever had. And I can say that because when we took on the role as master developer, I really don't think we understood exactly what we were accepting. But you made it seem easy. You know, you knew just what we had to do. You knew how to negotiate the deals. You knew how to keep us moving forward. And that's what I'm used to. I've worked for developers for 15 years. And you have been an incredible developer. And I appreciate all of your hard work. And we're going to miss you. I'm going to miss you. And I wish you the best. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Counsel comments. The other memory. Speaker 8: And just want to echo a lot of what the public said. And I was having a conversation with a constituent earlier today, and she said to me, is it typical that we give proclamations and recognize outgoing city managers as like, well, it's not often that we have won leave voluntarily in recent times. So that's that's what was my first thought. But my second thought was, you know, it's not it's not often we're blessed with somebody of John's talents and skills here in Alameda. I remember talking to the then vice mayor four years ago when I first learned that you were interested in doing this job. And my apologies to Mr. Arnovitz. You know, my first comment was, well, if you can get Michael Jordan to come play for your team at his peak, then that's what you should do. And I think that's what we did. And not only do we get Michael Jordan to the Chicago Bulls reference, I'm sorry, that's where I'm from. Not only do we get Michael Jordan, we got Scottie Pippen with him. So we had an amazing team. And, you know. I'm so glad that I'm sitting in the seat now and not four years ago, because you've turned around the morale at City Hall. You've turned around. Now there's labor peace, which is very important, and you've turned around the city finances. And I'm really going to miss you, man. Wish you were here, but I know we're in good hands, so thanks. Speaker 0: Member, De Saag. Speaker 7: Thank you very much. Several days ago, on April 19th, the city of Alameda celebrated its 161 year, having been founded in April 19th, 1854. I think over that time, Mr. Russo and his tenure as city manager will stand out as one of the best, in my opinion. He took a city that was in disarray and put us in the right direction, not just internally within the walls of City Hall, but externally in terms of how we work with the community and how we work on major projects like Alameda Point, which was long stalled. I think history will be kind to Mr. Russo and also the city council's that he worked with Mayor Gilmore or Mayor Chris Spencer. And I think for your time here and also Mr. Nguyen's time here, Alameda is the much richer and I think your place in art in the chapters of it as is city hall. History is certainly going to be a good chapter. Speaker 0: Assistant City Manager Liz Wormley. Did you want to be vice mayor? Sorry. Speaker 9: I just wanted to say, I hope people understand just how difficult the job is. Appreciate. Your energy to that. And I wish you the absolute best in Riverside, and I hope you enjoy it. Speaker 0: This one right now. Speaker 2: Thank you, Madam Mayor. First, I'd just like to invite everybody tomorrow to our going away party that we're hosting for both Alex and John at the Elks from 5 to 7 p.m.. And we have some special treats for them. But everybody is invited. I also just wanted to say that, you know, 17 years ago I worked here as management analyst, as one where where I started my career in California. And and I left to go on to bigger, better things. And I always had an eye coming back to Alameda because I always lived I continued to live in Alameda, but there was never really an opportunity that I saw where I really wanted to be part of a team until I saw that John actually took the helm. And when I realized that he was here, it was an organization that I really wanted to be part of. And he has not let me down. John has brought transparency and accountability to city hall and accountability. And I really want to emphasize that. You know, in cities we have a. Employees, long time employees. And sometimes it's hard for us to accomplish the tasks that we want to accomplish. John brought that accountability to City Hall that I really have not witnessed in cities that I've worked with, and I've been in cities for 25 years. One of the things that people don't realize about John, I think everybody thinks he came from a large city and he had the large city mentality, but at his core, he really cared about the individual, the small guy. Oftentimes when we would talk about business transactions or with developers, he was always the hardest on the developers, on the people that had the big pocketbook. But on the little guy, on the small business, on the person who was trying to pull a permit, he always if he could cut not cut corner corners, because we're not allowed to do that. But that was his mentality was was to go after the big folks and actually do what he could and bend over backwards for the average citizen. And, you know, that's just I don't think people really realize that. And that's such a such a great gift. And and just I'd like to acknowledge him for that. I just want to say I'm really going to miss you, John and Alex both. Let me say a few words about Alex. It's hard to be to work with John. I think you all can imagine as a council member, Ashcraft has said, as he Ashcraft has said, you know, John has a big personality and. We've got Alex, who is sort of part of that partnership. And I think it's been Alex has always been at his side and has always provided, I think, to our staff council, the perspective of the average citizen. How would our decisions that we make here at City Hall affect the average citizen? And has really brought a perspective, I think, that really is unique to City Hall. So, Alex, I want to say thank you to you, to both of you. I wish you the best of luck. We're really going to miss you. And I'll do my best to fill your shoes. But as I'm sure everybody knows, they're quite big shoes to fill. I will do my best. And again, good luck. Speaker 0: And I want to say a few words for those of you who don't know. When I was on the school board, I had the pleasure of working with Mr. Russo. We would regularly have joint meetings and he was always professional. And then during the campaign, very gracious and afforded really me every opportunity to learn what the city was about. He always took the time to to answer questions. And now, with the transition again, always professional. And I truly respect you as your work. And then you personally, what you bring to the table. I wish you and your family absolutely the best. And it really has been a benefit to our city to have you serve. And now we will vote all those in favor. Speaker 8: I. Speaker 0: Oppose. Speaker 5: Motion carries. Speaker 0: Unanimously. We're good to go. Thank you. All right. Next six be.

Regular Agenda Item

Adoption of Resolution Commending John A. Russo for His Service to the City of Alameda as City Manager. (City Manager)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_04212015_2015-1570

Speaker 1: Adoption resolution, commending Alexander Nguyen for his service, the city of Alameda as assistant city manager. Speaker 0: RS Alexander Nguyen began his service to the city of Alameda on July six, 2011 as deputy city manager and was promoted to Assistant City Manager on February 10th, 2013. And. Whereas, with his keen understanding of the public's concerns, Alexander and Nguyen increased community engagement by placing Alameda at the center of the city's work, improving upon the city's outreach to residents, ensuring community input on projects and using technology to assist residents in communicating with their government. And. Whereas, Alexander and Nguyen fulfilled the role of the public information officer increase in City Hall's formal communication with residents and the media, as well as providing all better access to information. And. WHEREAS, during his tenure with the city, Alexander Nguyen revamped the city's website to streamline content and make it more accessible to the public. And. Whereas, in an effort to increase government transparency and efficiency, Alexander Nguyen led the efforts in initiating a city wide records retention policy and records management program. And. WHEREAS, through his insightful directives and innovative recommendations, Alexander and Nguyen led the efforts in taking the first steps toward modernizing the city's information technology infrastructure. And. WHEREAS, Alexander and Nguyen provided a thorough analysis of the city's lobbying efforts and streamlined contracts to better suit the city's long term needs. And first, through his collaborative approach and calm demeanor, Alexander Nguyen was committed to improving employee engagement and morale, smoothing the transitions caused by the restructuring of the Public Works Department. And. Whereas, Alexander Nguyen has been a strong advocate for the city's disaster preparedness program and coordinated efforts to transform the city's approach to resiliency and improve upon the city's emergency operations. And. Whereas, Alexander Nguyen brought a large dose of humor and humility to his work, maintained an open door policy with his colleagues, anxiously awaited the enactment of the Backyard Farm Animal Ordinance and will be greatly missed. Now, therefore, be it resolved that the City Council of the City of Alameda does hereby express its sincere appreciation for Alexander Nguyen's years of service to the Alameda community before the resolve of the City Council of the City of Alameda does hereby congratulate Alexander Nguyen on his many accomplishments as assistant city manager and wishes him well in his future endeavors. And we have a motion. Speaker 8: I move adoption of item. Speaker 6: 6/62 and. Speaker 0: We have one speaker pro rata. Speaker 3: Thank you. Don't start. Rob Reiner. I'm still the executive director of the Park Street Business Association, and you'll notice that I wanted to speak on Mr. Nguyen's agenda item, not yours. Thank you. I guess I'll get to you in a minute, but I just wanted to get up and say that Alex had the unenviable job of usually dealing with me, because sometimes I have a chance to make requests on behalf of my organization that sometimes are in the best interests of my organization, but may not fit within the procedures of the city of Alameda. And he was the one that inevitably had to yak with me and say, Nice try, Renato. But no, but I will tell you that when he said no, he always did it with a smile on his face. And he was always he would always listen to my argument. Sometimes I could convince him that maybe I was right after all, and sometimes not so much. But I always respected him and I appreciated his good work on behalf of the city of Alameda. And if you're Scottie Pippen, I still thought you were a lot taller. I'm sorry. Pertaining to Mr. Russo. And I'm going to address Mr. Russo. Now, I'm very proud to say that I was part of the citizens panel that interviewed city managers candidates four years ago. And as soon as I met him, I went, Oh, this guy might make a pretty good city manager. And I'm sure that my recommendation had at least 1/100 of a percent of you getting the job. Thanks. So I'm very proud of that. We are certainly going to miss you. But I will just give you both this one warning. As you know, I go to Southern California many, many times, and I'm sure I could sneak in a trip to Riverside to speak about nine agenda items. So just just keep thinking about that one, okay? We're going to miss you both. We're going to have a lot of fun at your party tomorrow night. Thank you very much. Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Council comments. Member Ody. Speaker 8: I thank you, Madam Mayor. So. You're the right hand man. Right, Alex. And has someone who does that in his day job. I have a special appreciation for that. You know, you're. You're the one I've been able to go to because, you know, we had that camaraderie and that connection as the right hand guy. And no one, that's who you go to when you want something to get done. You know, but you're also, you know, the one who helps smooth out the rough edges. And, you know, who makes the phone call after the the bad meeting and who tells the constituent bad news. And, you know, as the general flak catcher so know I get how that works and I really appreciate, you know, everything that you've done and and supporting John and helping move our city forward. And. And thank you for everything you did. Because I came to you probably more than anyone else given, you know, we kind of served similar positions. And I really appreciate everything you've done and helped help me get up to speed and becoming a new council member. And I'll miss you, too. And good luck. And best of luck in Riverside. Speaker 0: Amber Ashcroft. Speaker 6: I just I echo my colleagues. Thank you, Alex. We'll miss working with you. Best of luck. Happy trails. Speaker 0: Member De Saag. Speaker 7: Thank you very much, Mr. Nguyen, for your service to Alameda. When I started back on council, you helped me out tremendously. When there was a traffic matter on the Oakland side of High Street and the connections that you had have with people in Oakland and I helped smoothen that fix. There was near the warehouse, that many warehouse, there was some kind of thing on the road that was causing a hazard for Alameda. And I've always appreciated that. And among all the many other things that you had helped, not just City Manager Russo, but all of us on council. Thank you. Speaker 9: Vice mayor and not to repeat, but I do want to thank you for continuing to give me access to the city manager's office, regardless of what's happening. You do your job well, and I wish you much success in Riverside. Hope you enjoy it as well. Speaker 0: All right. So I also want to thank you. And what I want to say really is people may not realize what a team the two of you are. You may see Mr. Russo more at events or whatnot. Alex is always right there. If you look if you're in the office, he's there toiling away long hours. He is a go to person for staff and community members. And again, I thank you for your service. And I really wish you wish the two of you the best when you're down in Riverside. So although those favor I. Motion carries. Thank you. Speaker 3: I would like to say thank you and I'll seed all my time to. Speaker 7: Low earners because we. Speaker 3: Ready to tell them thank you. Speaker 0: All right. Speaker 1: Six C Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by adding Chapters six, Article 13, Section six, Dash 56 to impose requirements relating to the retention of grocery workers in certain circumstances involving the transfer of ownership of large grocery establishment.

Regular Agenda Item

Adoption of Resolution Commending Alexander Nguyen for His Service to the City of Alameda as Assistant City Manager. (City Manager)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_04212015_2015-1501

Speaker 1: Six C Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by adding Chapters six, Article 13, Section six, Dash 56 to impose requirements relating to the retention of grocery workers in certain circumstances involving the transfer of ownership of large grocery establishment. Speaker 2: Good evening. I'm Debbie Potter. I'm the city's community development director. How about a short staff report on February 3rd of this year based on a referral from Councilmember Jim Odie, the city council directed staff to prepare an ordinance to require a workforce retention period when there was a change of ownership, control or operation of a large grocery store. The proposed Grocery Worker Retention Ordinance is modeled on the City of Los Angeles ordinance. That ordinance has been upheld by the California Supreme Court. In addition to Los Angeles, his ordinance staff identified three other cities with grocery worker retention ordinances in the state. All of these ordinances define grocery establishments as being over 15,000 square feet. Therefore, staff drafted an ordinance that maintains that same definition. There are 12 grocery stores in Alameda and five of which are over 15,000 square feet. So they would be required to comply with the ordinance if it is adopted. We captured all other key provisions in the city of L.A. ordinance in the draft ordinance. So pursuant to City Council's direction, we recommend that the Council introduce on first reading a grocery worker retention ordinance, and that's staff's presentation. I'm happy to answer any questions. Q Thank you. Speaker 0: We do have four speakers on this. All right. So I'm going to go ahead and call the speakers. It'll be Jeff Dale Bono, Mike Canterbury, Tim James, and then Gary Harris. Speaker 8: Mayor, council members, city staff Jeff Bono and resident of Alameda, president of the Firefighters Union. And I'm here to support our grocery store workers tonight and this ordinance. And I think one of the things that I think about is being 15 years old. And my first job, one of my first jobs, was being a bagger at a grocery store. And at that time, the grocery store industry being a checker was kind of a big deal, like you could support a family on it. You had health care, you had a pension. And I think all of you know, over the past decade that's deteriorated. And that's unfortunate because the grocery store is probably where we spend some of what a big part of our life and a lot of our time. And it's important to have good workers in there, but not only good workers. A grocery store is the center of a town. It's a hub, and that is where the community comes together. We buy our food there, we break bread there. You buy your bread to break there. But the workers that live there are part of the community and most of the time are residents. And I think that is something that we really need to consider in Alameda, too. When you look at the housing prices and what the cost of living is here, we want to retain good jobs, good workers. And I'm going to end with this note. We talk about 15,000 square feet. I think Encino Market would be a prime example of a shop that retains good union workers and good jobs for working families and thrives. So I know Safeway. I know Nob Hill. I know our biggest grocery stores can absolutely do that. And we can provide great grocery stores, a great economic return. At the same time, thinking about the workers are checkers, are baggers, are produce, people are butchers, the delivery people that come there that deliver food. So I'm in complete favor of this. I hope you guys can find it tonight to support it. It's important. Thank you. Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam Mayor. Members of the City Council. Lou Gehrig. Scottie Pippen. And I hope Babe Ruth becomes the next city manager. That would be awesome. Be a real dream team. My name is Mike Henneberry. I live on Otis Drive between Mountain View Sales. I'm a lifelong Alameda resident. I'm also privileged to be the communications and political director for United Food and Commercial Workers. Local 35 or Local 35. Local five You guys can correct me if you want. Speaker 6: Dave. Speaker 3: It has been a long day, actually. Let me introduce the members. Local five, they're here. Could you guys stand up? Right. Thank you. We have members from Safeway Food, Max and Lucky's here tonight. We do not have any members from Nob Hill because those members are in the process of taking a strike vote. So I hope this is in 2012 all over again, but that's why the Nob Hill members are not here. But thank you. Thank you very much, guys. Thanks for coming. I want to commence evening, make a few comments about the grocery workers ordinance and urge you to support it. Alameda Grocery workers face the same issues as our sisters and brothers elsewhere, and one of the primary issues that they face during their term of employment is when their employer changes. It's a it's a tough time for any worker. Fortunately, our members have been pretty fortunate with the Nob Hill takeover by Reilly's, the Albertsons takeover by Cerberus, Andronicus take over by Renault Evo and Safeway by Cerberus just this year. In each of these interest instances, the new entity purchasing the chains kept the staff on the payroll and for the most part, continued by keeping all the stores open. This worked out well for the employees in terms of being able to get on life without the threat of termination hanging over their heads. And it worked out well for the shopping public also in terms of having skilled clerks and meat cutters continue on the job and produce the quality products and services that the shopping public has become justifiably accustomed to, particularly here in Alameda. Despite the positive results of the above takeovers, the fact remains that when a new owner takes over, they have the unilateral right to keep or terminate any employee for any reason or no reason. And as a matter of fact, that's exactly what happened here in Alameda when the Snow family sold chestnuts and now the new owner let the staff go. And many of those people had been with that store for many years. So the dynamic of a small chain or a single store sale is addressed by this ordinance, and it's been implemented in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Santa monica and Gardena. The ordinance that is enacted by those cities also addresses another phenomenon that is just starting to take place in the grocery industry. Since Wal-Mart has reached capacity in rural areas and suburban areas with their supercenters, they're now entering the urban marketplace with their neighborhood stores. Those stores are 20 to 40000 square feet. And what they're doing is they're coming into urban areas and they're buying businesses that have gone out of business like Circuit City and putting stores in. And with Wal-Mart, it's only a matter of time before they start buying existing stores with existing employees. In this case, this ordinance is really going to be needed because under this ordinance, the new employer is obligated to keep the staff on for at least 90 days. This legislation does not restrict new owners from buying stores. It just requires them to retain the workers who are skilled in delivering safe, high quality goods and services to the public. And it will alleviate the stress also associated with a takeover for the employees. The staff has done an excellent job researching and put putting together an excellent staff report and ordinance. However, one item I would mention, there's a 15,000 square foot trigger for this ordinance. If it passes with a 15,000 square foot trigger, then Trader Joe's and it's now market who both have great staffs are going to be left out of this. I would suggest that you reduce that to 10,000 square feet so they are covered. I know there's some discomfort in apprehension about being sued because the L.A. ordinance had 15,000 square feet. I would recommend to reduce it to ten. And then if some someone threatens a lawsuit, I would say we could come back and discuss it at that time. So thank you very much. Thank you for your support of grocery workers and to the city manager and assistant city manager. Good luck. And have you been to Riverside? I was just wondering because you might want to check that out a little more carefully. Now. Speaker 5: Now I. Speaker 0: Jim James. Then Gray. Speaker 10: Mayor Council members Tim James with the California Grocers Association representing several grocery companies. Speaker 3: Operating here in Alameda. I think we haven't. Speaker 10: Had the full conversation. Speaker 3: Yet about this ordinance. When you really look at what this ordinance does, it's basically a real estate encumbrance. It's an economic development issue for a lot of ways. One of the issues that we've. Speaker 10: Seen with the very few jurisdictions that have passed this type of ordinance, and I'd like to point out that no ordinance in the last over eight years has passed this type of ordinance. I think because they've learned. Speaker 3: This lesson is it actually can be a issue between grocery stores selling it to another grocery store. As previous speaker speakers have recognized. Grocery stores are very important to the community as well as the workers that work there. But by placing an additional mandate, this additional regulation on grocery stores, they might grocery stores are looking to move to Alameda might not look at stores that are current stores are selling or look for open space that's it's already there. What we've seen in L.A. in a couple. Speaker 10: Of other jurisdictions is that this has actually. Speaker 3: Reduced the amount of grocery. Speaker 10: Stores. Speaker 3: In some areas and neighborhoods. Speaker 10: Because of the retention issue and the challenge that that may present. Speaker 3: There's a lot of open space in cities where grocery stores can choose to operate. So if you make it easier for them to not replace the current store, then that's a direction they may go. Speaker 10: We've also seen these communities as non retailers purchasing grocery stores, since grocery stores may not want to encumber this additional regulation. Speaker 3: We've seen grocery stores turn into karate studios. Speaker 10: Other types of non retailers and whatnot that you then lose that value. Speaker 3: As the city of Alameda for having the grocery store available there. Speaker 10: So I think the challenge that we're looking at and the issue that I. Speaker 3: Think Alameda should look at for yourselves is does this. Speaker 10: Disincentivize? Speaker 3: Grocery stores buying other grocery. Speaker 10: Stores that are for sale. Speaker 3: In Alameda? Or are you creating potentially creating a barrier where grocery stores may not want to move into Alameda or you are attracting or attracting non grocery. Speaker 10: Retailers to take their space? So with that, that's our major concern. In all those scenarios, there's the very much potential to either. Speaker 3: Lose a grocery store and if you do lose a grocery store, then the retention of employees, not an issue. Those employees would be also out of a job as well. Speaker 10: So thank you very much for your time and consideration. Speaker 0: Thank you. Gray Harris and then William Smith. Speaker 2: Good evening. I'm Gray Harris resident. I also work for the California Teachers Association. I am here tonight in support of the grocery workers. With all due respect, I'm not really sure what else is missing from the conversation other than I see no reason why you wouldn't want to give someone 90 days to prove that they're still doing a good job. Basically, what I do all day, every day is advocate for people to have the right to some kind of process before they get laid off, fired or otherwise terminated. I don't know why grocery workers should be any different. I heard Mike say that without an ordinance like this, people can be fired for any reason or no reason. And I firmly believe that that is the wrong thing to do. If we want to build a sense of community and if people are doing a good job and they prove that they're going to continue to do a good job for a new employer, I see no reason why that would be a bad thing. So thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Joe Smith. Speaker 3: Good evening, Mayor Spencer, members of the council. I'm William Smith, the resident of Alameda and also president of the Society of Professionals and Scientists, engineers at the local level and of the university, professional and technical employees. And I am speaking as a resident of Alameda on this one. And just like I said, I definitely support the the ordinance as written and wanted to point out that the national laboratories frequently change hands in terms of management. And one of the things that is very, very important to do is retain the workforce at all levels. And it's very important, especially at the lower levels where a lot of the institutional knowledge resides. And we certainly have a lot of institutional knowledge. When I go to the grocery stores in town here and see the clerks and the people and it's just a friendly place and and I'd like to keep it that way, and I hope this ordinance will help us do that. So thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. As far as I know, we don't have anymore speaker setups on this issue. All right, we have a motion. Did we want to have comments first? Council member Ashcroft Thank you. Speaker 6: Thank you to all the speakers and thank you to the staff and city attorney's office and Miss Potter for your research. And I actually went back and read the California Supreme Court decision on this. And and I thought it made a lot of sense that this is there is a public health and safety issue at play here , because these grocery workers also are trained in handling food safely. And we want to make sure that the groceries we buy are safe. But I think even more importantly than that, we we do want to make sure that people have their jobs. They've worked hard to get their jobs to advance through the ranks. And still market was mentioned. I grew up in Alameda and I can remember going every Saturday to the grocery store to internal market with my dad and the same checker lady was there. I think, you know, even by the time I grew up and had my family and then she retired. But there was a reason that, you know, people held this jobs. For all these years. I support this measure the way it was drafted by our city attorney's office. I, I have great respect for Mike Hanna, Barry, but this was the measure that we asked our city attorney to look into. And in Ms.. Potter office, and this is what the State Supreme Court has vetted and this is what I feel comfortable supporting. So I am certainly in favor of the the ordinance amending the municipal code as currently drafted. Thank you, Mayor Brody. Speaker 5: Sure. Speaker 8: I feel I can go after everyone else. Speaker 5: All right. Speaker 0: Vice mayor. Speaker 9: Yes, I think the risk of. The Wal-Mart scenario outweighs the risk of the of the empty store becoming a karate studio in Alameda. I don't think that's that is our particular issue. I think the 90 day. A period is a good backstop for people in this in these unsettled times, economic times, where there's current turnover at corporate levels. And the litany was given to us from the podium, and I don't see that slowing down. So I think this protection is necessary. I live next to a lucky in Marina village, and I worry about that store. And I think for our own economic development, we need to have this kind of protection as well as for the people who service those stores. Speaker 0: Member De SA. Speaker 7: Thank you very much. For many years now, within the grocery store industry, there has been basically a race to the bottom as a result of the introduction of the Wal-Mart Supercenter and breaking even further into food. And I think this is just one way to help the working family in this era of change within the grocery industry . It's a small way, and I think comedians can play a part in it. When I look at the reason why we should play a part, certainly there is a public safety issue, a public health issue. But also, you know what? For many of us, grocery stores are places of community gathering. You know, you say Lucky's, I say Dana own tag. You know who works at the fish counter at Lucky's marina village? You say Safeway. I say Todd, my friend, who who? Greenwell, who and his and other friends who had worked at Hilo Steel, who had worked at Lucky's when there was one at the base of What's the Street, if we all remember. So there is certainly a community role that grocery stores have is a part of our fabric and. We should do what we can. We're not. We're not promising so much. We we should do what we can in the face of the changes that this industry has been going through. And to the extent that, you know, we're remaining aligned with. The Los Angeles model. I think this is a small, prudent step forward. On a final note, I can't speculate what would happen if a grocery store closed and it was difficult to re tenant. That is a possibility. Let's not romanticize this. But by the same token, think, you know, in Alameda, this is just one small part that we can do to help the working families in a much impacted industry. Other places like Oakland or Berkeley can can pass $15 minimum wage things. I'm not sure we can do that here in Alameda, but this is one small thing that we can do to protect working families. Speaker 0: You want me to go ahead? You want to go last? Speaker 8: I can go last. Speaker 0: All right. All right. So I appreciate the comments raised by the speakers as well as my fellow council members. I agree with member Ashcraft in regards to the I would prefer staying with the 15,000 square feet as written that was tested by the Supreme Court as opposed to making a change at this point. I think that this brings balance in regards to maintaining the food supply or the safety of the food supply for 90 days. And then it allows the current workers to continue having a job and working and providing that service for the 90 days. So it's to me, it's not an undue hardship because it's a 90 day period. And I think it is a great benefit to our community to protect the safety of our food supply. And it also gives an opportunity then for the new buyer to meet the current employees and and make an informed decision as to who they think is would be a good match for their store. So I will be supporting this. Speaker 8: So I want to thank the public for their eloquent comments, especially Mr. Barry, and thank Ms.. Potter for putting together this ordinance and also thank my colleagues for their thoughtful and eloquent comments. Just to address a couple a couple of points. I also had a chance to look at the case and the point that, you know, this could be disruptive to some employers. I mean, we have this at the 15,000 square foot level. I'd like to see it go down to ten, but it doesn't sound like there's consensus on the council to do that. But the comment from the the case was that the city rationally could conclude that disruptions at larger stores involving larger workforces would have a larger impact on the community and that larger stores would be more readily positioned to absorb any short term burdens the ordinance requirements might impose on employers. So, I mean, what that tells me is our large stores, our Lucky's, our ah, Nob Hill foods are Safeway's know this, they're, they're anchors to our neighborhoods. They're they're anchors to our city. And that these workers, as the staff report says, play a vital public health and economic role in our communities. So what we can do to to preserve, you know, some sense of security, even if it's just for the 90 day period, I think is worthwhile for these workers. And I think that if you look at the size of the employers we're looking at and even Trader Joe's, if we went low, I mean, they are a large enough corporation. I don't envision them moving out and I don't envision a Safeway moving in next door. But, you know, they would be able to absorb the impact of of keeping workers on and evaluating them for 90 days. And I, I do want to thank my colleagues for, you know, their their words of support and their support of of all of our working families, especially our working grocers. Speaker 0: We have emotion. Speaker 6: Oh, I would say this is a first reading of the ordinance. Is it? Okay. So I will move. Introduction of an ordinance amending the Alameda Municipal Code by adding Chapter six, Article nine, Sections six, Dash five six to impose requirements relating to the retention of grocery workers in certain circumstances involving the transfer of ownership of large grocery establishments. Speaker 8: I'll second that. Speaker 0: All those in favor. Speaker 8: I. Speaker 0: Oppose motion carries unanimously. Thank you. Now moving on to 60. Speaker 1: Complete actions to expand municipal services and territory for financing district at Alameda Landing and Levy of corresponding special tax community facility to District 13 Dash to Alameda Landing Municipal Services District. You'll do so by conducting public hearings and adopting for resolutions.

Regular Agenda Item

Introduction of an Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding Chapter VI, Article XIII, Section 6-56 to Impose Requirements Relating to the Retention of Grocery Workers in Certain Circumstances Involving the Transfer of Ownership of Large Grocery Establishments. (Community Development 7010)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_04072015_2015-1510

Speaker 0: And at this point, we'll proceed with three. Speaker 1: A update by the interim fire chief on the fluid spill in the estuary. Good evening, Madam Mayor. Actually, I'm going to give the update tonight. Sorry for that confusion. This is just going to be a very informal quick update. We we do plan on coming back once we after what I talk about once we receive more documentations, will be coming back and doing a formal report for you. But I just wanted to give you an oral update about where we are. On March 16th, Mayor Spencer, myself and Fire Chief Long went to Yerba Buena Island to visit with the Coast Guard Command staff, and we toured the facility there. They gave us a briefing on their response capabilities. And also they briefed us a little bit on the spill that occurred on February 10th in the Alameda, Oakland estuary. At that time, they they let us know that they had done testing. The testing was they had not received it back yet. Once they do receive the testing back, it will be forwarded on to their headquarters. And then we will be privy to the information of interim chief. Long has submitted a public records request, a freedom of information, they call it, for the federal government Freedom of Information Act. Once we they and they are obliged to respond to that. And once we receive that information, we will be coming back to council with that information. Additionally, Chief Long spoke to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife Office of Spill Prevention and Response regarding their investigation. As you probably are aware, both the Coast Guard was doing their own internal investigation and the Department of Fish and Wildlife also did an investigation. And they they have concluded they actually haven't concluded their investigation. But the analysis that they did take in the samples that they took, there was not a match with any of the Coast Guard vessels. And from their perspective, they determined that the samples will be saved as evidence, and the investigation from their perspective remains open until they can actually determine where the source of the spill came from. But they did not. So this was again, this was Department of Fish and Wildlife, Office of Spill Prevention and Response. So separate from the Coast Guard. And they did not have a match and they did sample the Coast Guard cutters. So once again, though, we will be we still waiting on the response from the Coast Guard themselves from their investigation. And once we receive, that will be coming back with a full on report. That concludes. Speaker 0: Councilmember questions before we have we have three speakers. Council member questions. All right. I'm going to go ahead and call the public speakers. Our first speaker will be April Squires and then Monty Hain and then Brock the Out. Speaker 5: My chum. All around. Speaker 1: 4:00 on the afternoon of. Speaker 5: October 12th, 2014, I watched a floating expanse of grayish. Speaker 0: Brown sludge. Speaker 5: Enter San Leandro Bay from the direction of. Speaker 1: Alameda. Speaker 5: As Otis Street Bridge. The plume moved slowly and curled around the eastern tip of Alameda Island. Then enter the Oakland Alameda estuary. Speaker 1: Mr. Huynh and I continued watching following the plume. Speaker 5: From. Speaker 1: A path on the Oakland side of the estuary. Around 5:30 p.m., we observed the plume from directly above the Fruitvale Bridge. By that time, the plume extended from San Leandro Bay westward past the Park Street Bridge. It was grayish brown and had a thick gel like almost foamy consistency unlike anything I'd seen. The plume was about. Speaker 5: 15 feet wide and. Speaker 1: Maybe 20 foot. Speaker 5: Long segments embedded with some clumps. Speaker 1: Of grass with roots attached. Speaker 5: And other debris. Speaker 1: Including straws, paper cups and pieces of wood. Speaker 5: There were occasional breaks in the. Speaker 1: Plume where there. Speaker 5: Was a thin. Speaker 1: Oily sheen. Around 6 p.m., Mr. Huynh borrowed. Speaker 5: My cell phone and called 911. Speaker 1: I listened as he was first connected with CHP. Then the Alameda Fire Department. I heard him describe the sludge and tell the other party that he would remain in the area. At the Nob Hill parking lot and be available by cell phone as if he were needed. I heard him give his cell phone number. Speaker 5: So that he could be contacted. Speaker 1: Mr. Huynh told me, Excuse. Speaker 0: Me just one moment. I'm very sorry, but I just want to make it very clear. I truly apologize for interrupting, but I do not believe this is on the subject matter of the estuary spill. So it's fine to have you speak on matters, not on the agenda on this matter. And we were prepared for that. But I just wanted to make it clear that this is not a spill. So nobody's saying. Speaker 5: I didn't think so, but no, I wasn't sure. Speaker 0: How. No, no, I appreciate it. And I don't mean to, but I don't want it to be confusing because this is a different spill. Speaker 5: So different this would be hold out. It's more like a public comment. Speaker 0: Yeah, she's actually speaking items, not on the agenda. So public comments are not really on the estuary spill, right? Speaker 5: That's right. Yeah. Thank you for the clarification. Speaker 6: She'll get her full 3 minutes, though. Speaker 1: So we start over. Speaker 5: Okay. Anyways, should I just. Speaker 0: Continue or do I start. Speaker 1: Over? Okay. And why did time is the 3 minutes so anyway, so he could be contacted. He, he told me that quote that they said that a truck would be sent. So because it was getting dark and cold, Mr.. Speaker 5: Huynh and I had coffee at Pete's at Nob Hill Grocery. Speaker 1: Sitting where we could see the Fruitvale. Speaker 5: Bridge, expecting to hear a siren after. Speaker 1: About an hour when there was no siren or a fire truck. I laughed, and. Speaker 5: Mr. Hawing said that he would return to the bridge and try again. Issues that concern me going forward, the insufficient response resulting from 911 calls. Speaker 1: I learned that it is likely that response is inadequate. Speaker 5: Because there was. Speaker 1: No protocol. Speaker 5: In place for first responders in pollution cases that are not petroleum. Speaker 1: Based and. Speaker 5: That the and. Speaker 1: Also secondly, that the city of Alameda should establish its own protocol to protect the marine life we all enjoy, as well as public. Speaker 5: Safety of residents and visitors who enjoy the beaches. Speaker 1: The mayor should. Speaker 5: Create a commission and a citizen advisory. Speaker 1: Committee. And thirdly, that the proposed Senate bill 718 by California state senators Mark Leno and Lori Hancock delineates. Speaker 5: Procedures to report pollution events, identify. Speaker 1: Causes, hold accountable polluters, and create and promote citizen reporting and involvement. The mayor should ensure that the city's protocol. Speaker 5: Is integrated with the Senate bill. Thank you very. Speaker 0: Much. Thank you very much. Monte Hein. Speaker 7: Thank you. When I was modifying, I investigated the plume that Ms.. Squires and I observed, and here are some of my facts and conclusions. Alamy the Sphinx lagoons underwent extensive dredging during the first two weeks of October 2014. Dredging. Solids from these lagoons were dumped in a toxic hot spot at Alameda Point, and the residual liquids were released through the Lagoon portal into San Francisco Bay. Two months later, a mystery, a great mystery girl killed and injured hundreds of seabirds along the shores of Alameda, San Leandro and Hayward and the bird rescue nonprofit's budget has been drained. Chemical analysis by Cal Fish and Wildlife has not ruled out lagoon dredging as the source of the mystery goo. Fish and Wildlife took samples from near the Lagoon portal to test and compare with the Mystery Goo. I saw an employee of Clean Lakes Inc taking a lagoon water sample. Per their website, Clean Lakes uses toxic agricultural chemicals to clarify inland waterways. One such product is, quote, absorbed and translocated by aquatic plant foliage interfering with plant metabolism. Another is, quote, a contact herbicide effective against a broad range of aquatic plants. Clean Lakes also uses surfactants, which are chemical compounds that can emulsify, dissolved and dissolve solids and render them float able. Degradation of marine habitat near the lagoon portal is evident in this screen right here I'm showing in the center. You'll notice the lush greenery around the rocks that was taken over a year from the most recent photo, which in which the rocks are bare. Here is a photo showing a foaming agent, a possible sort of act surfactant in the lagoons. That's right here. Hmm. Notice the gray fringe where the white foam meets the water as if a chemical change is taking place in those two cloudy areas with the arrows point. That's what I'm referring to. It's gray right on the fringe of that white foam. Conclusions. The timing, flow, direction and content of the October sludge plume are consistent with Alamitos Lagoon dredging and the mystery. Good additional sampling analysis are required to prove link with linkage between the goo and the lagoons. Further investigation is needed to determine the extent of environmental damage and the risk of relying on toxic chemicals to maintain the aging finger lagoons. We need further study to determine the extent to which a new era of catastrophic environmental risk to the Marines ecosystem of San Leandro Bay has been brought about by changes in tidal currents due to drought related sediment buildup. Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you very much. Rock the lot. Speaker 8: Council Mayor. I actually want to address the February 10th fuel spill, which is different from what has just been discussed by the previous two speakers. We're all human and as humans we do make mistakes. Accidents are just that. There are accidents and we can accept that. What's difficult to accept. It's a cover up. And not getting the truth about something that put people from the island at risk. Health risk and risk of their property. The fuel spill that occurred on the 10th of February was quite substantial. It ultimately covered miles of the estuary. At the. Speaker 7: March 3rd. Speaker 8: City Council meeting, we had representatives from both the Coast Guard and the Cal. Speaker 7: Fish and Wildlife Department. Speaker 8: Who said that. Speaker 7: The source of the spill remained unknown. Speaker 8: That what was detected in the spill was Marine diesel. After that, you heard numerous speakers, numerous very knowledgeable speakers say that it was their opinion that what was detected was a kerosene based substance, which would be consistent with JP five, which is a fuel that's used in the modern generation cutters and the aircraft that fly off of them. The only place that that could have come from was the Coast Guard. We're all waiting for our Freedom of Information Act to come through. We have no further information from the Coast. Speaker 7: Guard. Speaker 8: Because their investigation is still active. It's still underway. So there's no news there. But I did take a sample from our marina that night and passed it on to Fish and Wildlife. And they sat on that for the last two months. And I found out just this afternoon that my request to have that returned to me so that I could do an independent analysis of it. They have instead sent it to a commercial lab for a, quote, independent analysis. So I'm actually looking forward to seeing those results and sharing those with the council. Once again, I would say if that comes back as JP five, the only source of that could be the Coast Guard. Now, we take great civic pride about having the Coast Guard in this city. And I, in fact, have great respect for the Coast Guard or have had respect for them up until this incident. But I think that we as a community deserve the truth on a matter that's this serious. And I'm feeling like the Coast Guard would just as soon have this all just pass as water under. Speaker 7: The bridge or water out the estuary. Speaker 8: Nobody wants to take any formal responsibility for this. Speaker 7: And I think that the people that were. Speaker 8: Liveaboard that night were put at risk. And I think that we could be better prepared for an incident like this in the future and that the city and residents of Alameda deserve the truth of the matter. And I don't think we received that today. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Have no further speakers subs for this item. Three B. Speaker 1: Update on safety of vacant buildings at Alameda Point or. Oh. Um. Speaker 7: I'm going to. I'm just going to exercise my prerogative. Leave it. Thank you.

Closed Session Item

Update by the Interim Fire Chief on the Fluid Spill in the Estuary. (Fire)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_04072015_2015-1440

Speaker 0: Thank you very much. And now through five g. Speaker 1: Recommendation to authorize the purchase of equipment from Alameda paving and excavating in the amount of 129,800 an authorize the city manager to execute all necessary documents. Speaker 0: All right. And member South pulled this item. Speaker 3: Madam Mayor, the reason why I pulled this item is because a very good friend of mine is been working with staff and I haven't been involved. And I just want to make sure to recuse myself from this. Speaker 0: All right. So do we have a motion? For 5G. Speaker 5: So moved. Speaker 0: Approval. Speaker 2: Second. Speaker 0: Was there any discussion? When all the vote all those in favor. I oppose one recusal member decide. Thank you. Speaker 7: Um, he's got to come back. Speaker 0: To and then we're going to move on to five j. Speaker 1: Approving in your work plan and setting public hearing to continue assessing merchants within the Webster Street District by approving the annual assessment report and adopting a resolution of intention.

Consent Calendar Item

Recommendation to Authorize the Purchase of Equipment from Alameda Paving and Excavating in the Amount of $129,800 and Authorize the City Manager to Execute All Necessary Documents. (Public Works 602)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_04072015_2015-1503

Speaker 0: Second. Any discussion? A call the vote. All those in favor. I oppose none. One recusal member de saag. And that completes the consent calendar. So now we're on the regular agenda items. I have a recommendation for our sixth recommendation. Speaker 1: Receive an update to the July 23rd, 2013 report on the city's other post-employment benefit liability. Irma. Speaker 0: Yes. Speaker 7: It's. Thank you very much, Madame Mayor. Council members. Tonight's report is in anticipation. Of some upcoming. Votes that the council may be taking with respect to addressing the city's long term liability crunch in the area of post-employment benefits. What we wanted to do tonight as staff is to give context and to help the public understand what exactly is meant when we talk about OPEB or other post-employment benefits. It is an issue that is somewhat complicated but can be pretty easily understood once it's explained. It is also a huge headache for cities throughout the country, especially in California. You can thank assistant city manager and soon to be acting city manager. Warmer than for the photo of George Washington on the dollar bill to represent the struggle that cities face. I'm glad she did that. I'm a big fan of Presidents Day merely because I love commercials where Abraham Lincoln and George Washington are selling cars or wrapping or engaged in, you know, beer pong. So this is probably the most important issue that the city faces over which it has control. Our goal tonight is to demystify OPEB for the public. Next slide, please. So what is the difference between Purrs and OPEB? In a nutshell, hers is your pension. OPEB is what's called a retiree medical. Now with PERS. When an employee retires, they get the number of years of service. Let's say, just for argument's sake, 25 years of service times. Some factor. Some percentage. It used to be that the percentage for most employees was 2%. About 14 or 15 years ago, the legislature decided after the dot com boom that the PERS fund had done so well that. It would make a lot of sense to bump pensions up and bump the factor up from 2% to 3%. That was a huge. Huge. Impact from an actuarial perspective on what cities would have to pay eventually and where we sit today with premiums. I want to note that public safety employees throughout the state receive 3% at 50. That means for every year of service, they get 3%. If they work 25 years, they'll get 75% of their what's called pensionable number, which is usually the top year of salary. And they're able to retire at 50 years of age. At the same time that those formula were changed from 2%, 2.5% to 3%. The retirement date changed from 55 to 50. So look at it this way. You went from 2% to 3%. That's a 50% increase in value in the pension. Plus you get to retire five years earlier. So five additional years of liability. This has had a terrible impact on cities throughout California and for Alameda. Now. One point you should make because there's a lot of confusion about this, is that employees who receive a person's retirement are not allowed to draw Social Security. So it is in lieu of. But it is a much more expensive program for the city itself. So that's the pension side. That's PERS I'm not going to address PERS tonight. Some of us who are involved in state level politics at the time when this happened, including me, I was president of the League of California Cities at the time, spoke at the time and said and spoke out publicly and said this change in the formula was non-sustainable. We did not prevail. You can draw your own conclusions about why, but we are where we are now. So what's the difference between person OPEB? Well, OPEB is not a pension. Hers is run by a state agency. Alameda, like most cities, contracts with powers to operate the pension program. Some cities exist in risk pools. Others just exist in the main prize pool. In 2013, a bill was passed called Peprah. Pepper says that for new employees, there is now what's called classic purrs and new purrs. And for those who are employees, classic purrs is like classic coke. And new purrs is like new coke. New purrs says that public safety employees, police, fire, sheriffs, etc. all get instead of 3% a year, they get 2.7% a year. That sounds small. It's not. It's a 10% reduction. But more importantly, instead of being able to retire at 50, these new employees have to retire at 57. So there's seven more years of contribution and seven fewer years of payout. As for miscellaneous employees nonpublic safety, they no longer can retire at 55. They are now retiring at 62. The main point about this and why I wanted to talk about Perce is that because of the losses in the stock market, both in the wake of the dot com boom and in the wake of the housing boom. PERS did not hit its investment return targets in the next six years. And you will see this when the city does its presentation on our budget for the next five years. Our premium rate, the amount we have to pay to PERS to fund these pension benefits is going to rise pretty dramatically. It has already risen pretty dramatically. The city cannot control the purse rate. What the city can however, exercise some modicum of control over is the retiree medical benefit, the so-called OPEB. And that's what I want to speak about tonight. Now, before we do that, let's take a look real quickly at the increase in prices rates, because this is the challenge that most cities and Alameda will face in the coming years. Right now, the fiscal year we are in, we are at the tail end of 1415. So if you're looking at this chart, it's the third bar from the left. Our premium. What we pay to two in Sacramento is for every dollar in public safety salary, we pay $0.53 on a dollar to PERS to fund the pension benefit . Our employees pay 13 of those $0.53, which makes them among the highest in the region. And for those who generally believe that we should confront the unions and, you know, jam down the number that they're supposed to get and make them pay more. I want to let you know that one of the consequences of PEP brought the Pension Reform Act is that state law says you cannot impose more than $0.12 on the dollar. We get more than that because we bargained for it. Right now, the city pays $0.40 on the dollar. Employees pay 13 for a total of 53. Look ahead. This is what's called purrs, smoothing the purrs smoothing process to try to catch up for the so-called lost decade of investment returns that I mentioned earlier. We'll raise our premium up to $0.65 on the dollar. Given our contracts with our police and firefighters. They will be paying $0.15 per dollar. We will be paying 50 per dollar. I want to note there is a, as I said, no way to impose more than 12 under state law and B, the $0.15 that our employees will be paying. No one is paying more in the Bay Area. Some people from time to time ask, why can't you just do what San Jose does? Well, here's why. San Jose has its own pension fund. It's not part of PERS. It's completely different situation. So we're facing an increase from $0.40 on the dollar five years out to $0.50 on the dollar. That is going to put a real strain on our ability to provide services. And so it's critical because these costs are not controlled by the city. It is critical that we bring our OPEB costs, the retiree medical costs under control in the next few years. Now I want to talk about what is open. Our miscellaneous employees, meaning the nonpublic safety employees. When they retire, they get $122 a month. That's the end of their benefit. Public safety employees, though, depending on their hire date. If they're hired before June 2011, they get full medical and dental health care through retirement. For them and for their spouse, that's if you're before June 2011. By contract and by agreement between the management of Alameda and our bargaining units. Those employees who were hired after June 2011 do not receive the benefit for spouses. It's a single party coverage, not a family coverage. Speaker 0: But is it still full coverage? Speaker 7: It's full coverage, but it's it's one party. And it does make it over time as we phase in these new employees. That provides us quite a bit of relief. Now. How are course determined. What do we pay for OPEB? What is our total bill? How do we get ahead of this and what do we face in the future as more people retire? Well. This chart shows you that. I want you to look at the fourth word. The fourth column down is pay as you go. Pay as you go is the amount that the city has to pay every year to pay the medical premiums for the existing retirees. Now. I read blogs. I look at opinion pieces. There's a lot of people who believe that the city can just unilaterally change the benefit to retirees. In fact, they can't. The city did try to do this about six years ago. And the retired police officers brought in arbitration against the city and one and one in every regard and ended up the city ended up paying for their lawyers as well. You can't touch the existing retirees. What you can do, however, is negotiate with the existing employees who will be retiring at different rates in the coming years. Right now, in fiscal year 1415, the year we're in now, the city is paying $2.7 million a year for the medical premiums of the retired police and firefighters as more and more retire and as people live longer. That number is going to go up. As you can see, if we do nothing. The number will go up such that by fiscal 1920, which is only five years away, that 2.7 million is going to go up to 4.2 million. At the same time, remember I showed you earlier how the PERS numbers are going up. We cannot absorb both of them at the same time. It's not possible. We have to come up with a program that will provide us relief in this field because we can't do anything about the PERS field. Now, I want to give you some definitions because you see some terms up there. You see the term normal cost, you see the usual amortization. Here's what normal cost is. This is the cost of all benefits earned by current and active employees. In other words, this is what we should be putting away today and putting into investments into safe, safe return vehicles in order to pay this bill in the future. We're not doing it. Nearly no cities do it. Some do, but very few. In fact, Alameda at least has paid it's pay as you go as it came. Do some cities, including the one I live in that I used to work in, borrowed over the past 15 years just to make their ongoing payments. So they have compounded their problem such that it's now a problem that's in the billions of dollars rather than millions. The next definition I want to show you is unfunded, actuarial accrued. Oops. Oh, thank you. No, go back. There it is. Okay. This is the cost to fund the benefits that should that have already been earned. And should have been funded in the past. The most important point, if you have one take away about all of these benefits, retirement and retiree medical, is that this is a problem that didn't start just 15 years ago when the formulas changed. This is a problem that started in the immediate postwar when governments at all levels began giving out pensions and post-employment benefits without putting any money aside to fund them whatsoever. It's been going on for more than 60 years. We are now in such a fix that it will take, I believe, 15 to 20 years to fix the problem. That's the bad news. The good news is, if we're diligent and strategic, it can be fixed. Alameda, at least unlike some of its neighbors, is in a position to fix this problem. So again, you shall. Is how much we should have been putting away. And normal cost is how much we should be putting away today. When you put them together. It's something called the annual required contribution. This is the combination of normal cost. Again, normal cost is what we should be putting away now for the people who are working for us now. And the fuel, which is what we should have been doing in the past. When you put it together. The the actuaries call it the annual required contribution. This is the amount we should be putting aside annually to be whole. Now. Let's go back to the numbers now that we've talked about it. This means that what? The city. Is paying in PAYGO comes off of the so-called arc. We are underfunded in 1415. If we were going to be 100% funded, that we didn't have a big problem in the future. We should be paying $6.3 million. You can see by the late where the laser pointer is, we should be doing that. Instead, all we're doing is $2.7 million. And you can see the problem gets larger. It gets away from us every year. Next slide. Now, how do we come up with these numbers? We assume that every year medical premiums are going to go up 8%. Now, last year, the medical premium went up less than 3%. The indication is that this year the medical premium will go up less than 3%. So why are we picking such a high number? Doesn't that make our problem look bigger than it actually is? The reason we're picking the bigger number is because for the last 20 years, we have repeatedly had years in which medical premiums and you know this, if you pay your own health care, medical premiums have gone up eight, nine, sometimes as much as 12 and 14% a year. We had one good year. We think we have another one coming. We don't know that that's a real lasting trend or whether it's just a blip. So consequently, we're using a pretty conservative number by using the 8%. All of the financial analysts believe that even if you could, you should not fund 100% of your liability because you're using assumptions like this 8% and that the most prudent thing to do is to fund at about 75 or 80%. Of course, we're not remotely close to that. Let us show you where we are. Work. Oh, there it is. Okay, so what would it look like if we only had to fund 75% of the benefit for next year? 1516? Well, at 100%, we would be underfunded by 6.7. At 75%, we'd still be underfunded by $4.3 million. So, you know, you can play with the numbers, but the numbers are still very bad. But we felt it was important to show you what the most common standard is, which is 75 to 80%. Okay. Next one. So to look at it as a pie chart. With 100% funding. The pay go is 31% of the pie. That's what, in other words, PAYGO is what we're actually paying today. What we predict we're going to pay in the next fiscal year. The blue area is what we should be paying so that we don't have a bill in the future that we can't meet. The pie chart on the right shows you. If you go 75%, we're still more than 50% underfunded for what we ought to be doing. Next. The obligation as it stands today is about $91 million. That we need to. Now, we don't need to pay $91 million today, but it's $91 million over the next 30 years. Speaker 0: And this is just OPEB. Speaker 7: This is just OPEB. This is not right now. All we're talking about now. That's right, Madam Mayor. Thank you. This is just OPEB. This is not the pensions. This is why we have to get this under control. Police represent a little more than $44 million of our obligation. Fire represents about 39 million. And everybody else who's not in public safety represents seven but seven and a half million dollars. The city's total unfunded liability is just a little over $91 million. Next slide. What has been done so far. What's been done so far was at long last, in January of 2014, the city decided we better at least get started. With the pension trust. So we created an OPEB trust that currently has about $2 million in it to try to prefund some of this. I mentioned earlier there's no spousal coverage as of June 2011. On the 14th of this month, we are going to publish for the public's review and for vote by the Council on April 29 A Proposal. It is a new five year contract with all of our police and fire unions. That will include solutions for the OPEB trust. It will fashion a trust that will actually be able to provide us with years of breathing room and will save the city tens of millions of dollars. I want to be clear as I was in my discussions with our Treasurer and auditor yesterday about this. This is not a solution that solves the problem forever. It doesn't solve it for 30 years. It solves it in the near term to allow us the time without borrowing, without making the situation worse. It is a net seriously positive impact. It allows us the time to cope with the OPEB. A Pardon me? The purse, the pension rates going up. Anything else? So with that council, Madame Mayor, I'd be happy to answer any questions about the context of OPEB. There will be much more discussion in this month. Again, the 29th is the meeting and the 14th under the Sunshine Law. 15 days prior to the vote on any labor contract, the public must have access to the contract and all related materials, and we will publish all of those no later than Tuesday, the 14th. And with that, I thank you, council members for your attention and would be happy to answer any questions you may have, if I can. Speaker 0: And we do have two speakers from the Public Council. Did you want to ask questions first? If. Member Ashcraft. Speaker 5: Thank you. Thank you for that report, Mr. City Manager, on page one of the staff report now page three talking about the unfunded actuarial accrued liability. And in Almeida's case, the fuel is 91.2 million as of the last actuarial valuation done in January January one, 2013. Do we do these evaluations annually? Speaker 1: Every two years. Speaker 5: Every two years. Okay. So we're not up for what we are. Speaker 1: So we are. We're in the process of doing one right now. Speaker 5: Okay. And will we have those numbers by the time we can. Speaker 1: Actually have Doug Pryor here from and Associates, our actuary? Could you come to the microphone? The question is this years actuary, when do we expect it? Speaker 7: Yeah, we're we're still in the process of collecting the data. So we're. Typically 4 to 6 weeks off from having. Speaker 2: Kind of preliminary results to. Speaker 7: Present to staff. Speaker 5: So just to follow up, then, by the time we come back on the 29th to vote on the contract provisions, we won't have that information. You don't think 4 to 6 weeks from now or are you in the midst of that. Speaker 7: Process where we we're still collecting the data from the city, so we don't have everything yet to proceed with our. Speaker 2: Analysis, but. Speaker 1: In the order of magnitude of changes are not going to be that. I mean. Right. We're talking billion. Okay. 30 years to 43 million order of magnitude won't change. All right. Speaker 5: Okay. Um. And. Uh. Okay. The others can wait till. Speaker 0: After member day. Speaker 3: So just to clarify in question for a staff, city manager or assistant city manager. Now, when we're talking about the unfunded liability of $91.2 million for the OPEB side, now that unfunded liability, broadly speaking, can be distributed in two ways. One for. People who are part of it is attributable to people who are right now retired. They're no longer working. And part of it is attributable to people who are working right now in city hall. But we need to make plans for them in the future. So. Speaker 7: That's correct. It's the whole number. Thank you. Speaker 2: Vice Mayor and just for the public. Mr. City Manager. If you can verify the assumptions on. The solution, as well as the liabilities, is projecting an 8% increase in health costs a year? Speaker 7: That's correct. Speaker 2: And also, it assumes that it's the number of employees that we have now as active no more. Correct? Speaker 7: That is correct. So what it assumes we've had persistent vacancies, particularly in the police department. This assumes that we are continuing to budget for full staffing. But not increasing or decreasing. Now, if you increase or decrease, you change the numbers. Speaker 2: And the same with the health or the percentage of increase in health care, correct? Speaker 7: Well, the percentage, yeah. I mean, it'll be 8%. Whether you have 100 employees or 120, it's going to be 8% per year. Speaker 2: But those are two variables. What I'm. Speaker 7: Saying. Oh, yes, right. Absolutely. But but it is important to know that the assumption is that there will not be an increase in the size of these forces and there's no decrease in the. So it's the assumption is we are where we are and we will be there for the next, you know, 5 to 10 years minimum number. Speaker 3: So a thank you. And I want to underscore that point so that people understand that while the what's in front of us right now is about looking out at and years out, 5 to 10 years out, and that's just a proposal stage. Let me emphasize, to the extent that it's a good program and the possibility of it going beyond ten years is strong, in which case it is important to us to emphasize and reemphasize that the mechanics of the preliminary idea are such that we have certain assumptions with regard to the number of workers. And so to the extent that you change those assumptions, you could potentially then change, you know, all the modeling that we're doing in terms of how much money that we think we need to set aside in the future or now. So that's an important point. And I want to further put the context as to why that's an important point, is because, you know, there are certain metrics with regard to staffing levels, how many fire people you need, how many police people you need, how many parks people you need, and where we are with regard to those benchmarks , again, a guess which one says, you know, okay, this is a satisfactory number of police per 10,000 residents or this is a satisfactory number of parks and park workers per 10,000 residents. Now where we are with regard to those benchmarks. When we move forward with with the proposal that we have in hand, we're going to be sticking to our law employee numbers because they help drive our understanding of how we're going to deal with the OPEB issue in the long term. Speaker 7: May I? May I? Yes. Yeah. From a management perspective, one of the problems that has happened over the years with local government, with all levels of government, is too often when it's budget time. A body looks at saying, adding, let's say, you know, the argument is to add and they're going to add another policeman or police, police officer and they say, okay, well, the police officer is going to cost. An extra $100,000 in salary and benefits, but no one looks set. It's also going to increase the premium for the pension in the future, and it's also going to increase the health care in the future. And so it becomes important for this government to follow on what Councilmember De Saag was saying. It becomes important that if you're going to handle something like this over the years, to really manage it, to protect the service level of the city which is valuable and should be protected. You have to look at the full cost of what is happening in every decision. And I fear that in most levels, particularly of local government, that doesn't happen. Speaker 3: Thank you. Speaker 0: I have questions. You know, so this is about OPEB. Do we have the dollar amount for the unfunded PERS? Will we see that? Speaker 7: We don't. We don't. We have presented it before, but we don't have it here tonight. Speaker 1: When you say unfunded. Speaker 7: It's yeah, it's it's so it's challenging because it's not unfunded. It's we know what, what our. Speaker 1: What the bill is. Speaker 7: Yeah, we know the bill and we know we have indications from PERS. Based on what you saw, that goes up to 65% I think misinformed em actually has the dollar numbers for PERS. With her. Speaker 0: So when this comes back, that's one of the numbers I'll be looking for, not just the percentages, but dollars for the pub. And it's not just for an oral presentation. I really like this included in writing so that the public can has the opportunity to review it in advance and I want it to go over. So there are some slides that came up here today that weren't in the packet. So it could all those be added so that, you know, the public can have all of the slides. Speaker 7: So everything we've prepared for tonight. Will be presented in the package that is presented to the public on the 14th as well. All right. Will be the 15 days. Speaker 0: But if these can be added so that the people can look at these right away. That'd be great. So we get a head start on trying to figure this out. That'd be great. Speaker 7: Yeah, we have no problem putting them on the website, but they will be packaged. Everything will be packaged again for the 14th. So someone picking up the package will have all of the data, some of which you've seen in closed session as we were going through, but that we couldn't disclose until tonight. Speaker 0: Right. But I really want the public to be brought along. So I want to go over the dates, because if I have this correct, we're talking about a date, April 29th, which is not our regular. Is that April 29th? Speaker 7: It's it's a budget hearing because this impacts the budget. Speaker 0: All right. So I want to make sure the audience is aware when this comes back. It will not be on a regular Tuesday council night meeting. It'll be on a special meeting as part of the budget that was added. And then in regards to so I appreciate the comments in regards to the number of employees. How does overtime pay impact pensions and our contribution? Is it based on? It's actually based on what the employees earn, including overtime pay. Correct. Speaker 1: So certain. Yeah. I mean, so again, we're talking about OPEB, which is not does not affect overtime. OPEB overtime does not affect other post-employment benefits. So I just want to make sure that we're clear this presentation's about health care into retirement. The question that you're asking, Madame Mayor, is about overtime and how that affects retirement. The pension, there's a very small portion of our overtime that is actually factored into the retirement. But generally speaking, overtime is not what we call personal. It's not counted toward there per service. There is a small portion of overtime in the fire department that is planned that because of their work schedule, they know that they're going to have overtime. Every work schedule that is pensionable, but the majority of overtime is not counted toward a pension. Speaker 7: But if I may, can I just follow on a little bit? Thank you. This is an important this is an important point, because everybody who vests once they vest in their post employment, medical care, benefit, everybody gets the same thing. Pension. Everybody gets something different depending on their years of service and when they were hired. The retiree medical benefit is flat. It's the same for everybody. So it wouldn't be impacted by what rank you retired at or what your salary was. Speaker 5: Question for Mr. Russo through the chair, can you just explain when you said when everyone vests with what are you what are you talking about there? Speaker 7: If you're a police officer or a firefighter, you can't come here, work for a year and get this benefit. You have to work a certain number of years, which eludes me at this moment. How many years it is, Miss Warm Adams, you know. Speaker 1: It changes. It changes on when you were hired. Speaker 7: You were hired, right? There's like four different versions, right? Speaker 1: The current vesting is ten years. So if you're hired today, you need ten years in order to get these benefits. Speaker 0: Okay. And then I want to discuss at some point the scheduling of when this is going to be approved. I don't think it's appropriate to approve a contract at the special meeting. I think it's important that it be on a regularly scheduled meeting, which is when our public is used to being here. I'm very concerned about people thinking that we're pushing it through. So I would prefer that that be set either really be the next regularly scheduled meeting. Speaker 7: Well, Madam Mayor, we can't do that because the Sunshine Law requires us to give 15 days notice in the next regularly scheduled meeting is 14 days from today. Speaker 0: Or then the next regularly scheduled meeting after that, as opposed to putting it on a special meeting. Speaker 5: Like the one to the council to discuss. Speaker 0: So I think I would like us to discuss the impact because this has been a concern that I think we've all heard. So I would like counsel feedback. I didn't realize that we were talking about doing it on a special meeting, and I think the council would like council feedback on that. I appreciate that. Speaker 5: Question for the city attorney. So anything in our charter and that prohibits us from having an action item like this on a special meeting? Speaker 0: No, there does not. You you could vote on the contract on the 29th if the next the next regular scheduled meeting would be on May five. Speaker 5: And and I take it there are ways that we can publicize the fact that this item will be coming before this meeting. STAFF Yes. Speaker 0: I mean, that's part of what the 15 day and advance notice will be about. It will be on it will be in the newspaper, it will be on the website, there will be notices about it. Speaker 5: And if I recall correctly, all of those handouts that we were given in closed session this evening that were now appear to be released to the public, that'll be part of the packet that is released on the 14th of this month. Speaker 7: That's correct. Speaker 0: Any other council comments? So do we need a motion to have this item come back on that date? Is it? I mean, who sets that calendar? Speaker 7: Well, I understood that council gave direction, approving it, and took a vote to that effect in executive session tonight, which is why I'm able to discuss that it's happening. Speaker 0: For that specific date? Speaker 7: Yes, ma'am. Speaker 6: Yeah, I think we could. We can kind of control the narrative if if we sit up here and we say this is being pushed through, even though there's 22 days notice and it's the one of the top two biggest issues facing the city council. You know, then people are going to think that a bit of we do the responsible thing and don't push that narrative, then I don't think there's going to be a lot of people saying that we're trying to push this. Speaker 0: So I'm going to say I think it is the responsible thing to have it on a regularly scheduled meeting. Contrary to you suggesting that. But my point. Speaker 6: What are we've already decided. Speaker 5: So that's is that a motion you're making at a mere. Speaker 6: Point of order? I thought we we've already decided that in closed session. Speaker 5: Oh, that's so. Speaker 0: So, so it wasn't so. Speaker 5: We did. I got out on it. Right. Speaker 6: So did. Yes, you could vote to reconsider, but since you didn't vote yes, then I don't know why. Speaker 0: We're I think it's very important that it be made clear to the public that we're talking about having a special meeting. I don't think that that was shared as part of the vote that we were discussing. A special meeting. Speaker 7: I take I have I have to say, Madam Mayor, we did say it was happening at the special meeting of the 29th, which was a budget meeting. And the reason it was being placed with the budget meeting is because of the impacts of the of the proposal have to be considered as part of the budget. We had that conversation in executive session just a couple of hours ago. Speaker 0: So I don't have the verbatim of the vote, but I'm fine with that. I appreciate that we do have two speakers, so I'm going to call the speakers at this point. We have Kurt Peterson and then Jeff del Bono. Speaker 7: Make one other point, please, because it's come up in this discussion if the council will permit. So. I want to be clear. The term pushed through is problematic. There was. A task force to look at OPEB that was seated in 2012 that included members of Labor, the city's treasurer, the city's auditor, investment bankers, community members, actuaries to look at how might we solve this problem. In 2013, I made a report to the Council about OPEB and about the problems with OPEB. This has been discussed for nearly four years now. And so I just want to be clear that while there are legitimate differences of opinion about putting this before special meeting or putting this in a regular meeting, I don't share that concern, but because I think it's part of the budget. But and I do recall when I first got here in 2011 that some critics of going forward with a contract for police and fire said, how can you do this as not part of the budget? So we're doing it as part of the budget this time. I just want to be clear. This has been nearly four years in the making. And so to the extent there's any suggestion that this is being frog marched through the process, I. It really isn't. Speaker 6: I think it's irresponsible to say that it is. Speaker 7: I'm not prepared to use that term. Speaker 0: If I were mayor, vice mayor. Speaker 2: And I think just to stick to the point, terrorists. The public is going to see on the 14th. The numbers and a proposal that goes with those numbers and that goes with this this general overview plan the council in between and this is another thing we discussed is going to individually avail themselves if they so choose. And I think we all better do this and meet with the assistant city manager and go step by step through the contract. It's going to be presented so that we understand what stays the same, what's being changed, and then how it applies to this this proposal that we all heard tonight, and I think we have a meeting in between now and the 29th where we could call the question back and say, we're not satisfied. We need to move the target back up, but we better have a reason for that. And I think we're all going to study it. So I'd like just to keep this focused on we've got a program that's not going to solve it but is going to reduce our liability. We've got potential for a contract that implements that. We haven't seen that yet. I think I'd like to see it. I'd like the public to see it, and I urge everybody to look at it all. Your council member email your council member, email the city manager with your feedback so that by the 29th or when we decide to do it, that we make an informed decision. But please look at the numbers and then please look at the contract to make sure that it gets us toward that. Speaker 0: Remember. Speaker 5: Ashcroft Thank you. And again, we're talking about doing something that it has been said we should have done long ago in this council is digging in and actually doing it. And when I heard the city manager in the presentation thinks that it will take 15 to 20 years to fix the OPEB problem. What I wrote in the margin on my notes is that we as the City Council need to provide the blueprint for how to do that. We want to show the path forward for not just our council but councils that will come after us. It is the responsible thing to do and I also give our public credit for coming out to the issues that are important to them, whether at a regular meeting or at a special meeting. So I, I don't think we want to delay this any further. And again, some very interesting materials that you've seen in the slides will be coming out for the public a week from today. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. Kurt Peterson. Speaker 7: Thank you once again. IP. I find it very disturbing that these numbers that are so troubling to our city are presented to you by our city manager rather than our treasurer or auditor. You have to keep in mind he is also the city negotiator on these contracts. You're giving an awful lot of impact and power to one individual here. And he's also telling you that this took years, we've had problems. But by the way, we have to do it in 14 days now. We have to get it taken care of in 14 days. This is the rush. Technique that has been placed in front of our city council for a number of years. I commend you as far as Madam Mayor, to want to do this at a meeting. Maybe it's not convenient, but you knew that this was coming up. You could have planned ahead of it. And I think it is the mayor's responsibility to do agendas as set up agendas, but conveniently were in this again in a special meeting. People aren't going to know. It's going to be presented as far as on the 14th. And you got to realize we've got to papers come out once a week minimum time for them to come up with due information and article again, forcing the hand of the people without their understanding. And it's just unbelievable that you can sit here and let it continue to happen. Take time. Do it correctly. It makes sense. Maybe we won't have a problem in the future if you do it that way. But to have the person that gives you the numbers. I would have felt much better if Mr. Kennedy or Mr. Kearney could have given you these numbers, explained his concern about it, rather than the person that's going to take the time and do the negotiation. And he's going to be leaving office in the very near future as well. Thank you very much. Speaker 0: Thank you, Jeff Del Bono. And I don't have any other slips on this item. If you want to speak, please turn in a slip. Speaker 6: Not a mayor. Council members, city staff chief told Bono if Local 689 president and negotiator for the last three or four contracts and. Speaker 4: This is just to add some context from our perspective because everybody has their own perspective. I think we've been working on this for 15 years since I've been here. I know that it's been a cultural change in our department. I know that I've sat up here and I've had discussions with Mr. Kennedy, Carnegie, John Russo, other people in the community that I have a core belief that people deserve health care, they deserve a good pension when they retire. Mine's good. I'm thankful for that. I have a good health care, good pension. I know that that's an important thing. I know it's important. It's important for the people that are sitting out in the audience tonight that are looking for a good wage. Speaker 7: So I'm a true believer in that. But. Under my. Speaker 6: Leadership and the. Speaker 4: IFC leadership that's been here the last 15 years, we have increased the time. Speaker 8: For investment from 5 to. Speaker 4: 10 years. This is for OPEB. We have dropped Cadillac plans off. That was something John didn't mention. We've captured a Blue Shield or Kaiser and got rid of the other plans that we that past retirees could pick from. We've dropped the spouse for new hires and set up a412 age plan that they can contribute to for their spouse that they invest in and capped out at Blue Shield or Kaiser. We've taken our pension for our purse and we've gone from pay 9% to 15%. And what does that mean? Whether you believe that overtime should be paid to firefighters or police officers in the city. I do. If I work, I want to be paid for my time. My hourly rate is four $41 an hour and I take $8 of that and I pay it towards my pension and my health care. And I have no problem with that. And at this point, you know, we're looking at a dual to where we form a trust. And the employees who have never played one dime towards their retiree health care are now looking and willing in facing paying a percentage towards a health care trust. So I'll end this by by saying that this health care trust once set up and where the city's invested, the employees are vested. I have another 15 years ago, and I know that you have my word after doing all we have done over the last several years, that we understand that this isn't going to be fully funded . But we are partners. We are willing to sit at the table. We are willing to look at this fund that we're both going to be invested in and make it succeed. That's where we're coming from. I'm speaking for the firefighters. I feel safe enough to speak for the police officers because we've been working together to fund this benefit. And what I would ask of you is give us the same respect back. Realize that sitting down and talking and being respectful to each other works a lot better. Sitting in the coffee shop and yelling things out and badmouthing public safety and badmouthing. Speaker 6: Our benefits as leaders doesn't work. Speaker 4: So give us the respect back. We want to be respectful to. We're willing we've proven that over and over again. Speaker 6: Thank you for your time. Speaker 5: Um, I would, I would ask that we have the city treasurer Kevin Kennedy, and parties are putting you on the spot. Mr. KENNEDY. But I happen to know that you have seen this presentation and discussed it with the city manager. Would you mind coming? Speaker 8: I wouldn't mind. I was hoping that this would be one of the few meetings that I'm not doing the presentation, Mr. Peterson. I actually have enjoyed someone other than me doing this. This is great. I've spent a lot of time. I was thinking I've probably spent almost as much time with Bartels over the last ten years I have with my son. These numbers are things that I've spent an inordinate amount of time on. I've said all along, I've said it to our city manager. I've said it to the various council members over the last ten or 15 years, and I've said it to Mr. Del Bono and to the police also. My interest is in resolving this in a way that doesn't bankrupt the city, but that also does not deny these employees some of the promises, quite frankly, that the city's made to them over the years. This is not one side versus the other. This is a collaborative effort to try to figure out how we're going to dig our way out of this hole. And I think we've had that type of dialog. I think it's good. But it is a very deep hole, as you can see from those numbers. I got to be honest with you, I've seen those. We did our first actual report in 2007 as a result of changes in the accounting, the Gadsby rules. My stomach turned just as much looking at that tonight as it did the first time I saw those things. That's a big, big number. But at the behest of a Vice Mayor Maharishi, back when he was on council, along with Doug Duhon, I participated in a group that actually quantified these numbers, talked about what was involved. I tried to lay those out. It was not a policymaking group. We did not get into the solutions portion, but we did lay these problems out. That was feels like it was just last year, but it was seven years ago. Now, as a city measure, Russo mentioned, I was part of a task force that sat down with all the interested parties and took a look at what potential solutions were out there. I think that was a productive chance for us all to sit down at the same table and talk about these things. I will tell you, I do have a concern, though. I've been part of the discussion. I haven't been part of the negotiation, and that's probably not my role. But I got these this information yesterday. I was briefed by by our city manager and our assistant city manager yesterday. I've spent a lot of time with these numbers. I opened up the new actuarial reports, which go into a lot more detail than the summary tonight. And quite frankly, it makes my head spin. I've got two weeks to try to figure out. I can't tell you tonight whether I think it's a good deal, a bad deal or indifferent. And I doubt I'm going to tell you tomorrow or at the end of the week. This is a huge, huge pile of information, and I've spent a lot of time with it. So my concern is not whether or not this is a good deal, because, quite honestly, I'm not in a position to weigh in on that at this point. My concern is that if I'm going to have to really bear down over the next couple of weeks to figure out what this is, I don't know how many of you followed that OPEB presentation and understood all of that, but this is OPEB 101. When you look at this and this is a five year deal, so I just think there's an awful lot of work done that needs to be done, I'm sorry, over the next two or three weeks so that the public understands what's going on and the public can express their opinions. And most importantly, the five of, you know, because you're voting on a five year contract and that's a very big thing. Again, I can't tell you if it's good or not, but I can tell you it's a very big decision. And I think it really is going to take a lot of heavy thinking over the next couple of weeks. I'm happy to participate however I can. I need to get my brain around it. I know staff is eager to educate us about it, but. If I have a concern at this point, it's that we've got a couple of weeks to vet what I think is a very critical decision for the city, and I hope we're all up to it. Speaker 7: The question's actually may I ask real briefly just because we've talked about this for so many years, you know, both formally and informally, I'm not asking you to give an opinion. I agree with you. You've had 24 hours with the proposal, the solution proposal that's going to be disclosed on the 14th. But the numbers that were in the presentation, they don't look. Unduly rosy to you compared to the number of, say, your task force that put together seven years ago? Because the the allegation here, what's what's sitting here and I know this town well enough at this point to know the narrative that some are attempting to construct. That the numbers are cooked. Do you think those numbers look cooked now? Speaker 8: No, I don't think the numbers are cooked. I think you've got an that liability of 91 million. I think in 2007 it was 71 million, something like that. So we're up 21 million since then or 20 million since then. I don't think those numbers are flawed. I think Bartel is a very good actuary firm. They a lot of this is based on assumptions that they're very familiar with and that they use in a lot of places. So I'm not worried about that 91 million being the right bogey. I think the question goes back to how do we fix it and how much can we fix it? Is it feasible to assume that we can continually dig our way out of this hole? Is this proposal that's on the table now? Going to get to move the ball down the field. And again, I'm not saying it won't. I'm not saying it will. But I think we need to figure out in the next 14 to 21 days whether or not this is the way to do it. I think it's very clear on both sides, both from the city standpoint and from employee standpoint, that this isn't a solution. The city manager is very clear. Neither the utter I are under any illusion that this is going to solve the problem. But does it make a difference that's meaningful? Net net with all the different moving parts that are part of this agreement. That's the question. And again. I think the important thing and we talked about this when the last public safety contracts were approved. One of my gripes, if you want to call it that, was that the public did not have a lot of time to vet that. And given that. These things tend to appear on the agenda when they're up for your approval. Not when our position is being considered our negotiating position. You know, we're probably in a similar spot now where the public's opinion, quite honestly, has been rendered moot because this deal has basically been put together. So really what it's falling down to at this point is, are the five of you comfortable with where this goes and your understanding of it? You know, I'm I'm getting used to the process of government, but I. I think this. I don't know if I'm if I'm wrong on this, please correct me, but I'm not sure this is a negotiation at this point. This is deciding whether what we've gotten to is a feasible and viable option. So I think everybody, though, needs to, including the public, if they're able to to to vet these numbers, should spend some time with it, because it again, it's a very, very important thing. Speaker 0: Thank you. Any other member questions? I have a question. The current contracts, when do they expire? Speaker 7: At 2017. Speaker 0: Is it June or January? Speaker 7: No, it's it's the end of 2017. Speaker 0: Or the end of 2017 is when the current contracts expire. All right. So we're asked why are we doing this now as opposed to closer to the end of 2017? Speaker 6: I can kind of answer that. The vice mayor and I heard about this on the campaign trail made it a priority. And this was something that people told us they wanted fixed. I mean, we spent an hour sweating at the Oakland Tribune going through all these numbers. I mean, this is something that is is an issue that is important. And we need to tackle this. And if I recall correctly, we unanimously gave direction to staff a few weeks ago to pursue a path based on what was what they came up with on Friday. So, you know, we gave direction. Staff come up with it. They negotiated in good faith and. I guess I'm confused. Why why there's why there's backlash after we gave gave this direction to the staff to do it this way. Speaker 0: If I'm trying to educate the public as to what's going on here, and that hasn't been sure as far as I know. Speaker 7: Well, all right. Let me let me suggest that tonight we were trying to place context on OPEB so that the discussion about the eventual contract could be meaningful and placed in an important context. What I will say is this as I've argued with labor for the last two years. This problem of these benefits and the unfunded liability, the longer we don't address them, the harder it becomes to fix them. And I see my friend, the Treasurer, nodding his head. Yes, because we've been having this conversation for years now. The sooner you get at this, the better. So now that there's the opportunity based on council direction to go forward and negotiate what will be an essential first step, a necessary if not sufficient first step in a solution. That's why we're bringing it forward now. Speaker 0: Thank you. And then when this comes back, we'll include the entire contract. This will include all the contracts. Speaker 7: Will be disclosed on the 14th. It is required by the Sunshine Law. Speaker 0: And then we'll highlight the highlight the changes, whatever changes. So that's clear. Speaker 1: It'll be strikethrough. Speaker 0: Strikethrough. Thank you. And remember Ashcraft. Speaker 5: And just for the clarification on the staff report that we will get before the 29th when we consider that the public safety contracts, will we will the staff report include commentary by Mr. Kennedy or his analysis? He said he's he's going over the numbers now. I know. Speaker 8: I'm next week. Speaker 5: Keeping oh. Speaker 7: Wait. Speaker 5: Times. Speaker 7: I assume that that both Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Carney, who's Mr. Carney with April 15th looming is particularly under the gun, although so is Mr. Kennedy. From what I understand, I assume that both of them will be able to attend and will attend the meeting on the 29th and address answer questions and give their opinion about what they think about it. And I'm pretty confident I'll hear about it before the 29th from them personally. Speaker 6: And we could to. Speaker 0: Any other member disagree. Speaker 3: Or about comments. Speaker 0: Uh. Right, we're going to comment. Right. I think we're done with all the speakers. Correct? Right. Speaker 3: Thank you. Thank you very much. Earlier this evening, we as a council met in executive session to go over some of the deal points that were going to help inform the discussion that that will happen about the contracts for public safety, particularly. This evening I had voted. I had to stand on the vote. And I just want to make clear as to the reason why I abstained on the vote is because it's similar to what City Treasurer Kevin Kennedy said. I just I need to know not just the mechanics, but in the end I need to know that the numbers are going to help us towards solving the the unfunded liabilities. There are elements to the agreement that are in place. You know what? Share how much people are going to contribute over time. But those percentages and rates in my the way that I deal with these matters in to be applied to some real numbers so that I can say all I see so that adds up to that and that relative to the $91 million is so and so so that I can then eventually say, okay, I think that's a solution that I can live with or not. And because this evening was for the most part about kind of the fleshing out the framework of the discussion, I abstained. It doesn't mean that I'm against the framework. It doesn't mean that I'm against the particulars that were raised in the course of the discussion. It just meant that, you know, for my. Comfort level. I just wanted to actually apply those numbers. Some absinthe that I can also. I'll do that on my own as well. So. So when we eventually have the discussion on the about the contract of the labor contract in our council members and either make a decision that night to make to move forward with a contract or they can make a decision to move forward with the contract at a later time. You know, there are plenty of options. So I don't think we should second guess a person's motives or not. I think in the end, we're going to make a good decision on behalf of the public when it comes to the contract A and B, and this is what I really want to get at. I think we're going to make a good decision on behalf of the public when it comes to dealing with the outstanding unfunded liability for the on the open. And I think we're got we're moving in the right direction because without going into the details. The mechanics of the trust fund idea that City Manager Russo has promoted not just recently, but over the course of 18 months. Roughly, we can Kanaks of the trust fund. The idea is that it could help address the unfunded liabilities that is attributable to workers who are right now working in City Hall. Remember that question that I asked earlier that when you look at the unfunded liabilities, that broadly speaking, you can just you can divide it into two categories of the $91 million, the portion that is attributable to those who are retired right now, they're out of city hall or leading the good life, hopefully. And then there's also the portion of the $91 million as attributable to workers who are right now still in city hall. But we have to make sure to plan for their health needs in the future. So the $91 million breaks off in 2 to 2 numbers. And from what I'm seeing, the mechanics of the trust fund idea that city manager Russo has has put forward over the many months, I think really do begin to deal with the to address the unfunded liability for the current workers. And it's a long term solution. So but I do think that we still are going to have to we're still we still need a strategy for the unfunded OPEB liabilities for those who are already retired. Because, you know, we made a promise to them that the money was going to be there. Now, let me make sure to say right now, as the city manager had indicated, we're paying $3 million every year towards individuals as retired persons as health. I remember that $3 million is, as we had dubbed, it's a pay go, meaning that it's paying for medical services or is paying for whatever agreements that we did for that retirees. But it's not the $3 million is not going towards buying down the outstanding $91 million unfunded liabilities. So on the issue of the OPEB trust, in my mind we almost have to think about having two trusts, one trust or the workers right now with whom we have certain deal points, the mechanics of which are clear. But the the, you know, the extent to which it addresses the unfunded liabilities attributable to current workers, it's it's still out there. But I think it's it's moving us in the right direction. But I also think we need another trust fund of sorts to deal with the unfunded liabilities for those retired workers. So in a nutshell, let me just put it to just just to give you an order of magnitude, my understanding is that of the $91 million in unfunded liabilities for OPEB, of the $91 million, $38 million is attributable attributable to workers right now. We know that the workers right now how long they're going to live when they retire. And we've made the calculation through Bertelsmann Associates, I think it's roughly $38 million needs to be set aside for them. So that means that the balance $53 million is what needs to be strategy. That's what I'm talking about, that there needs to be a strategy for that as well. And also, I think it's important, like I mentioned earlier, that we make this decision on a wide, wide open basis, meaning that there will be some agreements that we're going to have to make with regard to staffing levels over the long term . And the final point is, I do think this is an issue that I raised several weeks ago. I do think that we still need a finance commission, one of whose specific tasks is to kind of, you know, monitor the progress that we would make relative to any agreements we make on the unfunded liabilities for current workers, OPEB liabilities for current workers, or unfunded liabilities for those who are already retired. So thank you. Speaker 0: Member Ashcraft. Speaker 5: Well, I'm sorry, I. I think Mr.. Speaker 0: Brody. Speaker 6: I think you met. I just try to be brief. I think if you look at the staff report, you know, there's a sentence in any solution must be developed in partnership with our labor groups. And I think that's the big constraint that I think sometimes is lost in this argument, is that as the council, we cannot sit up here and impose a solution unless we involve our partners in the labor organizations, specifically public safety, because they're the biggest chunk of of of the cost. So. We've had we have this in three parts. You know, we've known about the liability. You it was 71 million back in oh seven. It's 90 some million now. Keeps growing. And we had an idea. There was a task force. The trust fund. That was the idea. So we had to solve how we're going to fund that trust fund. And that's the task that, you know, I think lost in today's discussion is unanimously this council a few weeks ago gave direction to staff using a framework to negotiate a solution, not a complete solution, a partial solution that will not kick the can down the road, but at least maybe will carry the bucket for a few years and then try to have to fill it up again later. So. That's what we the job we gave the staff and they came up with a funding solution. It's painful. It's painful for us as a city. It's painful for our employees who will be doing something that no other bargaining unit in the area will be doing. But I think it's a good step in the right direction. And and I hope that we remain focused on, you know, this is this is the one thing that keeps me awake at night is how are we going to take care of these unfunded liabilities? This and what we do in the next couple of months at Alameda Point are probably the two biggest, biggest issues that are going to face this council. So this is something that's very important to us. I mean, we take this seriously. I hope to hear from a lot of people when the details of of the proposed contract come out, you know. I hope that that, you know. Some of the comments are respectful, you know, and that are responsible. And it's instead of, you know, using some of that code word that the city manager talked about earlier about ramming things through, and I hope the discussion is framed in a way that. If you don't like the way that the city has decided to fund this trust fund, then please come up with different ideas. So, I mean, showing leadership is not sitting in a coffee shop bashing our public safety employees and bashing their benefits. Showing leadership is saying. This is how we're going to find a solution. And if one of us doesn't like that solution, then I think to show leadership, it's our job to find a different solution. So I'm really looking forward to spending the next few weeks diving into the details of this and and especially on the impacts. So when we see the numbers, you know, it's not going to solve the entire 91 million. Of course, Member de Song alluded to that. But let's pay attention to what what we are going to solve and the big chunk that we're going to take out of this liability. And then our next task is to approach, you know, the other 38 million and come up with solutions that we can make this long term sustainable. But I think this is a good first step, and I'm really interested in delving into the details. Speaker 0: Amber Ashcraft. Speaker 5: Thank you. Mayor Spencer And so I was just going to ask a couple of maybe pragmatic housekeeping questions to the folks who think we shouldn't be moving forward at the end of this month considering these revised contract provisions. Is it because you feel we don't have enough information? And if so, what is that information? What more information would you want to have? I've heard the concern that it's a special meeting versus a regular meeting, so people aren't as attuned to that regular, first and third Tuesday. But we all know that we can have a regular council meeting with a very sparse attendance because it's more the agenda items that bring people out rather than it just being a regular meeting. And people participate in all different ways. They're watching us on television, on their computers, live streaming. And then I also want us to consider the question, do we think it's preferable to continue these current contracts that are in place? Because then we wouldn't be adding these provisions that start getting the employees to help pay down their own pay towards their own benefits and help us start paying toward our OPEB liability. It's not quite the same, but I'm just going to analogize to the Iranian nuclear agreement that was was agreed to on a national and international stage last week. And and yet there is a party in Congress that would like to just tear it apart. And the question there is, is it better to continue with no agreement in that case or an agreement that maybe not perfect but took a long time in the making? I do know that the city manager, I think, has a weekly breakfast meeting with the two Kevins, as we like to call them, Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Kearney . I do realize it's tax tax season and you guys are really busy and we do appreciate all the good work you do for the city. But when this staff report comes back, I do want to see the devil's advocate portion. I guess the devil's in the details and I want to see the devil's advocate position because we don't just want a happy talk and we want to know, you know what? Why is this a good idea? Why maybe is this not I want to hear. I mean, it will help all of us make a more informed decision. I'm not entirely clear on what Member De SA still wants to see, but perhaps he will. We'll let staff know because when this comes back to us, I do want us to have as complete information. I, I know because the city managers kept us informed in the last month or so that these talks have been ongoing. And that's the nature of talks. You don't you don't get everybody agreeing to all the points that need to be agreed to the first time out. It's been an ongoing process. So give us all the details. The good, the bad, the ugly. Don't sugarcoat it. We we want to have all the information possible to make a good, informed decision and to any of the council staff public who would like to see more information, shoot an email to to the staff. They'll they'll consider it. Thank you, Mayor. Speaker 0: I swear. Speaker 2: The only thing I'd like to say is that I'm looking at this as if we do nothing. What happens if we do this? What's the upside? And is it worth the downside? Is the money we're going to save worth the five extra years, for example? That's a good thing to measure. I urge people to do that. Second thing is, if this is a matter of having a special meeting versus a regular meeting, I'm perfectly willing to say we can meet on the fifth at the regular fifth six days to me, doesn't matter in the scope of things here. I, I do like the fact that it's paired with a budget hearing because this is the number one issue of, of our budget. And I think if everybody is heightened to it. But I think we're going to do a better job at educating people on what the impact of what these decisions are. Speaker 0: So in regards to our budget calendar, I believe we also still have budget meetings coming up. We're not finished with the budget in April. So we have not seen our multi-year budgets. I think we have a meeting May 12th that addresses the budget. Speaker 7: No, actually the multi-year budget will be presented on April 16. So there's a meeting next week. That's on next Thursday, April 16, and that's where the five year budget projections will be presented. Then there's a regular council meeting on April 21. And then there's another budget meeting on April 29. Then there's another budget meeting second week of May, and then there's a regular council meeting on May five. Speaker 2: And my understanding is that. This item. Is going to be presented. And part of that budget. Projection on the 16th. Correct. Speaker 7: This item will be included include numbers will be included. And on the 14th the entire package will be presented to the public, sharing a lot of the data that the Council and mayor have already received. And if during those numbers, during that presentation of the numbers, if council members want to start exploring some of the ramifications of the potential deal, it's not an orderly process that way, but it's your process. Speaker 0: So so we do have more budget meetings coming up after the date in April. Yes. So so that's one of my concerns. I also like to bring the public along as much as we've had now to close session meetings of approximately half an hour each to discuss this. The public has not been privy to that. And I think it's very important that the numbers be shared with the public. And I am looking forward to seeing the continuing meetings on the budget and the multi-year budgets as well as the entire contract that we will be being asked to extend the entire contract, not just this and I have not been privy to the looking at the entire contract. I think that that's very important that that be shared. Any other comments on this one? Thank you. So now we can move on to six be. Speaker 1: Recommendation to accept report on offer to transfer a portion of the Oakland Inner Harbor Tidal Canal from the Army Corps of Engineers to the city of Alameda at no cost and subsequent disposition of property. Speaker 0: Madam Mayor and Council, this particular item is coming to you primarily from my office, Andre Pennock as an assistant city attorney in my office, and Jillian Blanchard of Rutter Law Group, who is an Alameda attorney, have been working very hard with the Army Corps of Engineers and other potential regional partners.

Regular Agenda Item

Recommendation to Receive an Update to the July 23, 2013 Report on the City’s Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB) Liabilities (City Manager 2110)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_04072015_2015-1451

Speaker 0: Madam Mayor and Council, this particular item is coming to you primarily from my office, Andre Pennock as an assistant city attorney in my office, and Jillian Blanchard of Rutter Law Group, who is an Alameda attorney, have been working very hard with the Army Corps of Engineers and other potential regional partners. This is another sticky wicket that's been around for a very long time that has just hard to get our arms around and try to solve some problems with. It's not the big ticket numbers that you've just been hearing about, but it has a lot of implications and frankly, has a lot of impact for quite a number of Alameda. And so I'm going to turn it over and let Andre go and Jillian walk you through it. Thank you. Speaker 3: Thank you. City Attorney Kern. Good evening, Madam Mayor. Vice Mayor matter. Members of the City Council and members of the public. My name is Enrico Pinnick. I'm the assistant city attorney and I have with me Ms.. Julian Blanchard, outside counsel from the Ryder Law Group. We're here to provide you with an update on the potential transfer of a portion of the Oakland Inner Harbor Tunnel Canal from the US Army Corps of Engineers to the city of Alameda. It's not quite the OPEB discussion you've just had, but as Mr. Kernen has just mentioned, it is an important matter to many citizens here in the city of Alameda. I will provide you with a brief overview and history of the title canal. Discuss the existing conditions along the canal and highlight some of the issues related to the proposed transfer. I wouldn't turn it over to Miss Blanchard, who would discuss the possible transfer options and the consequences of no action. I would then conclude the presentation with a brief discussion of next steps. The Army Corps created the title canal in 1882 by dredging the Oakland estuary to San Leandro Bay. The total canal is 85 acres in total area, approximately 400 feet wide and 1.8 miles long. So it's approximately 1800 feet northwest of the Park Street Bridge and goes down to the entrance of the San Leandro Bay. As a result of accretion, which is the gradual accumulation of soil along the banks of the last century. Taro Kono now includes uplands areas. Note the area in red and blue on the current slide. That's the primary area that we're going to be talking about tonight. But there are other areas. The red line is known as the bulkhead line. Or the outer boundary of the original title canal. The blue line is called the pier hit line, as it generally follows the outer boundary of the existing piers. The area between the bulkhead and the pier line is the shoreline area is approximately 35 feet wide on average and currently contains private structures, docks and in some cases portions of houses. Part of the shoreline area also supports industrial uses. And as you can see from the map, from the slide, there are a lot of structures in between those two red and blue lines. There are approximately 90 residential properties and 14 commercial properties which are adjacent to the shoreline area. Portions of the shoreline area are dry, while other portions are partially or fully submerged like the rest of the total canal. The shoreline area is owned by the Army Corps. The history of the negotiations in 1990, the Water Resource Development Act, or Water authorized the Army Corps to transfer the Alameda side of the total canal to Alameda at no cost. Oakland was offered the same deal for the Oakland side of the Tidal Canal. The water only allows transfer at no cost to a public entity. The Army Corps has repeatedly stated that it wants to transfer the entirety of the canal as a package and has no interest in transferring to multiple private owners. In 2004, the Army Corps instituted a permitting moratorium for new construction, maintenance and repair. The moratorium remains in effect indefinitely. As a result, the city is unable to enforce its zoning and building code requirements. From about 2005 to 2012. Citizens and realtors in Alameda have expressed concern to the city regarding the moratorium and have requested that the city take action. The property owners along Burnside and Marina Avenue have formed a homeowners association called the Waterfront Homeowners Association, or Wahaha, to deal with this specific issue. Although the Army Corps has been authorized to dispose of this property since 1990, interest on both sides to pursue this transaction as waxed and waned over the last 20 years without much more progress. Then in 2013, the East Bay Regional Parks sent a letter of intent to the Army Corps expressing interest in taking the Oakland side of the tidal canal. Once upon him on September 2nd, 2014 and closed session, the City Council authorized the city attorney to send a letter to the Army Corps expressing the city's interest and also negotiating a possible transfer. With this renewed expression of interest, the city attorney asked Miss Blanchard. To continue to meet with the Army Corps and its representatives. And in addition with the representative of the homeowner's association. About the next steps to transfer the Alameda side of the tidal canal to the city. On February 3rd in closed session, the city attorney updated you in closed session on the status of the discussions. The City Council at that time directed city staff to present this item at an open meeting so as to inform the public and to allow the opportunity for public input. Well, there's a saying that if it were easy, somebody would have done it already. And true words were never spoken when it comes to this proposed transaction. It is not going to be easy. It is going to take a lot of support from all concerned to move this transaction forward. Current situation creates problems that affect the individual property owners. Industrial users and businesses along the tidal canal. Realtors in the area as well as the city as a whole. The per minute moratorium prevents any new construction, maintenance or repair of existing structures unless there's an emergency. Thus, the city is unable to properly enforce its zoning and building code requirements within the total canal area because the adjacent property owners have no authority to fix their dogs and other dilapidated structures. Speaker 7: Moreover. Speaker 3: There is no mechanism to clear title. Many of the adjacent residents and property owners have used the shoreline area as if it were their own. However, they pay no property taxes because the property is actually owned by the federal government. In many cases they pay no possess re interest tax because they do not have current leases with the Army Corps. In 1913. Taking a step back as to how we got to the situation, the assistant secretary of war authorized a license to construct nine permanent structures along the tidal canal for maritime use. Adjacent property owners took advantage of this license and started building structures between those red lines and those blue line. Speaker 5: What did you see? That was Mr.. Speaker 3: Billy. I'm sorry, ma'am. It's 1913. Going way back. One more. One until. Because it's the Secretary of war. And we never call them that anymore. Speaker 7: However, the. Speaker 3: After setting up this license regime, the Army Corps has changed his position several times on how it chooses to regulate the tidal canal. The Army Corps then imposed the moratorium in 2004. And now here we are, where structures were lawfully put in this shoreline area. But now the adjacent residents are prohibited from doing anything with them. The resident, the residential owners, but the residential owners, when it comes time to sell their property, there is no way to clear title for an area that they have improved in use but do not own. Is not because the adjacent property owners are unwilling to legitimize their use is because they're unable to do so given the status quo. As a result of the current situation. Property tax revenues. Building permit fees. Code enforcement fines that otherwise would be imposed if this were property anywhere else in the city go uncollected and the blighting condition continues. Although it's taken us a long time to get to this point, the discussions have only recently started in earnest. And there is still a lot of due diligence that staff has to do before we be prepared to come before you with a recommendation. In a moment, Julian will outline the possible transfer scenarios that Steph has considered thus far. However, any discussion has to consider some basic considerations, and this proposed transaction immediately raises three issues. Worse, the city cannot provide a gift to public funds. This issue is not related to the initial transfer between the Army Corps and the city, as that transfer will be at no additional cost apart from the recorder and escrow fees. This issue relates to any subsequent transfers of the property from the city to third parties, like the adjacent registered residential owners and commercial property owners. Under California law, a public agency cannot authorize a gift of money or value to a private individual. However, public funds may be used for a public benefit. Even if it results in an incidental benefit to an individual. Thus, at a minimum, the subsequent purchasers of the property must pay the transaction cost and the transfer must result in a public benefit. The proposed transaction will not move forward until we are certain that it can be structured in such a way as to avoid any gift to public funds. Secondly, the city cannot take unnecessary environmental ownership liabilities. There is contamination in the northwest. There's contamination northwest of the fruit belt, the Fruitvale Bridge. We know that from studies, contaminants such as petroleum and toxic heavy metals were found in soil samples from multiple locations along the commercial and industrial shoreline in higher concentrations than screening levels for industrial land use. The City Attorney's office, outside counsel and staff will be looking at ways to minimize the city's exposure to these liabilities through waivers, indemnification, pollution, liability insurance and discussions with the appropriate environmental regulators up front. Thirdly, there's the issue. There's the public trust question. The Army Corps has asserted that the tidal canal is not and has never been in the public trust. This argument has a certain logic because the Army Corps dredged this canal from what had been dry land and it remained in federal ownership ever since. However, the city needs to do due diligence. We will also research any potential restrictions on subsequent transfers associated with this issue. That's a brief overview of where we are today. I now turn it over the presentation over to Ms.. Blanchard to discuss the possible transfer options. Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Penick, for that thorough presentation of the background and the history of the title canal. Good evening, Mayor Spencer, Vice Mayor, Motor City Council members and members of the public. My name is Jillian Blanchard. I am outside counsel, as Mr. Penick mentioned, with the Retter Law Group located here in Alameda. And I assist the city attorney's office on environmental and land use matters. And I have been tasked with the interesting assignment of trying to untie the Gordian knot that is, you know, Oakland, Inner Harbor, Tidal Canal. So our goal tonight is really to update council as well as the public on where we are at this point in our concept for a transfer. So this is our magic overview side of the current transfer concept. And as a backdrop, it's important to remember Mr. Penick mentioned this the fact that the Corps has repeatedly stated it will not transfer portions of the canal. Its goal is to transfer the entire title canal in one transaction. And so given the various issues at play and in consideration of the slightly differing set of concerns associated with different areas along the canal, at this point, we have proposed to split the parcels into three and still be three parcels that would all be transferred simultaneously from the core, but we would be disposed of in slightly different ways based on the needs of the public and relative constraints. So just as an overview, the three parcels are the orange, the residential parcel, and that includes a sliver of upland but mostly submerged land between, as Mr. Penick mentioned, the bulkhead line and we call the bulkhead line and the pier headline, which is the outer boundary essentially of the existing pier structures. This parcel we would propose at this point to transfer from the core and then immediately to the city and then immediately transfer from the city to the individual property owners along the canal of which there are approximately 90. And we'll get into additional details as we go through it. So it's late, so we'll try and keep it succinct. The second parcel is the commercial parcel that's in green, and again, it's just a sliver. It's approximately 35 feet wide on average. And it's between it's from Fruitvale Bridge just to in case that isn't clear, up to the northwest boundary of the tidal canal. And it would go from the bulkhead line to the pier headline. We would propose at this point to have this parcel transferred from the core to the city and then have the city hold the parcel pending further disposition. Again, we are looking at a variety of options as to what that would look like. But this is a an update on where we are in the process. The third parcel is the remaining piece, the open water parcel, and that's from the pier head line to what we call the 50 yard line set the center line of the canal. At this point, we're looking into options to transfer this parcel from the core, either directly to East Bay Regional Park District or to the city. And that will depend on upon further information that gets uncovered during the due diligence process. Okay. So here is just an overview side of the residential side where there are approximately 90 properties. The red line, of course, is the bulk headline. The blue line is the pure headline. It's approximately 35 feet on average. And as you can see, it includes mostly submerged lands, underlying existing docks. However, there are some there is some uplift. So let's get into the details here of where we are at this point. The residential parcel in our proposed transfer, as I mentioned, it would involve a simultaneous transfer from the core to the city and then to the individual property owners. In order to effect that type of a double simultaneous transfer. We would need to complete legal descriptions and all survey work on the 90 parcels in advance of any transfer from the core to the city. So effectively the proposal would be to have the city on the chain of title for this parcel for a conceptual nanosecond, effectively. And we've been working with representatives from the homeowners association. And we will continue need to continue working with all of the property owners within the residential parcel to confirm 100% participation in this deal. Staff would not come forward to the city and recommend moving forward with the transaction unless and until we had the assurances of all the residential parcels that they would be transferred. At this point, it is our understanding that there is a high level of interest among the property owners to participate in rectifying this ongoing issue. The question has been raised with respect to assessments and whether or not this transfer would trigger any tax reassessments under Proposition 13. I am not a tax attorney, nor do I pretend to be one, but I presume. And so just to be very clear, we are not providing any legal advice to the public on this issue. However, based on preliminary research and discussions, we anticipate that any reassessment would relate specifically to the sliver. At issue is this 35 or on average a foot wide piece and therefore would be minimal. Of course, we would encourage buyers, prospective buyers, to associated with the residential parcel, to do their own research, to figure out their own rights , their own tax liabilities, etc.. Mr. Penick brought up a very, very important point, which is served essentially as our guidepost in this transaction, which is the very clear fact that the city cannot provide a gift to public funds in any way, shape or form. So the property owners have been made aware of this fact and they understand their need to pay their fair share in order to buy into this program to obtain their sliver, if you will. We have completed only back of the envelope calculations at this point to figure out what those costs look like associated with the transaction. But at this point, we anticipate that the property owners will need to pay between 5 to $10000 to be able to buy into the program, if you will. And in addition to that, they would need to accept all future maintenance and any obligations related to ownership. So just to be very clear, the transaction cannot take place if there is any sort of gift of public funds on the part of the city. So and there is also the question associated with that of what is the public benefit? And we want to make clear that at this point, the city is unable to enforce its building code requirements, its existing code requirements on that adjacent sliver along the canal. So completing this transfer and the reason that is, as Mr. Penick identified, is because of the cause permitting moratorium. Property owners simply can't get the authority necessary to do necessary upgrades to docks and existing structures. So completing the transfer would result in the court lifting the permitting moratorium and then would clear any current and existing cloud on title and allow the city then to enforce its necessary building code standards, including any necessary safety setbacks from the water and would certainly prevent any future unauthorized construction. Here's an overview of the commercial side. Again, we're talking about the red lines and the blue lines, the bulk headline, the big headline on average, a 35 foot sliver. There are approximately 14 properties and they include marinas, industrial uses, redevelopment sites, streets, etc.. An overview of what we're looking at at this point for the concept of transfer. Again, it's a package deal from the core. So if you want to take the residential piece, you need to take the commercial piece, kind of figure out what that disposition looks like. As indicated previously, the court has refused to transfer it in pieces. So and as you could tell, as many of you are aware, there's been an existing industrial uses, I think back to World War Two or even before. So as you might imagine, and as Mr. Penick referenced, there are as a result of those industrial uses, there is contaminated sediment and soil within the commercial area. The Corps as part of their transfer process, has to complete a number of environmental reports in order to get to what's called a finding of suitability of transfer. And as part of that, they've completed a phase one and a Phase two environmental site assessments. And without going into too many details at this point, it's it's fair to say that the shoreline soil in the commercial piece is markedly more contaminated than the residential side. And they have identified soil at multiple locations on the residue on the commercial piece contaminated with petroleum toxic heavy metals in excess. As Mr. Penick mentioned, of regulatory benchmarks. So the reports that the Corps has provided at this point indicate that there is no imminent threat to human health or the environment. Owever, if there were any proposals to excavate through redevelopment, they would need to be remediated to acceptable screening levels. The Regional Board has been involved in the preparation of the Phase one and the Phase two reports and is currently reviewing the most updated version of the Phase two report. And the city myself in particular has been actively engaged with the Regional Board who by the way, has the exclusive jurisdiction with respect to contaminated sediment on the canal. So we've been actively engaged with them not only to determine the levels of contamination, the source of the contamination, which clearly is not from the city, and most importantly , methods of limiting the city's liability if they were to be entering into the chain of title. Because another clear guidepost is that the city cannot accept any potential contamination liability associated with this transfer. It's complicated, as Mr. Phenix said. If it was easy, it would have been done already. So what we're doing now and will continue to do is research these avenues for limiting liability, which could include and likely would include negotiating leases with the existing commercial operators, which would include detailed indemnities, hold harmless agreements, very specific environmental restrictions with respect to excavation, etc., possible transfers to the developers directly, which is similar to what we're proposing on the residential parcel piece. And then prospective purchaser agreements with the Regional Board potentially or any other regulatory agency as necessary to limit the city's liability with respect to environmental cleanup. Again, we're in process of researching these avenues. So we would staff would come back to council once we've completed further due diligence with a much more specific path, an avenue, an approach to limiting the city's liability. At this point, we're just providing an update as to where we are. The public benefit again here would be code enforcement, which at this point the city is unable to enforce along that sliver to the extent it's applicable. In addition, we would note that there's potential lease revenue from the leases that we mentioned associated with commercial operators in the area. Moving right along. We have the open water parcel, which is the remaining open water piece from the pier head line out to the 50 yard line, as we call it. At this point, it's still open and we're in the process of due diligence. But at this point, what we'd be proposing is to have this parcel transfer directly from the core to East Bay Regional Park District. They have stated their clear intent and interest in taking the Oakland side for purposes of creating the Bay Trail. And so it would be a natural extension to have East Bay Regional Park District take the rest of that open water piece. That said, of course, we need to complete additional due diligence and make sure and in particular the public trust issues to the extent there are any and make sure and we confirm the most prudent and beneficial course. It could be that it makes more sense for the city to take that piece and we will come back to council with progress on our discussions with East Bay Regional Park District as well as our further research on the issue. So as we've said a couple of times now, it's not easy. It's not clear. It's it's complicated. It's not a simple transaction. There are many constraints. There's a variety of moving parts that all need to hang together to complete this process. And many have immediately dismissed this as out of hand is saying it's too difficult. It's too complicated. And as a result, the properties along the canal have suffered. There is now blight along the canal. There are dilapidated docks and adjacent property owners really have no legal path to being able to improve their property. Unfortunately, the problem won't go away. It continues to rear its ugly head and it gets uglier with the more and more dilapidated dock situation. So if we cannot reach a resolution at this point or at some point property owners and realtors, I certainly would continue to lobby the city on this issue. We anticipate the Corps would continue its permitting moratorium, which would, of course, prevent the city from being able to prevent to enforce its building codes, to allow necessary upgrades to improve the waterfront as a whole. Docks and other structures may fall continue to fall into disrepair, and there's potentially continued unauthorized construction. So I guess. It's taken. I guess the last thing I would just impart to the public and and the council is that there's more work to do. It's taken many months to get to this point, just to have our concept of what the transfer strategy looks like. And we would propose to come back to city council once we have a lot more information, have completed our due diligence and really reach out more directly and effectively to the property owners, including the commercial operators, with a more detailed plan and a potential path to creating what could be a legacy along the waterfront and resolving the issue for generations to come. So with that, I would turn it over to back to Mr. Penick for details on next steps of long term and short term. Thank you for your time. Speaker 2: But just before he goes. Speaker 5: Well, Miss Blanchard, I think we have a question for you. Speaker 0: Vice Mayor, he's going to ask a question real quick. Speaker 2: In this transfer scenario, who is responsible for dredging? Speaker 0: It's an excellent question and it depend. The answer depends on where you're talking about with respect to the navigation navigational channel, the federal navigational channel, which is effectively the open water piece. The Corps of Engineers would maintain its obligation of navigational servitude to dredge that channel for maintenance purposes. The good news is that it was created to be a tidal canal and it works. So there's effectively a lot of scour along that canal. And to our knowledge, to my knowledge, the Corps has not had to do very much if any maintenance dredging the side pieces would be any maintenance. Dredging attached to the residential side would be transferred to the individual property owners. Speaker 5: But that's a really basic threshold question. And by the way, I just want to compliment you, Ms.. Blanchard and Mr. Pennetta on it. I think it's a fascinating report. I know the property owners would probably use a different word than fascinating, but you could take material that some might consider dry. Well, I know we're talking about water, but and make it and really make it fascinating. So thank you for that. When I was reading the report, I saw that in 1882, maybe this was dredged to create a tidal canal. Why? Why do you need a title? Speaker 0: I ask the same question. Okay. If it was some sort of disease, mosquito borne disease that was festering in Lake Merritt, as I understand it. And so by scouring the tidal canal, it created the tidal action that affected Lake Merritt as well and alleviated the problem. Speaker 5: Is Oakland owes anything for that. Speaker 0: Member de Saag Thank you. Speaker 3: Just a quick question on the transfer of the ball transferring, triggering the Prop 13 reassessment, will we have language that clearly says that this is a possibility and whatever agreement we strike with whomever, as we at the end of the day know if people are going to shell out 5 to $10000. We also don't want them to say, but I didn't I didn't realize that, you know, so this is a risk. And and if everyone is willing to bear that and recognize that on eyes wide open basis, and that's important to specify. Speaker 0: Absolutely, I would agree. Councilmember de and we intend to have a number of disclosures attached to whatever transfer documents we provide to the property owners, and we'll engage in additional conversations with the assessor on that issue. Member. Brody. Speaker 6: Quick question. Thank you also for the very detailed presentation, this Prop 13 thing. That's the thing that concerns me, too. So are we looking at. The sliver would be its own parcel. Yes. Speaker 0: Yes, yes, yes. That's what the legal description would be for each of these property owners was would be a sliver. The sliver. And that's what they would be effectively purchasing for purposes of a Prop 13 reassessment. But again, we're not making we're not providing legal advice here. That is our current estimate of for. Speaker 6: Which they end up with the two parcels be combined, or would they remain separate parcels? And if they're separate parcels, you know, we have various parcel taxes. Speaker 0: I think that that's an excellent question. And I think that requires further research to determine what each individual property owner might do. And maybe it's a question for the property owners as well as in terms of what their next steps might be. Okay. Thank you. Member de SAC. Speaker 3: Yes, thank you. Just a follow up question, and I want to be clear about the transfer of the property. So there are three elements to the transfer the residential, the commercial and the in the open water. Aren't those focusing on any on either of them? Well, let's focus on the residential when when and if the Army Corps of Engineers transfers the residential to us. Are we then automatically transferring it through the to the residence, though, so that we're not. We might get title to the property on a moment from the Army Corps of Engineers. Then suddenly we own it. That that's not going to happen, right? Speaker 0: Right. That is part of our that is a huge part of our due diligence process is absolutely ensuring that everything is in place and teed up such that the transfer would go immediately from the core to the city to the property owners. The way worda is drafted, it's it's required to go effectively through the city. And so that's why the city is is in the process in the center of this process. But yes, absolutely. Councilmember Desai That would be a huge part of making sure everything is teed up before we take anything for. Speaker 3: Thank you. Speaker 0: Mayor Brody. Speaker 6: Is there going to be a transfer tax on that for people or. Speaker 0: A transfer taxes for tech? I wouldn't pretend to answer that question for I'm not I'm not certain, but we could certainly research that piece for you. And in regards to the open water parcel, it sounds like it may or may not go to East Bay Regional Park District and if the city keeps it, then my concerns would go to. I'd want to know the liabilities dredging, maintenance, environmental cleanup, maintenance of Fruitvale Railroad Bridge and any any potential loss that you would anticipate. Right. Thank you. Mayor Spencer. I think that's an important point. And at this point, we are proposing to have it go directly to East Bay Regional Park District. But to the extent that with respect to public trust issues, there is a need for the city to take it. We would do extensive research on that, on the issues of potential liability. I would add, though, that that with respect to any maintenance dredging, that certainly would stay with the Corps. And the other piece that we have at this point negotiated with the Corps is removing the Fruitvale Rail Bridge from the question of this transaction. So the city would not be taking the Fruitvale Rail Bridge. As we understand, that's raised concern and questions in the past. All right. I just want to reinforce, because I know there was some questions in some of the blogs and things. The idea is in the open water, the corps would retain dredging responsibility, not the city. Whether the city owned it or the East Bay Park District owned it. The Corps would retain dredging, and I would I would second the city attorney's sentiment, which is that the Corps is actually unable to transfer that dredging responsibility. They maintain the obligations of navigational servitude, so they cannot transfer that obligation. Thank you for clarifying that. Any other council comments at this point? Did you want to finish up this report? And we have 18 speakers, by the way. Speaker 3: Thank you, Madam Mayor. In. Given the lateness of the hour, we're just going to conclude with our next steps, which is basically to move forward with the direction that the council has already given us in closed session, and that is to continue to negotiate with the Army Corps of Engineers regarding the possible transfer to reach out to our partners in the East Bay Regional Parks with regard to those transactions, as we've just previously discussed. We are also going to begin actively engaging the residents and the commercial property owners with regards to their interest in the subsequent transfer process. And of course, we will continue to update both the council and the public periodically on the citizen negotiations. So with that, I will conclude the presentation and we stand ready to answer your questions to the best of our ability, if and when you have them. Speaker 0: At this point, I plan to call speakers. Thank you. Katie Braun, it appears you. You're going to see to your time or did you want to speak? Speaker 1: I'm going to cede my time to Seth, who's the chairman of Wawa. Speaker 0: And Seth, did you want to speak at the end where your slippers or did you. All right, Kurt Braun. Speaker 7: Uh, Madam Mayor. Speaker 4: Members. Speaker 7: Managers. Staff. Speaker 4: My name's Kurt Brown. I've been a resident of Alameda, actually. Native, uh, or close to 55 years now. And homeowner at three, three, six, five, four inside. And member of the Waterfront Homeowners Association. Katie and I moved to our present home at three, three, 654 inside in 1986. And we've seen numerous mayors and council members and managers come and go trying to tackle this issue. I've been attending council meetings and writing letters regarding this issue for almost 30 years now. And we'd like to offer some continuity to the current council and staff. Getting permits to repair decks, docks and other structures in our back yards from all the various agencies has always been a nightmare. And as the report said that since 2000, the Army has stopped issuing permits altogether. The city acknowledged the situation back in 1989 in a letter to waterfront homeowners. I've got some of this stuff here and and began a subdivision project with Kirkland engineering surveying the estuary and our backyards. That's. Mr. Kirkland's done a lot of work and I would say that survey, if you guys could dig it up, has a lot of the what we're going to need in the future to do the subdivision . It's been the work's been a lot of it, in fact, I'd say mostly done already. The 26 years later, we're still discussing this transfer of land the army and the city don't want and the homeowners need title to in order to repair, get repair permits and clear title to their product and to sell their properties. In 1993, Mayor Withrow at a council meeting suggested the city could take title and then immediately convey parcels the adjacent land. I see this has been going on a long time. Still no action. Speaker 7: 96 we got the Water Resources Development Act. Speaker 4: Amended, allowing direct transfer from the army to the homeowners. Speaker 7: That was a little bit. I have to take a little bit issue there. So paragraph three of that does allow direct. Speaker 4: Transfer, but the Army doesn't want to do that. So we still don't have any action despite direct, quick claims to adjacent homeowners in the past. In fact, the back of our house was done in a quick clean but claim that they had no line line drawn around it there. So that was back in 1941. So it has happened in the past. But they don't they don't want to do it anymore. So we're back to finishing the Kirkland survey, the city taking title and transferring to the homeowners. So I urge you to finally move ahead with the transfer. And you're welcome to contact me for further information. I've got an extensive file on this subject, so hopefully I don't have to be here in another 30 years dealing with this. Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. And next is Ron Valentine. So you're planning to cede your time to Seth also. Okay. Then I'm going to move on to end of our 11. And then it'll be Michael. Michael Gorman and then Michael Fisher. Speaker 1: Well, I lost my stuff, so hopefully I can remember. Good evening, Mayor Spencer. Council staff. My name is. And Balaban. I'm a resident and also a local realtor here in Alameda. And first, I. Speaker 0: Also would like to thank. Speaker 1: The council for that great presentation. This is not an easy thing to grasp. I know having sat through many presentations on this subject over over the last. Ten years or so, I suppose. So I'm here just to also encourage staff and council to really, you know, continue moving forward on this. This is something that is very important for our community. As a realtor, I see it impacting people as they are trying to sell their properties or those who are trying to buy properties. When you have any kind of clout on title, it makes things quite difficult. And to be able to declare it, to be able to clear that it would be very beneficial also for existing homeowners has been said to not be able to repair structures that are on your property is troublesome not only in the fact that you clearly these are these are particularly in water areas. Safety factors are huge. You want to make sure that people using these structures are safe. And then also on a personal level as to the environment, what happens to these structures when they finally do get to the point that they break away or whatnot or create problems within our waterways and and I'm sure our wildlife as well . So all of those things are quite important. I think. Speaker 0: Most of the items are really. Speaker 1: Well stated within the presentation. As far as you know, who takes on the. Speaker 0: Cost of this. The homeowners have been notified. People are working. Speaker 1: You certainly have many folks that want to see this happen. Speaker 0: So I'm. Speaker 1: Really just here to support and to encourage. Speaker 0: The maybe. Speaker 1: Final resolution of this, which would be really wonderful as it has been going on for some time. So thank you for your time and hopefully we'll get this done. Speaker 0: And next up is former council member Michael Gorman. Speaker 7: Good evening, Madam Mayor. Council members. I was privileged to sit up in that seat for several years back in the eighties. And I guess the first I'd like to say to you all is thank you very much for all you do for this city. I know what those 2:00 in the morning meetings were like over and over and over, and all the preparation is to go into it. We've been working on this for a long time. I'm a third generation resident and our family's been in the property on Fern side since 1950. I can allow your fears about the dredging, because since 1950 there's been no need to dredge. The water moves through there at such a rate that it just flushes it. And the mosquito deal as the original reason is a nice way to put it. I think it was really there was no sewage treatment back in the late 1800s and early 1900s. It all went into the estuary and there was nothing to flush that out. So the tidal canal was very effective around the time I was on the council in the eighties. Curt mentioned there was a survey done by Kirkland and this is a reduced copy of not only the survey, but a tentative map. The city filed a tentative map. It's in the file. Not sure where that office is right now, but I went and got these copies from it several years ago. The tentative map was never acted upon. So as he said, a lot of work had already been done on this. Even back in the eighties. Not too much happened over time. And then ten years ago in I think it was oh five, the Corps seemed to have a spurt of energy to do something about this. Hired Barbara Price at a meeting at Edison School with all of us homeowners. And we're going to transfer this property. That was February well, five. Here we are in 2015. And we the homeowners association and all of our. Neighbors along the street there really want to see this happen. So thank you for giving your staff direction to this point in time. And I hope they can keep keep it moving and we can get this resolved once and for all. Speaker 0: Thank you and thank you for your service. Michael Fisher. And then Donna Fisher and then Troy Davis. Michael Fisher. Donna Fisher. Troy Davis. Hey. And Donna Rock that. Bauman. And Kevin Peterson. Good evening, Madam Mayor and council members. My name is Don Uruk. My husband Jim and I are waterfront homeowners who reside at 33274 inside Boulevard. Speaker 1: And we are members of the Waterfront Homeowners Association. Speaker 0: We moved to Alameda ten years ago, which means I guess we're newbies. Speaker 1: Here or everybody else. And we moved. Speaker 0: Here mainly because of the attraction of living on the water and living on an island. When we purchased our property, it was our understanding that the Army Corps of Engineers moratorium for new construction and maintenance or repair of our docks would be resolved shortly. Speaker 1: I think our real estate. Speaker 0: Agent told us within the next year. Now we're ten years from there and we're still unable to maintain our docks. With every big storm we see parts of dark structures around. Speaker 1: Us falling. Speaker 0: Into the estuary. Speaker 1: We'll see a piling, you know, going by and we'll kind of look down there to see who. Speaker 0: Lost part of the dock. The continuance of this moratorium when we're at a point where it can be stopped is counterintuitive. Speaker 1: And the decision to support the transfer, in my opinion, as a no brainer. Speaker 0: With the residential parcel, there's no cost to the city. All the transfer costs are going to be borne by the homeowners. The transfer promotes investment in the maintenance of our properties. The transfer protects the sensitive estuary environment. These are certainly public benefits. We're excited that this issue at long last has come before the city council and urge you to vote for the transfer of the residential parcel to the city from. Speaker 1: The Corps and from the city to the waterfront. Homeowners. Thank you. Speaker 0: You. Pop plowman. Speaker 5: Left. Speaker 0: And Kevin Peterson. And Ed Payne. Speaker 2: Had asked when she left to give her time to Seth also. Better Mayor Council. Speaker 1: Yeah. Speaker 4: Mm hmm. Speaker 2: And staff, I want to thank you for your time here and listening to this situation. And Kevin Peterson, a little bit. Three, 3494 Insight. My wife and I bought the home almost two decades ago. And as they expressed some of the situation about the realtor, I mean, that hits home with us because our home built in 1920 , technically about a third or a quarter that is over that and is technically in the Army Corps of Engineers land. So trying to represent a property like that or US future, I mean, this is kind of a hang up for us. Our backyard is literally part of this Army Corps. I mean, if you could put yourself in our situation and somebody telling you you can't do anything to your backyard for 15 years or longer that this moratoriums been on, it's been difficult. So at these docks we've been breaking down, a number of these older ones were made of creosote or. Other more harmful ingredients to being part of the environment. This last December, literally three docks within view of my home took it because they had fallen into disrepair and weren't or unable to do any upgrades in regards to this property. Um. Mr. Russo, I. Speaker 7: Watched your presentation on the budget. Speaker 2: I just want to make a comment that this is. Speaker 7: No cost to the city. This is an opportunity to us, partner. Speaker 2: With and share this to make this. Speaker 7: A palatable. Speaker 2: Resolution for both the city and the homeowners. That it allows us to invest in our property, allows us to do the proper upkeep to prevent any further damage to our environment. It's something that needs to happen. And we encourage you to accept this report and work through the details. I know there's some details to work through, but I don't think they're that complicated. And I think we're prepared to work with you to come to a good resolution. So I know it's late and I won't take up any more time, but I thank you for your time and encourage you to move forward. Speaker 0: Thank you. Ed Payne. Then Susan Fitzgerald and then George Fitzgerald. Speaker 7: Thank you for the opportunity to come and express my opinion on this on this matter. Good to see Vice Mayor Matarese again up there on the. As part of the council anyway. Yeah, I'm part of the Waterfront Homeowners Association. I'm actually the vice chairman. I've lived on Marina Drive for 39 years, and I got I didn't realize when I bought my home what I was getting myself into. I have to tell you, to be honest with you, I just bought. Speaker 8: It because. Speaker 7: I had a boat and I wanted some place to park it. Well, the very next year, I really. Speaker 8: I was told, hey. Speaker 7: You need a permit to build this dock. And then I started getting into all of the headaches, all of the red tape, the bureaucracy. And I've been fighting with that for a years. Speaker 8: I've been dealing with that for years. Speaker 7: And I have found that there's many, many other people have also dealt with those same problems. Speaker 8: Over the last. Speaker 7: 39 years. I've gotten to know them, and this has been the first time that this has offered me some glimmer of hope that that all of the problems they've talked about were displayed up here in the slides and possibly be resolved now. And it's exciting to me to know that that all the things we have been dealing with as homeowners now can possibly be addressed. We can. I have seen docks. My neighbor's dock just deteriorated to the point where the whole wharf fell in the water. The whole floating dock just deteriorated. But and I've seen people, you know, what's happened is they couldn't get permits and stuff. They so what did they do? They they're building them in the middle of the night or on the weekends. And so all kinds of legal, illegal structures here is an opportunity to do something that we all benefit from. The city benefits from it, the homeowners benefit from it. I believe that there's tax revenues can can be generated from this Corps of Engineers gets it gets us out of their hair, you know, so everybody benefits from this . I encourage you to move forward on this. This is something that has given me some sense of hope and to address the issues I've been dealing with for the last 39 years. So thank you. Speaker 0: Susan Fitzgerald. George Fitzgerald of. That's all right. Winston. WESTERVELT And then Seth. Speaker 5: 17. Speaker 0: Winsome WESTERVELT. He's still here. W i n somi w e s trv vlt. All right. Looks like Seth is up. And I don't know if you're going to need all this time. One, two, three, or five, six, six people that have seated. So, I mean, including your own. Speaker 8: And a mayor, vice mayor, council members and staff. Thank you so much for all of your time on this. I will not use all of the time ceded to me, but I think it's helpful to. Speaker 7: Leave you with a couple of. Speaker 8: Couple of thoughts on kind of. Speaker 2: Who is this group has come in and spoken to. Speaker 7: Unite. Who's this group that. Speaker 8: That I'm representing here tonight? I'm the chair of the homeowner's association. And this is an organization that was started on a volunteer basis, unlike a lot of other homeowner's associations where you're just stuck as soon as you buy the property. This is actually a coming together of neighbors who actually all agreed on one really specific thing, which is that this situation needs to be resolved. But I think it's also really important for us to start out being really clear about something here. I think, you know, if you were to characterize us as a group, the first thing that you would want to say, we're incredibly grateful. I'm going to explain each one of these. We're also incredibly frustrated. But I start with the grateful because we know that we're in a special situation as well. We're asking for help. We are organized and we are a resource for the city to lean on to help make this go as smoothly as possible. And we're asking for speedy action as long as this is going on. It's time to bring it to a close. And we're actually at a point where that could really happen. And we're really heartened that this is being heard tonight, because, as Ed described, it feels like it's so close finally. I want to go back to each of these points very briefly on the grateful were incredibly grateful for all the work that the city has already done on this. The Corps is not here tonight because it's not really about the Corps, but they also have done a ton of work. But the city attorney's office especially has spent a lot of time unraveling the Gordian knot as well. And it makes all the difference. We have a really clear path to move forward on. We are admittedly frustrated, as you've heard from a lot of folks. This is just a really bizarre situation to be in, to have at one point been granted permission by the adjoining property owner, built structures, started using them, and then decades later, find ourselves in a position where we cannot maintain, cannot fix. And it's it's embarrassing, frankly. We recognize that a lot of people see us as they come across the high street and frail bridges, and we would like to take better care of our structures. We really care deeply about the estuary. Some of the people who came up to speak tonight have spent hundreds, maybe thousands of their own hours, both figuring this out and also figuring out ways to get funding to help remove sunken vessels and do other things to help protect the estuary. We think of us as the first line of defense really in a lot of ways. I want to emphasize again the gratefulness. We recognize that we're in a really lucky position. I think some people might throw stones at us as a group and say, you know what, a bunch of whiners, you know, here they are. They're so lucky to be on the water. We don't deny that. But we also paid for it. We bought them. And I think a lot of the concern that you heard about the property tax issue, we've spent time talking to the assessor's office. And what the assessor found back in the eighties when this was first considered, was that the value was already paid. The property owners actually thought they had use of this structure and paid full value. And now we're just trying to reconcile the legal property boundaries. But we are incredibly grateful. We recognize these are very special properties. We would like to maintain them so they they appear special to the outside world as well. We're frustrated because honestly, during this time, you know, people measure life by milestones. I have a son who wasn't born when this started and is now ten years old. And I'm not even the one who's who's endured the longest part of this. But when you think about it and this is sound a little bit ridiculous, but and maybe I'm playing the child card too much, but, you know, you think about it, that's ten years where I can't safely take him out onto that dock. Like the things fallen apart. And I just want to fix it. Not asking for something special. I just want to fix it. We've lost members during this time, frankly. I mean, it's very morbid, but like when ten years go by or 30 years go by, when an issue is at hand. People's lives go on. And so I know that it's easy to say, like, it was very complicated and maybe we don't tackle it, but, you know, it doesn't matter to us. That's why we're here tonight and we're asking for help. And I know that a lot of times the city is doing much bigger issues. But we're prepared to make it as painless a path as we possibly can. And that's why we're organized. So I ask that you lean on us for assistance during this process. And I ask that you move as quickly as you can. We are very close. The Corps has done what I believe is probably all the work that they're going to do on this. And at this point, they need a willing counterparty to bring this transaction to a close. And so the one thing I would ask is I know that oftentimes you want more time to study an issue, more time to ask the what ifs. But at some point for this issue that has been going on for 30 years, and so we're asking let's just get to a speedy resolution. We're not asking for it to be done the wrong way or sloppily. You know, anything worth doing should be done. Right. But it's time. So thank you very much. Speaker 0: Thank you. And we have two more speakers, Adam Stone and then Paul Mabry. And here comes our closer. You want to speak? This is your last chance. Please turn your slip. Speaker 7: Council. Mayor, thank you very much. My name is Paul Maybury and I'm probably the newest owner of the firm site Homeowner's Association. And I would like to add just a little twist to what Seth left you with, and that is I have a four month old, so I am in Seth's shoes ten years ago. And I really would like to have my both my sons I have a four year old and a four month old. I'd like to have both those boys grow up and fully enjoy the waterfront. I also in my day job, I'm a California licensed attorney and a professional and surveyor, and I am working on probably the largest redevelopment projects in the region on Treasure Island and Candlestick Point, Hunters Point Shipyard. And as you know, there's a lot of Navy owned properties there as well. So. Seth offered the homeowners association as as a resource you can lean on. And I would like to just kind of clarify that, that the homeowners association, by virtue of my particular skills, also has some very unique. Qualifications that have to do with this type of Navy transfer. The title issues, the land survey issues, writing legal descriptions, all of those things that will be the nitty gritty. We do have resources here that we would volunteer to provide to the city and help you out as much as we can. Thank you very much. Speaker 0: Thank you. Council Commons member Ashcraft. Speaker 5: Thank you, Mayor Spencer. And I want to thank all of the speakers, all the homeowners who spoke and property owners and the ones who just attended and the ones who couldn't stay this late. And I want to disclose at the outset that I outset that I did have a phone conversation this afternoon with Mr. Hamelin. And first of all, I don't think of you all as whiners at all. It's really rather horrifying to hear what you've gone through. It's it really is a catch 22. I do want to, you know, send a shout out to our city attorney's office because Janet Kern, her very capable staff, very capable outside counsel. Ms.. Blanchard, they tackled this. And I think we're going to be the counsel that's going to bring this to a resolution to I for one, I'm not speaking for my count, my colleagues, they'll speak for themselves. But I think we've had some really thorough presentations. I understand that there's still a few more details. This is no doubt complicated, but I don't think we need to study this to death. I think we need to move it forward and bring a resolution to you. So I really commend everybody who's working on this. And the other thing I would love to see are cohesive neighborhoods like yours. You make us a better city and you make it a very nice place to live in in your neighborhood because you were all and again, this wasn't mandated. You got yourselves together, which is just kind of a great example of volunteerism. You're volunteering. You all have your special skills. None of us has a lot of extra time, but you're willing to to step forward and help out your neighbors and yourselves. And so I, I think that we just want to see are the the attorneys and city staff who are working on this to continue to bring it back to us as soon as it's possibly ready. And and I do think this is the council that's going to put an end to the nightmare that you've endured. So hang in there just a little longer. Speaker 0: Thank you, everybody. Speaker 6: Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'll try to be brief. First, I want to thank the city attorney for prioritizing this. It's complicated, but there's really no action item. But I would say the action item for us, at least speaking for myself, is let's get this done. The one just just three brief points. And I don't think any of the residents here are asking for anything special. They're just asking for the benefit of the bargain when when they purchase their homes and they're asking their government to work for them. And that's our responsibility. And I think we need to do it. Speaker 0: All right. Any other member comments? Vice Mayor. Speaker 2: Two questions. Oh, when is our next step? What's the next milestone that we're going to be made aware of and enter the community? And second, um, I'm glad this is an open session. I think it's very important. Because we're dealing with another agency that's tax supported that we make sure the public knows what's going on as well . And I'd also like to have them whatever follow up that you do is to consider either the pros and cons of the commercial portion of the transfer to go to the best for public the Tidelands Trust under the state and see if that option benefits the city or liability. Speaker 5: All right. I just got a question and a question, Mr. Panic. I'd like you to ask. I think I heard either you or Ms.. Blanchard say that you can't move forward with this agreement until you have consensus of all of the property owners. And my question is, what if you have a holdout or a recalcitrant property owner, especially for the residential folks? What if you don't have 100% buy in? I think there's maybe some out of town owners that or others that just don't see the value of this I've heard. So how would you address that? Speaker 3: Through the mayor again, Enrico Penick, assistant city attorney. If I may, I'd like to take councilmember as he asked Kraft's question first, because I think it's the easier of the two. The the current. Concept that we're working on here is if there had been any holdouts, the homeowners association would take title to that holdout property, and then it would be up to the homeowners association to work out any deals with the individual holdout members so the city staff would not be prepared to come to the council to recommend this transfer unless we had either 100% participation from the residents or assurances from the homeowners association that they would cover the cost of any holdout members . Again, that's conceptual. We will have to get those assurances from the association. But you've heard from their representative and you can see that there is some strong. Interest on the part of the homeowners association. So we're confident that those details can be worked out. Two Mayor, two vice mayor matter raises questions. The next milestones from the city's perspective would be to start reaching out to the East Bay Regional Parks, to talk to them with regards to their issues. Also to steward working in earnest to do that survey and mapping work. Although there may have been some work that has been done in the past, just taking a survey down the canal. There are a lot of structures that sit offset from the main houses. So the the idea would be to draw a line from the adjacent property all the way down to the waterfront. In some cases, that may or may not be able to be done. You may have to that line may have to shift because of existing, existing structures. So I think one of our major task would be to do some survey work, get some preliminary mapping work, and then take that back to the homeowners and to resolve any conflicts between adjacent property owners on exactly where those lines might be drawn. Once we have that and we have an agreement in concept from the Army Corps, I think we'd be in a position to be able to come back to you to report some real progress. Speaker 2: Approximate time. Speaker 3: I wish I could give you a timeframe on when that could be accomplished. I would venture a guess that. Speaker 0: Sure a member matter. One piece that we're we're up against is, of course, we're one party. We have to have the cause engagement on a very real level. And while they've have done some work, there is more work that they do need to do. So we're we're working with them. And I think with city council strong support in favor of moving forward, I think that will motivate the Corps to take more active action. So we are reliant on them as well as responses from the Regional Board on their review of existing environmental reports. So we will again push those resource agencies. They have tight staffing constraints, but we will push them and with a more clear green light, we would begin pushing even harder to try and get more immediate responses. And then, as I understand it, in regards to East Bay Parks, that's another part of you don't have a. Speaker 1: Middle for. Speaker 3: That. You're absolutely right, Madam Mayor. We we we we have to. We have yet to reach out to the East Bay regional parks. So we have no idea where they currently stand on their negotiations with the Army Corps and how prepared they are to move forward and how quickly. Speaker 0: So one of my concerns then is to make sure that there's not any liabilities that the city would hold. And as it's approaching 1030, we actually have three items that are still pending 60, 60 and nine A and I would need a motion and approval by four to proceed past the. To take up these. We have a motion to move. Speaker 3: Okay. Speaker 0: Any comment? All those in favor. Hi. A motion passed unanimously. Thank you. Speaker 5: I think the city attorney want to weigh in on you. Speaker 0: Yes. I was just going to suggest, Madam Mayor and council that it while it's true, we don't know exactly the timeline because we have other agencies. I think what we will do, though, is make a commitment to the council and to the folks who are here and listening, that we are going to continue to proceed with all deliberate speed. And we can make a promise to you that we can get some sort of report back to you. I would say three months. So the 1st of July. Is that adequate? Speaker 2: Vice Mayor First of all, I thought I heard that you were looking for maybe I misunderstood a green light from the council or some song sentiment that you can take to the other agencies saying, We're gung ho on this, but even though this is not scheduled for action, we can all nod our head and give a sense that there's unanimous support to move this thing forward. Speaker 0: So we can give direction. Speaker 2: We give direction. Speaker 0: So I'd like to hear from member so. Speaker 3: I have a separate question altogether. Speaker 2: So I just want I just wanted to check. Is that correct? She's not. Speaker 0: Yes. You may do that. Speaker 2: Into what I was. Speaker 0: I remember day. Speaker 3: Thank you. Two comments. First is on an overview comment. Several weeks ago the city council close the loop on a matter with regard to undergrounding of of. Lines, overhead lines coming up with a citywide strategy. And that was a matter that I dealt with in my first go around and. 11 years ago on 24. Sometimes the wheels of city hall runs very slow. All right, Councilmember Gorman, about that. This being 30 years or so. So hopefully we can get things going. I think the question that I have is I just want to make sure that technically and narrowly understood that we've exercised all our due diligence report gathering information. Or is there still outstanding work to be done? That's the that's the plan. If I could go back to to the vice minister. QUESTION We I think that three months, if that's acceptable, is a good timeframe. But we would also commit to coming back to you sooner if we have material progress report in the meanwhile. Speaker 0: Thank you. Any other comments? So I want to thank staff residents for coming out here and I look forward to the updates. Thank you very much. Speaker 3: Thank you. Speaker 1: Six C presentation on the city's economic development programs and initiatives and status of the Economic Development Strategic Plan and recommendation to establish the Mayor's Economic Development Advisory Panel in lieu of re establishing an Economic Development Commission. Speaker 0: And we're going to take a few minutes here, but people are exiting the room. Well, we're going to take a short recess. Okay. There she is. All right, so now we're done.

Regular Agenda Item

Recommendation to Accept Report on Offer to Transfer a Portion of the Oakland Inner Harbor Tidal Canal From the Army Corp of Engineers to the City of Alameda at No Cost and Subsequent Disposition of Property. (City Attorney 7120)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_03172015_2015-1358

Speaker 1: A proclamation declaring the week of March 22nd through 29th as Boys and Girls Club Week. Speaker 0: And to accept the award, the proclamation this evening. Would you all like to introduce yourself? Speaker 3: I. I am a morales. And every day. And every day. Club members. Speaker 6: How. How old are you and what grade are you in? Speaker 3: I'm 11. Speaker 4: Years old. Speaker 3: 11 years. Speaker 0: Old and in. Speaker 3: Sixth grade. Speaker 6: Very nice. Speaker 2: I'm Mark Morales. I'm the branch director of the Alameda Boys and Girls Club. I'm Steve Cressy. I'm the board chair of the Altimeter Boys and Girls Club. Speaker 0: All right, now read the proclamation. Whereas the youth of Alameda, California, are tomorrow's leaders. And. Whereas, many of Alameda youth need professional services to cope with a wide range of social, domestic and financial hardships. And. Whereas, the Boys and Girls Club Organization in Alameda provide services to more than 1500 youth annually. And. WHEREAS, the Boys and Girls Clubs are at the forefront of efforts to promote character and leadership development, education and career development, health and life skills the arts, sports, fitness and recreation, substance abuse prevention, delinquency prevention and literacy programs. And. Whereas, the Boys and Girls Club organizations in California ensure that youth are offered a safe and supportive home away from home, providing them with quality support services and recreational programs. And. Whereas, the Boys and Girls Club organizations in California ensure that youth are offered a safe and supportive home. Away from home. Okay. Providing this is the same here. I've tried. Providing. We'll have to fix this proclamation. And then. Whereas, the Boys and Girls Club of Alameda will celebrate National Boys and Girls Club Week 2015 with some 4100 clubs nationwide serving more than 4 million youth. Now, therefore, be it resolved that I. Trish Herrera Spencer, mayor of the City of Alameda, you hereby proclaim March 23rd through March 29th, 2015, as Boys and Girls Club Week in the city of Alameda and call upon the residents of Alameda to join. Men in recognizing and commending the boys club are providing comprehensive and effective services to youth in the community. Is Mr. Spencer Mayor guy. Speaker 2: Hmm. Like to thank the Council for your support of our fine. Our organization thinks. Thank you. Long fellow tigers. Go. Thanks. Thanks, Bill. Thanks to Jim. Speaker 0: Thank you very much. We have a second proclamation. Harry Hartman from Red Cross is here to receive it. Item three. Speaker 1: Proclamation declaring the month of March as Red Cross. Speaker 0: Month. And now I'll read this. Did you want introduce yourself? Looks like a few more coming up. Sure. Speaker 2: I brought a couple of members, a long time volunteers and dedicated Red Cross people. First and foremost, I'm Harry Hartman, 27 year volunteer and member of the Alameda County Leadership Council. I am. Longtime former director of the city of Alameda, Red. Speaker 7: Cross, and now as. Speaker 2: Community development and resiliency coordinator, a very appreciative partner with the American Red Cross, with their response. Every time something happens in Alameda and their dedication to helping us create a resilient community. My name is Jay Pimentel, resident of City of Alameda, and I'm the vice chair of the Alameda County Leadership Council for the Red Cross. Good evening. I'm Michael. Gregory. I'm the account manager for the blood services portion of American Red Cross. And I know some of you from my city council work from a city, Southend, south of here. And I've been with the Red Cross for 13 years serving on this leadership council here in Alameda County, as well as working as a staffer for Red Cross. And my only comment real quick is how well you are served here in the city of Alameda. But this gentleman.

Proclamation/Special Order

Proclamation Declaring the Week of March 22 through March 29, 2015 as Boys and Girls Club Week. (City Manager 2110)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_03172015_2015-1427

Speaker 1: lease agreement and approve a temporary right of entry permit with Water Emergency Transportation Authority. 4.73 acres of undeveloped land real property and 3.4 acres of submerged lands located at West Hornet and Ferry Point streets at Alameda .00. Speaker 0: Good evening, mayor and city council members. I'm Ninette Mercado in the Community Development Department Base Fees Department. Tonight is the second reading of the six year lease with the Water Emergency Transportation Authority for its maintenance and operation center. And I just wanted to briefly remind you about the project and then go over that, briefly discuss the MRU and then try to address some of the issues that have come up in the last two weeks to help with the discussion. This project, just a reminder of this product is approved. It will mark the first new construction to occur at Alameda Point. The proposed project would provide maintenance services such as fueling engine engine, oil changes, concession supply and light repair work for the Wheaton Ferry boats operating in the central San Francisco Bay. In addition, the proposed project would be. Speaker 3: The location for the. Speaker 0: Operation activities of Weta, including day to day management and oversight of services, crews and facilities. In the event of a regional disaster. The facility would also function as an emergency operation center, serving passengers and sustaining water transit service for emergency response and recovery. That that project will bring 100 new jobs to Alameda. Speaker 3: 50 new jobs to Aida. We will be. Speaker 0: Paying a basement of $5,125. Instead of paying the development impact fee, which would be $714,640 for Rita. They instead will construct $2.5 million in infrastructure included in the master infrastructure plan for Alameda Point. A. The final approval of this lease tonight will give way that only the real estate right to develop the property. We will go through the planning board for use permit and project conditions. It currently is scheduled to go to the Planning Board on March 23rd. At that meeting, the planning board will make land. Land use will determine nice conditions related to the hours of operations, truck traffic, building design, etc.. Speaker 3: To. Speaker 0: Get into the heart of the second reading was conditioned on the city entering into a memorandum of understanding with we to the large. The outstanding issue was the seal. The existing seal haul out which we are, which is in the heart of the wider project development area. And so we had committed verbally to design, construct and fund the seal haul out and the council wanted more teeth to that. And so we went back and negotiated a memorandum of understanding what that what that M.O. you does is it establishes a $100,000 holding fund, which will be earmarked for planning, design and construction of the new seal hall out of the. Speaker 3: Parties will meet and confer. Speaker 0: To determine a site for the proposed hall out. We will design the hall out and go through the appropriate city approval processes. We will be the lead party responsible for all third party permitting for the new hall out. And we will commence construction of the new hall outside on before August 2016 and prior to the demolition of the existing hall out in connection with the construction of the project. Unless we to has not obtained all the permits issued by governmental agencies other than the city, we shall continue to diligently seek and obtain the third party permits. Upon receipt of all of our third party permits. We shall promptly commence construction of the new steel hall out during the earliest available, applicable environmental work window for construction within San Francisco Bay. That is not less than 90 days after receipt of the third party permit take into consideration the contracting process that we to has to go through. Upon completion of the construction of the new hangout, we have agrees to maintain the structure in good order and repair. If the city determines that we too is unable to commence construction of the new hall out, the city has the right to take over the project and use the site in the holding account so we can self-help if we believe that there is some stalling or anything that's going on. After a meeting on March 3rd. Speaker 3: A member of the. Speaker 0: Public referred me to a biologist or an expert in the field of harbor seals. I've spoken to Dr. Sara Allen, the Oceans and Coastal Resource Program with the National Park Service. She's not sure that she's going to be able to be a consultant with us on this project, but she has referred us for the names of several of her colleagues. One of the things that she said was. Speaker 3: There are many. Speaker 0: Biologists who can speak all over this issue. But the most important voice on the issue is the National Marine Fisheries Service, of which we too has had a sign off on the project. She says there are lots there are not a lot of examples of what we're trying to do. And the results tend to be anecdotal, which is why it's really important to have the determination from. Speaker 3: The National Marine. Speaker 0: Fisheries Services at their biological opinion. She says that their goal is to try to create a resilient ecosystem in the San Francisco Bay Area, considering all the environmental, economic and community concerns. So they're the voice that we can rely on for for making these kinds of decisions. So finally, I want to talk about some of the questions that came up during the last two weeks. And one in particular was about noise. And what I want to say is that when we went through its mitigated negative, negative declaration, it was determined that construction and maintenance dredging would result in a temporary increase in noise, but that noise would not exceed the applicable city noise standards with the exception. And if they were doing dredging after 7 p.m., therefore as part of the mitigation, construction and maintenance dredging will be limited between the hours of 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. weekdays and 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. on Saturdays when construction noise is exempt from the noise limit. Set the municipal code for Alameda. And with those. Speaker 3: With those mitigations, both are considered less. Speaker 0: Than significant impacts on the city. There were questions about the public process that we. Speaker 3: Went through, and most of the public. Speaker 0: Process was part of the permitting in order to move the project along. The only meeting outside of the meeting that we had in March or two weeks ago that they've had in the city of Alameda was in November 2010 meeting where they presented conceptual plans of the project to the planning board. After that meeting, there were several newspaper articles and several blogs that presented information on the project. So there was an opportunity to kind of get the community engaged and or to to notify the community of the upcoming project. Finally, the issue of fueling was asked and. Speaker 3: As we mentioned before. Speaker 0: We will install aboveground storage tanks and the fuel lines will be underground and run to a pump station at their piers, on their floating piers. These lines will be permitted and built according to state standards, which include. Speaker 3: Double walled pipes. Speaker 0: So it's added protection. We also. Speaker 3: Will have a skiff. Speaker 0: Onsite, which will be able to boom and contain any potential spill on the site. They will be required to have an oil spill response plan, which is certified by the Coast Guard. And I thought that it would be for further reference for our council that we will be adjacent to the merit ships, which. Speaker 3: Are also fueled above water. Speaker 0: A barge brings in the fuel and it's pumped into the ship's mirrored in it. In the case of mirrored, each ship has boomed prior to fueling and the Coast Guard is notified that fueling operations are taking place on site. Marriott also has an oil spill response plan. And we've been extremely fortunate to never have an oil spill in the last 18 years. Speaker 3: But I'm going to knock. Speaker 4: On wood just in case. Speaker 0: And then the other part of that is, fortunately, adjacent to the ships and. Speaker 3: Adjacent to the mirrored. Speaker 0: Mirrored ship. And to Aida is one of our long term tenants, which is in our environmental services. Speaker 3: And you heard two weeks. Speaker 0: Ago that they were the ones that were called out for the oil spill in the estuary. They actually played a huge role in protecting our coastline when the ASCO Busan. Speaker 3: Had its wreck. Speaker 0: So they kind of voluntarily protected the shores of Alameda and received. Speaker 3: A proclamation. Speaker 0: Several weeks later. Speaker 3: So we do have that. Speaker 0: Local resource as well. So those are all at Alameda Point. And so that's. Is there another staff member that's going to be presenting at this point and. Are you okay? Yes. We will have a representative from their staff to come and speak. All right, so what council? Do you want to take questions? No, not at this point, yes. Speaker 7: Remember I said two quick questions. One, and this is in response to an email that I received today. And I think I know the answer. But just for public clarification, this is the maintenance facility. This is not a ferry terminal. Speaker 0: It's not a ferry terminal. Speaker 3: Correct. Okay. Speaker 7: And then the other question, I think at the previous meeting, I may have attributed some comments to you about the relocation of SEALs to the breakwater. I think those weren't really from you. Okay. So I want to apologize for that. Thank you. Speaker 0: That's fine. I swear. Speaker 2: Just a question on the of the construction noise you address, but the operating noise, um, I understand that that's part of the planning process where the use permit is discussed. Speaker 0: I didn't talk about the operating noise, but that was also included in the mitigated negative declaration. And they they were there was no significant impact on that. I only discuss the two that had the had considered an impact and needed a mitigation but the rest of it now. Speaker 2: But those could be a topic at the planning board. Yes. Yes. Permit is discussed. Okay. Thank you. Speaker 0: Remember Ashcroft. Speaker 6: And with regard to a couple of emails that I also received ahead of the meeting, there was reference made to the fact that at the ferry terminals which indeed use we to vessels parking has been a problem. So two points, if you could clarify for me. We're not talking about parking for ferry passengers at this facility and then I'll just throw out what I know, which is that we the and the city are very actively working on solutions to the ferry, parking at both the Main Street and the Harbor Bay ferry terminals. I know because I've been involved in a couple of meetings and I was also heartened to hear that the Transportation Commission is soon going to consider a range of parking alternatives and solutions for the Harbor Bay Ferry. So even though that's separate in a part, people hear the term, we don't tend to to lump them together. But that's not something that we're considering tonight. But just so the public who's listening knows those issues are not being swept under the carpet, they're being addressed. Speaker 0: And questions that any other members have questions. Speaker 2: Okay. Speaker 0: All right. I had questions. Could you clarify? Is my understanding that to approve the list tonight, it requires four votes from council? That's correct. Speaker 4: That is correct. Our city charter requires that for a lease over a year, which this is, it requires four votes of the city council. Speaker 0: And within the MRU and regard to the hall out, for instance. When that comes back, it would be mutually agreed upon for council. How many votes for that require? Speaker 4: Madam Mayor, the you that is before you. There are actually two separate items, action items before you in this item that we've been talking about together. One is to consider approval of the memorandum of understanding with we have related to the hall out that requires three votes of the city council. The other action item is the second, the final enactment of the ordinance which would approve the lease with Aida. And that requires four votes. Speaker 0: And in regard to rent at some date in the future, there appears to be. But is what is determined a mutually agreeable site? Would it require three votes from council to agree or four votes from council to agree? Speaker 4: McNamara I'm not sure that that would even come back to council. The idea is that the parties would, through the EMU, there would be agreement as to where the site would be, if there would need to be an amendment to the EMU that would have to come back to council and that would require three votes. But I think the authority is for staffs of both entities to be able to work that out through the process of getting permits from the various agencies. Speaker 0: So so then can you clarify? It would not be in regards to when staff works through a process and works through a process and determines what they think is an appropriate place for the hall out. It does not come back to council for agreement or any vote at that time. So it's strictly between reader and staff to determine the what they think is a mutually agreeable location. Speaker 4: Primarily. And then, of course, whatever, whatever pruning or whatever. Speaker 0: Permitting process. Speaker 4: Required, then they would have to agree to it. It would not necessarily have to come back to the council. Speaker 6: Would it also involve whatever consultation we did say with the National Marine Fisheries Service? So even though parties, I understand from the lease refers or from the EMU refers to the city and Rita, it would also be their consultants, is that correct? Speaker 3: Right. We really I mean. Speaker 0: We want to get this right. And so we don't want to just tear down something that serving a population and then and put it just anywhere. So we do want. Speaker 3: It kind of. Speaker 0: But my question goes to right now, and we heard this on the prior item, we this allows the public to come and weigh in when an item comes before council. And I want to clarify that. If this vote if this lease is approved, then I actually the the NYU does not require four votes. Only requires three. And then from that point forward, if the menu is approved, then the item does not come back to council the public there. Their path of input would be to communicate with staff, but it would not be on an agenda item here. But the determination by council, is that correct? Speaker 4: That? That is correct. Speaker 0: Okay. And then in regards to these other issues that I appreciate you sharing are not part of the lease. For instance, the the design of the building, for instance, the height. But it looks like that will be determined through the ironing board. And then does that come back to council for approval? It would only come back to council if somebody peel the planning board decision and then at that point, how many votes would require to approve the design of the building? Speaker 4: Council acts by three votes unless specifically required by charter to act by four. So it would be three votes. Speaker 0: Thank you. And then so in regards to transportation of fuel, since that item is not addressed specifically in the lease, I want to clarify again that that if it ever comes back, it would require about three votes of council, not for it to prove, for instance, any issue regarding storage of the fuel or transportation of the fuel Speaker 4: . M.R. Unless there's something in the lease that would have to be amended, unless the lease needs to be amended, that would require four votes. If it is something else, it is part of the menu or part of some other permit or whatever that might have to come back to the council. It would be three votes. Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. A member, Daisuke. Speaker 5: Just a quick clarifying question to when it comes to a planning board appeal, because that costs a lot of money. Sometimes council members appeal a planning board decision and bring it to city council for four decisions. So if there are concerns at the planning board level about design related issues and a council member could take it upon herself or himself to appeal, it would save money. Speaker 0: However, at that point, regardless, it's still three votes as opposed to four. The only time. Correct. All right. Number Ashcraft. Speaker 6: And just for clarification, Ms.. Marcano, I think if I recall reading the lease for the last meeting, those items of the fuel storage and and, you know, how the ships are fueled and the protection from spillage and response planning all are all contained in the lease that we voted on. Speaker 0: The lease document is talk specifically about the types of the storage units and things like that. Yeah. Yes. Speaker 6: Yes. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay. And and I would just add that I think, you know, these council discussions are very useful for helping to work out the. Speaker 0: Kind of going to be clarifying question. Correct. Speaker 6: Yeah. So I mean, this is what we're going to continue to do. Speaker 0: Well, are you asking the question? Speaker 6: It's well, we'll have that opportunity. Speaker 0: Remember? I'm sorry. Speaker 7: Just one more. Can you tell us what the property's zoned for right now? Excuse me. What's the zoning of the property? Isn't it commercial maritime use? Open space. Open space? Speaker 0: It's in the tidelands. So it's maritime open space. Speaker 7: So there are limited. Speaker 0: But limited uses. Speaker 7: Limited uses. And this is one of the they use. Okay. Speaker 2: If I could get some clarification from Wheater, if you don't mind. On the seal, haul out. You know for certain you'll have to get a permit from D.C.. Speaker 6: I think, Mr. Conley, they'd like you to come up so you can. Speaking to the microphone in. Someone. Speaker 2: Thank you. Kevin Connolly, Water Emergency Transportation Authority Planning Manager. The question is from the assistant city manager here. Yes. Okay. I'm going to answer that question right after I answer the first question about the zoning. Enterprise for zoning district requires. That's what it is. It's not open space for zoning. It's enterprising person. You speak in the microphone, please. Speaker 6: Utah. Speaker 7: Yeah. Can you kind of explain to us what that means. Speaker 2: Please? You can ask the plan. Speaker 6: I it's not fair to ask him. I think someone from city. State. Yeah. To explain what enterprise zoning means. Yes. Okay. Ms.. Ms.. That possibly. Speaker 7: Expert. Speaker 3: So there's actually two parts to their project. One of them is in the piers, the piers in the water and some and it's adjacent. It's in an open space district. Speaker 2: Adjacent to or used to call. Speaker 3: Enterprise Park. There's the fueling station, which. Speaker 2: Is an enterprise for. Speaker 3: Which is for maritime commercial businesses. And so it's actually within state lands. Speaker 4: And so there are a lot of uses that aren't allowed. Speaker 3: In that area. But this is exactly the type of use that's consistent with the zoning for the Enterprise for. Speaker 2: District on the fueling part of. Speaker 7: It. Thank you. Speaker 0: I'm sorry, miss. Could you clarify that you were speaking in regards to the fueling station falls within this enterprise zone. And what about the building? And then what about the ferry or the ferries for that? Speaker 3: Well, the actual part of the piers are in. Speaker 2: The water. Speaker 3: And. Speaker 2: And the zoning is for the zoning. Speaker 3: For the actual buildings when the. Speaker 7: Open space district. Speaker 0: So the whole thing is in the open space district of the. And an open space includes buildings. Yes. Speaker 2: We can and we can. Speaker 3: That's what we were just looking at, the zoning map. Speaker 2: But the fueling station. Speaker 3: Is within the enterprise for. Speaker 0: And then in regards to where the ferries will be. What is that? It's how is that treated? Speaker 2: It's within the. Speaker 3: Water portion of the property. And I'm just I just don't. Speaker 2: Know off the top of my head what the property. Speaker 4: Is exactly how the water the submerged property is zoned. But I think it will just we'll have to look at that. Speaker 2: I just don't know if that got my head. Speaker 0: Members. Did you have any other questions? I do. In regards to our attorney or counsel, in regards to enforcement of an MRU versus a lease. What are the differences? For instance, if the if there's an issue with the haul out that's in the mail, you as opposed to having that language in the lease itself. Speaker 4: Well, the M.O. you provides, I think as Ms.. Mercado identified and in the M.O., you for the fallout, that the way it is structured is that the widow will have to put $100,000 into an escrow account. And they are committed also to doing various to getting the permits and identifying the site and constructing the hall out and utilizing that $100,000 toward completion of that. And they have to do it on a particular deadline, and they are not to begin construction and pull permits until they have accomplished that. And if the city believes that they have failed to meet those deadlines and they are not adequately and diligently moving forward, the city can go ahead and do what Ms.. Makana calls self-help and go ahead and and complete the project itself and utilize that hundred thousand dollars. So those are fairly substantial ability to to be able to enforce those obligations. The lease itself is a property. Right. And it's, you know, complicated as to what the default provisions would be and the requirements that you have to go through to enforce a lease. But ultimately, you can terminate a lease and, you know, take the property back and pursue whatever remedies there might be at LA Equity pursuant to the lease. Speaker 0: So if this if if we do has issues completing the hall out for whatever reason, then the city can do self-help and step up and utilize this $100,000 to complete it. And if it takes more than $100,000, then what does the city do? Well, the MCU doesn't really doesn't have language about if it costs more than $100,000. But what we do know is that we can go. Speaker 3: To our. Speaker 0: Partner and amend the MCU. I mean, I think that I mean. If we're self helping, that means that they haven't fulfilled their obligation. But I think what they have committed to is help is getting the the hall out there are putting the hall out in place. Okay. And what if there's not a mutually agreeable location for the hall out? Does the project still continue? I think finding a location has to be the first order of business that we need to work on, because in order to design and figure out what it's going to look like, we have to find a location. And one of the. Speaker 3: Obstacles that we've. Speaker 0: Had or the reason. Speaker 3: We don't have one now. Speaker 0: Number one is because we. Speaker 3: Don't own all the water. Speaker 0: The seaplane lagoon is still owned by the Navy. It's not even on our lease. And so we couldn't put something in the seaplane lagoon. So we're just trying to figure out a logical. Speaker 3: Location for this whole layout. Speaker 0: And and I think. Speaker 3: We're going to be. Speaker 0: Working with biologists and experts to figure out. Speaker 3: What makes. Speaker 0: Sense. And if we if it makes sense that it goes into the seaplane lagoon or if it goes under the piers, we've just got to figure out where, what side, what makes sense. I mean, I talked to Dr. Allen today, and one of the things that she talked about is that we need to determine why the SEALs are coming to this location. Are they coming for foraging or are they coming for recreation? And that that actually informs where you going to put your call out? However, it would not be considered a breach of the lease to not complete a bridge to not complete an additional the new hall out. The list does not speak to the hall at the MO you speaks to the hall loud and what we but what the MRU does say is that the only delay that the city will allow them not to build is for the third party, not getting the third party permitting. So everything else, they should be moving on. We should be moving on together. The only the only thing that we're really giving them any kind of a pass for holding up is if they can't get these permits from AC, DC or whomever else needs to weigh in on it. Right. So. But since that's since the fallout is in a separate NYU and not part of the lease, the lease continues. Separate from the more you separate from the hall out to two documents, two different parts of work. Speaker 4: That is correct. I don't know if this helps or not, correct me here, but the idea is if potentially you approve both of these documents tonight and for some reason, so the lease goes into effect and Rita has to begin to pay their lease payments and they are expecting to begin doing construction, but they can't begin the construction until they have satisfied the requirements of the EMU and the hall out. So the city will have leased the property, will have a tenant, will be getting rental payments. But frankly, if we do doesn't build this building, we're still going to get lease payments and have a tenant out there. Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. We have speakers that. Yes, yes. Speaker 6: Oh, and I'm sorry. Speaker 0: Rita. Speaker 3: Good evening, Mayor Spencer and council members. My name is Nina Rannells and I am the executive director of the San Francisco Bay Area Water Emergency Transportation Authority. Thank you for hearing our item today. I'm here to thank you for your consideration of the item and your support. We have worked with the city since 2008 on this project. First, in looking at and identifying a site for it and then working through the various planning and development environmental permit consultation processes and in working to secure funds to actually ultimately move to construction. It's been a long conversation and we're really excited to be here today. This represents a significant milestone in the in the process and in delivering this project. It represents a very important part of our operation. It's a key component of our core infrastructure that will support our services that we provide to the city of Alameda and the residents of Alameda and surrounding areas. With your support tonight, we are prepared to move forward quickly on work to establish a new and lasting steel hall out. As outlined in the memo U. We are a proud partner with the city in providing ferry services to this community. And when we transition when the services transition from the city to us in 2012, we've done a significant amount of work since then to secure significant funds, to implement projects, to rehabilitate and improve those services, including adding over $2 million annually in operating dollars to support the system and to provide actually service improvements, as well as about $50 million to support rehabilitating the terminal sites, gangways ramps, bicycle parking, parking lots, as well as more. Most importantly, about $45 million to invest in the four boats that that we inherited two of them money for two of them to undergo mid-life overhauls. And we're in the process of going out to bid to actually build two new boats, to replace boats that have met the end of the end of their useful life. We are your partner. We love providing services to your community. We are committed to the city of Alameda wholeheartedly in what we do every day. And we thank you for your support tonight and look forward to moving forward with this important project. Speaker 0: Any questions for to. At this point, council members. Thank you. Right? Right. Then I'm going to proceed with calling the public speakers. I believe this is Captain Ray Shipway and then Mark Klein and then Andrew. Speaker 6: And this livecast. Speaker 0: Yes. He's in the back. Speaker 2: Mayor Council members. My name is Raymond Shipway. I'm the regional representative. California Regional Representative of the International Organization of Master Mason Pilots United Inland Group. I represent 350 members in our specialized fleet, but that big title just means I'm the head of the complaint department. I have several things that I have to do in conjunction with being head of the complaint department. And I. One of the most enjoyable things I got to do was was advocate for the funds from the Federal Transportation Administration. We were able to go two years ago to Washington, D.C., as we do every year for an event called the Sale End, where we actually advocate for items that are necessary for the maritime fleet. And when I go back there, of course, I'm California, born and raised in San Francisco. I did 20 years as a tugboat driver here in San Francisco Bay. That's where the title came from. But the idea that we can go back there and advocate for for big ticket items and shipping and all that sort of stuff is great. But I went down there and became I had to use the term maverick, but I visited our local delegation who were very responsive and very receptive to the idea that we needed to do something for our folks local here. So on behalf of my members and the folks that work for the WTA and and the and the hardworking staff and crew that put together all this program, our hard work in, in getting those original funds and helping out with with this program is a matter of pride for myself. So I thank you for allowing us the opportunity to come before you and speak. We look forward to putting this together and and making a good investment in Alameda and talking to you folks about ferries is is like preaching to the choir. I was here in 1998 when we had a real contentious thing going on between who was going to provide ferry service between blue and gold and Roger Murphy. And if you all remember that, I kind of got myself in the middle of that as a guppy. So, again, thank you very much. I appreciate it. Please, if you have the opportunity to support this, I thank you. Speaker 0: Aren't clean. Speaker 2: My last council meeting, I spoke and said a verbal promise wasn't enough and we should have something in writing. And you now you have a signed memorandum of understanding. So I thank you for that. And. Few days ago, someone asked me if I could dig up an expert to help plan a seal haul out. And I inquired at the Marine Mammal Center and from an official when he came back with a name. Sarah Ellen. So I hope you can work some something out. And that would. Maybe work. Of course, one should always recognize that when you're working with. Wild animals, nothing ever is guaranteed, but hopefully something can be worked out. Just as a final note. I must say, if I had known about this a few years ago, I would have opposed the present site for this project. The site would be better as a park, and it seems to me that the estuary side, which is more industrial and with its ferries going in and out anyway, would have been a better location. But that I know that train has left the station and that's just my $0.02. So I hope it goes okay and we get a hold out for the SEALs. Thank you. Evening, Madame Mayor. Members of the council. My name's Andy Slick. I'm going to be wearing three hats tonight. First is, I'm a long time resident homeowner of the city of Alameda. I'm also a representative for the Carpenters Union here in Alameda County. And for the sake of time, it's starting to get a little late. I'll be speaking on behalf of the Alameda County Building Trades Council. So I feel and the council and the Carpenters also feel that this is a good project. It's a good example of cooperative labor management in the building of the project. There's going to be a project labor agreement in that. It's always a pleasure to be up here speaking with an agency that values working families, as we do does. And it's a partnership that you as the council, should look at moving forward when you're looking at building out at the base and the commitments to working families and project labor agreements. So this is the type of project that the base needs that Almeida needs to move forward. So I would encourage you to implement police and the right way and move this project forward. Thank you. Speaker 0: Michael McDonagh and then Alex Knox. And then Marcel. There is all our. Thank you. Speaker 2: Madame Mayor, council staff Michael McDonough, president of the Alameda Chamber of Commerce. You know, this sounds like a great project for Alameda. I'm excited that it would be the first breaking of ground at the new Alameda base that we've got out there now. I think it's good for business, too. There's 100 new employees. There is new infrastructure. And the maritime industry is one of the most important industries we have on the island. And I think this is a good extension of that. And so we are all for it at the Chamber of Commerce. Commerce and urge you to approve this lease and the IMO you tonight. Speaker 0: Alex Knox. Speaker 2: Madam Chair, City Council, City Staff My name is Alex Knox. I'm the director of Community Relations for Richmond Mayor Tom Butt. And I know you have a lot of speakers on this. I don't want to take up a lot of your time, but I am here to support your adopting this lease agreement with Wheeler because I see it as one of the the many exciting opportunities and initiatives where we can see mutual benefit through regional partnership. You know, I know we do spend a lot of a lot of time developing this project with the city of Alameda. And we have also spent a lot of time with we are developing our expanded ferry service in Richmond and. Part of why I'm here today is because in order for us to realize our goal of having very service enrichment, we need this maintenance facility to go forward. If the tables were turned, I think the kind of proposal that that's before we do it today would be something that the city of Richmond would be really excited to. To look at the jobs, the additional emergency preparedness it provides for a transit increase, public access, bay trail upgrades, the sidewalks, lighting and your main street ferry terminal . All all elements that I think are very attractive. In order for us to continue these exciting regional cooperations, we need to we need to be able to take these big steps. And this step will lead to another, which will ultimately lead to another. And in that we can realize a more robust transit network in the Bay Area that serves all the cities and all the residents. And if approved, I would hope that the city council and the city staff will move to. Move this project forward in a expedited manner, because we really do believe that this this could help us all quite a bit. And with that, thank you. Thank you so much for your time. Speaker 5: Thank you for coming tonight all the way from Richmond. Appreciate it. Speaker 0: Marcel. And then Chad, Rick Smalley and then Leslie Cameron. Speaker 2: Good evening, Mayor, and members of the City Council. My name is Preston Dula and I'm speaking on behalf of Marcel. He had to leave early. I'm. I'm a carpenter. And in the union. And my life has been building community improvement projects. I've dedicated my life to that. As well as a long time resident in Alameda. And I'd really like to encourage you guys to promote this project with this project forward. Improve the IMO you and please let's put some residents to work because I'm one of those residents and I really want to support this community and make a better life for my family in this type of projects. That helps me do that. Thank you. Speaker 0: Q. Speaker 2: Good evening, Madam, or Member City Council and Chadwick Smalley, Capital Projects Manager with the City of Richmond. Just to reiterate an Alex Knox message, we're very excited about this project. We understand it's critical to the expansion of the regional transit system that we have operates and we encourage the City Council to approve the lease and more. You we feel strongly that a 30 minute high quality transit ride from Richmond to San Francisco is a deal changer. I mean, it's it's a big it gets folks off the I-80 corridor, which today is is a mess and it can only get worse from here. And so the regional environmental impacts of this project are significant. The environmental benefits of this project are significantly significant to the city of Richmond and the entire region. So we just want to ask for your support and voice. Thank you. Speaker 0: Lastly camera and I'll be Carrie Thompson and then Phil Holt. Speaker 4: Hello, Madam Mayor. Vice Mayor, council members and staff. My name is Leslie Cameron, and along with my husband Alan Cameron, and my business partners, Bill and Vicki Elliott, we own Bay Shipping Yacht Company, a shipyard here in Alameda celebrating 21 years this April. I also serve on the board of directors for the Alameda Chamber of Commerce and the working water waterfront cohort. There are a lot of exciting things happening in Alameda these days in the maritime industry. A new job, opportunities for our youth, and a maritime focused program starting this fall at the College of Alameda. So we are very excited with the prospects of Aida coming to Alameda with their maintenance facility, along with the new jobs and millions of dollars that they will invest right here in Alameda. We wholeheartedly support and welcome them here. But most of all, I'd like to say to all of all of you that I'm confident with your leadership abilities that you'll come to a collaborative solution which will be good for all, including the harbor seals. This is a once in a lifetime opportunity for Alameda. So please go for the win win. And welcome, Rita, here. Thank you so much. Speaker 3: Good evening, Madam Mayor. Speaker 4: City Council members and staff. Speaker 3: My name is Carrie Thompson. Speaker 4: I am a resident as well as a past president. Speaker 3: Of the Chamber of Commerce. And I don't know about you, but I was living here in 1989 in the earthquake. And I really like the idea of having we to here that we would have our own emergency transportation authority here in Alameda. As any of you who were here then do, remember the challenges that it was to get across the bay to San Francisco or to other points. So I do encourage you to approve this project, this MRU. And I also want to remind you that as a business person and we're adding jobs to the local economy. The other thing we're doing is we're we are reducing, hopefully, the traffic congestion that we all are so frustrated at. Speaker 4: Going out through the tube, across all the. Speaker 3: Bridges, and hopefully we can keep those jobs here in. Speaker 4: Alameda. Thank you. Speaker 0: They'll. And Irene Dieter and the Richard Banger. Speaker 4: Madam Mayor. Council members. Speaker 2: Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I urge your strong support for the wider project. Without further encumbering it, I think I. Speaker 3: Bring a balanced. Speaker 2: Perspective. I've been a member of at least a dozen environmental organizations. I'm a member of the Nature Conservancy. People that know my background would understand when I say that some of my best friends are or were seals. Seriously, though, I do have a special affinity for marine life in general. But also found several businesses, one of which was a commercial diving contracting business. I've been involved in shoreline projects like shipping terminals and docks and bridges, etc., from Alaska to New Zealand. And I'm always concerned with trying to minimize negative environmental impacts from these projects and always looking for effective ways to mitigate. And there are always pros and cons to all of these projects. I think the positives, positive benefits of the wider project far outweigh the negatives and the fact that Rita is willing to spend $100,000 for a new seal hauled out. Is more than adequate mitigation for that impact. I urge you to move this project forward and not impose requirements or with further delay it or otherwise further impede its progress. And I just want to end with thanking you all for your service to the city. I know it's a tough job. Speaker 4: Hello, Mayor and council members. First of all, I'd like to thank you so much for actually having the contract in place with WADA. Thanks to Vice Mayor Materazzi for leading the charge on that that we have something in writing. It's definitely a reassurance. And tonight I'm speaking on behalf of the Sierra Club, who has a few concerns with the EMU that we're hoping that you really look at closely before moving it forward. And mainly there are two clauses in there that kind of contradict each other. Section 2.4 says that Waitomo will demolish. Speaker 3: Excuse me. It says that prior to. Speaker 4: Demolishing the harbor seal haul out that they will try to build a new one unless way to have not obtained a permit. Speaker 3: So that means that. Speaker 4: The hall out may get demolished before the fields have a new home. To take that into consideration, please. But what contradicts what's puzzling is in the city right to construct number 3.1. It says that if Wadah is unable to. The inability of waited to to commence construction is solely due to the inability to obtain permits. Then the city will take over the project. Well, if wait a can't get the permits, why will the city be able to get the permits? Why would the city ever want to take that? In my misreading that or something, Marilyn saying no, but that's what it looks like. It says solely due to the inability of wader to obtain all permits. Then the city will take it over. So please. Between number 2.4 and 3.1. If you could look at that, it seems like the 3.1 doesn't need to be there in back to the site selection. It says that the parties shall meet and select a location, a mutually agreed location. And tonight, we've heard that the National Marine Fisheries Service will be the guiding light to that. Unfortunately, sometimes our regulatory agencies also missed the boat. They are the ones who said that the SEALs could haul out on the Rocky breakwater, too, which is doesn't make any sense. They did not do their due diligence in their last paperwork, and many wildlife experts know that. So with that, I'm hoping that the site selection, the tiebreaker to that is the city council itself and that the public actually can weigh in on the site location. Thank you very much. Speaker 0: Richard Banger and then Rachel Campos and Travis Wilson. Speaker 2: Thank you, Mayor. Members of the city council and city staff and to the waiter staff that are here tonight. When I first started following this project a good four years ago, I after wasn't long and I started wondering if it was ever going to happen. But here we are. And after a number of years, I started taking an interest in the harbor seals, and I realized that their their presence there wasn't just an anomaly. Turns out they aren't there year round. So if you go there in October, let's say, or even September, you might only find one or two. But it became apparent to me that it was a regular hall out site. And in fact, last year there was a harbor seal pup that was born there and we found there. So I'm glad that this memorandum of understanding has been finalized. Could there be some improvements in the language? I suppose so. But I think at this point there's a public perception that. A whole lot will be built that is so strong that. Failing to execute is not an option anymore. I think it will happen as far as consulting with different agencies. I mean, it's already been pointed out by Mr. McConnell that there's only anecdotal evidence on constructing a fallout for Pearl Harbor SEALs. So I would just caution against studying this to death. I mean, you know, you could mimic what's already out there, only make it build it to last 30 years, you know, couple of beams and and something that looks more or less like what's out there now and pull it out and anchor it and the SEALs will make their way up onto it. So I would I would caution against studying it to death as far as where it goes. You're you're pretty well constrained by the traffic, the Marine traffic lanes. And so, I mean, obviously, you're not going to put it out in the. Barry Lane. There's a limited number of places you can put it, and I can I can point to where the limited spaces are that you could put it. And one last thing. I, I don't want to. Be managing this, the staff's discussions with Wadah. But I do think it would be important if if you gave direction to the city manager to bring back some sort of report in a couple of months so that at least the community felt engaged in the process. So I don't have a specific proposal, but I would like to have it brought back at some point in the next couple of months and touch base with the public. Thank you. Speaker 3: You mean Mayor Spencer and members of the City Council? My name is Rachel Campos de Ivanov, and I am the Alameda resident. I'm also a huge supporter of the ferry, improving our public transportation infrastructure. And I absolutely love that there are going to be some new union jobs that are out there. But I also really appreciated that you guys on the city council have listened to the public protests and have ensured that there is language that will ensure that we are getting the call out, that we have been jumping up and down and trying to fight for. I completely agree with Irene Dieter and Richard Bangert that there could be some improvements to the language. But I also appreciate that Mr. Mackinaw has, you know, is also listening to the public and is taking action to make sure that those concerns are being heeded. But I also would encourage you guys on the city council to please remain vigilant and provide, you know, accountability that this is constructed within Alameda and that the public is brought back into the process because there are some sensitivities around this particular project and feeling as if it has sort of come in under the radar. And we haven't had the opportunity to have our voice heard until it's a little bit too late. So I would please recommend that that the public, as you know, continue to be a part of the process through the planning board meetings as well as, you know, with the building out of this all out. So thank you. Speaker 2: Thank you. Hi. You might remember I was here a couple of weeks ago in support of this project, and I have changed my mind to. We don't know enough. I know. I know you don't like delays, but that's why we do second readings, right? We might change our minds. Let's pretend. Hear me out on this. Let's pretend I have a measure of public sentiment right here. And it says that Alameda in general, we've done the survey. We figured it out. Alameda think that that piece of coastline down to internal high is, in fact, a natural area worth preserving. It's blank, but we'll pretend. And if you have that, you know, if it's true, then as stewards of our city property, you can't really you can't really approve this. Right? That that piece of property is then worth more than the rent and the commerce we're going to get from it. And you are you are risking it by leasing it. The whole thing we know, as Sara Ellen will tell you, you you can't just take little pieces out of an ecosystem. You're going to threaten the whole thing. It's fun to talk about a seal haul out and and draft language about it. It's something that we can control. We can control that hall out. Right. We have no idea what's going to happen naturally to the nature. I didn't hear any CEOs come here and testify a couple of weeks ago. Right. I mean, the fact is, we don't know. So so we can risk that piece of land or not. And the question then, I think really is, does the public think that that piece of coastline is worth preserving? And we don't know. And it bugs me that we don't know. It bugs me that that we don't have a better way to ask the public that direct question. Right. It's not like it's not the same thing to have hearings in San Francisco and count the number of people who don't show up. That's not the same thing as asking them, do you want to preserve this piece of coastline? And I know that Mr. De Saag, you are so. I feel it. I am also so sensitive. About the number of times you're asked to delay. It happens all the time. This has been going on for a long time and a lot of people have done a lot of work. And I want to know why no one has asked the public this question. I could have been on a ballot by now. I would like to delay until we ask those questions. If not, you're going to guess right. And if you do believe that. People don't value that piece of coastline, then yes, you should leverage that piece of land. And if you believe they do. You have to not do this. And if you don't feel confident in your guess. Please do something tonight that can be reversed later. Thank you. Speaker 0: Bobby Winston and then Terrace Hall. And those are our last two speakers. If you want to speak on this item, please submit your slip. Speaker 2: And a mayor. I'm Bobby Winston. I am the owner of Bay Crossings. I have been involved with Wheatus since the very beginning and Alameda resident and I am just delighted that the prospect of this maintenance facility being here in Alameda, it's a boon for the region. It's a boon for our community. I think you should know that one of the things that figures to be involved with is a thing called the working waterfront cohort, which has been created with the College of Alameda that seeks to do something about the terrible lack of vocational education. This project will be an important part of that. I honor the environmental concerns. I sincerely do. But the bottom line is this is a boon for this community, and it should be welcomed with open arms. So thank you. Speaker 0: Grace Hall and then that choose our last speaker unless there's any more slips. Hey. Good evening. Speaker 4: Madam Mayor and City Council. And I appreciate all of the work you've done on this project, and I'm really in favor of the project, so please understand that right off the bat, one of my. Speaker 3: Concerns is that I am a multi-generational alum. Speaker 4: Maiden, and I haven't. Speaker 0: Been brought up to speed on this. Speaker 4: Uh, on this project. The first I heard about it was at the end of last year, and then all of a sudden it was located down next to the Hornet. That aside, my concern in reading through the piece is, is that it does seem that you fixed the four stories in the lease agreement. That seems to me that it's bypassing our our. Speaker 3: Planning board process. So that was. Speaker 4: One of my first concerns. And if it's part of the lease agreement and. Speaker 3: The city does citizens of. Speaker 4: Alameda decide we do not want a four story building there? Because if you take a look at the rendering, it appears that most of the other buildings in the vicinity are two and 2 to 3 story. And I wasn't even. Speaker 3: Aware of the continued, you know, our plans. Speaker 4: In the future of maintaining all of the maritime activity out there. So that was one. I'm concerned about the planning board process and if we don't meet the four story requirement that we'd be in breach of half of the lease. Another thing I noticed in the lease was the hazmat tanks and that the the safety measures around. Speaker 3: The. Speaker 4: For the fuel tanks. The only stipulation we have is for a double walled tank. Any of the other safety requirements and measures I guess are up to WHITTA and the sole responsibility of the tenant. So that was a concern. And then. Speaker 3: Lastly and of course very, very. Speaker 4: Important to me is the whole seal all out. I am a birder and am just so excited about, you know, our. Speaker 3: Bird sanctuary. Speaker 4: And maintaining the beauty of our coastline through Alameda. It's been it's been a big part of my life since I've been very, very young. So I'd just like to know, is there a measure for a metric for measuring the success of this hall out? We keep talking about this new location, but I think someone mentioned it is what is the metric for success here? Is somebody to talk to the SEALs? Are we going to measure it across one season? Is it, you know? So that was a big question. How are we measuring that success? Speaker 2: Um. Speaker 3: I think that was it. Speaker 4: And thank you for listening. Speaker 0: Thank you. There being no further comment slips. We'll begin with member comments. Member Ashcroft. Speaker 6: May I? Thank you, Mary Spencer. Thank you to everybody who stayed to help inform this discussion. As I sit in, listened to all the comments, first of all, I do think this has been a very collaborative process. And you can see that the council and the staff listened to suggestions about the SEAL fall out. And kudos to Ida for coming up with an MRU that addresses that, not only in my view, but hundred thousand dollars for that effort. What I'm trying to look at is the big picture taking into consideration all of the efforts to bring funding into our city for this project. And it's something that we as a council struggle with all the time. Our budget we're going to be you'll see in the next couple of minutes we're going to be doing budget hearings. There's never enough money for all that we want to do. For years, we've struggled with the former Naval Air Station, closed in 1996. It's 2015. We have some very robust leases, thanks in large part to Mr. and Mrs. Marcano, who helped measure help manage those efforts. But we really should be excited about the efforts to bring funding, federal and state funding to our island for this project that is serving water transit. We are an island. We say that all the time. We're an island. One of the ways that we'll get people on and off the island and not make them go through the tube over a bridge. I'm an island to an already crowded freeway is by water transit. And we want to we need to support that. It's how a growing community that is an island we're reminded of that all the time is going to grow both in an environmentally and community friendly way. And then there's the added benefit of the emergency operations center, the water based emergency operations center that will service in the event that our roadways, bridges, the tube are somehow impacted or impaired in an event like an earthquake and creating maritime jobs. You know, it is a struggle. We never I think we never win this struggle of trying to keep our public informed of all that is going on. But ever since we began talking about the redevelopment of the Naval Air Station, we have talked about preserving its maritime character. We and only a number of other communities, I mean, Oakland and Richmond certainly and in parts of San Francisco have a working waterfront and bay shipyard. I don't know if people really understand if you know, we're the main street ferry terminal is you see their big structure but I went to the opening ceremony when they they introduced this working waterfront cohort in conjunction in partnership with the College of Alameda. But let me tell you a little bit more about the people who are going to be getting jobs as a result of this program. These are the formerly homeless near and dear to my heart. Some of you know, I'm a former probation officer are people who've had a criminal past. But, you know, they're they're out now, but they're looking for a job. As the district attorney of Alameda, Nancy O'Malley, district attorney of Alameda County, happens to be an Alameda resident. She was at that ceremony because she is one who knows that if you don't find people who are down on their luck, who've had brushes with the law jobs or the the formerly homeless are on the verge of being homeless jobs. They're going to get into trouble. They're going to burden the system in so many other ways. But right here in Alameda, in partnership with Bay Shipyard in the College of Alameda, we are doing something about it. We should all be proud of that effort. I'm as concerned about the environment as the next person, and I do appreciate that we have the birders and the SEAL watchers and all of you, and I wish I had more time to be out there, but but I will get out and see them. But bear in mind that one of the things this project is helping pay for is the continuation and the realignment of the Bay Trail around that area and a park. So we'll get people out in a much nicer environment to get out and watch and just recreate in in a park. And I think that we as a council always need to take into consideration all the different competing efforts, interests and weigh the balance and come out with the best possible project. And I, I think that we've worked long and hard on this one. I'm very excited to see this facility come to Alameda. And I appreciate staff and we time in coming to what I think are two excellent agreements that I'm prepared to support. Thank you, Mayor. Speaker 0: Any other member comments? Member, Brody. Speaker 6: Go for it. Speaker 7: Okay. I'll try to be brief. So. Just the takeaways for me on this. This is an exciting project that kind of helps us take advantage of our situation as an island. We can. Also respect our heritage as a maritime center with having a maritime industry here. That's what the properties designated for commercial maritime use. It's perfect use of the property. I'm excited about the jobs. The project labor agreement is also very important to me and I do want to thank Richard and Irene for I know last week, you know, I did the balancing test and I came out with a different balancing test than you did. But I want to thank you for your perseverance on this and making sure that we we have an agreement, we have a written agreement, and we don't have to trust somebody's word. And I appreciate that. And I'm glad that we found a way that we can have a win win. Speaker 0: Minute. Vice Mayor. Speaker 2: Thank you. I think the MCU is good because it puts what was a verbal agreement in writing. It also provides both staff of Weeden and Alameda with the guidelines to go forward. And I owe your attention to 4.1, which talks about. Time is of the essence for the lease. And I think Mr. Mercado hit the nail on the head that time is of the essence in selecting the site, and I would like to have that reported back to the council and not take a couple of months. Use every effort to bring it forward with consultation with the biologists as soon as possible and then as far as the list goes on. It is a judgment of this council based on all as a representative body, based on all the interests that we have for preserving the community and the ecosystem with our best efforts on the float. But we're also bringing jobs to me to point, which is a key priority for me. I think it's a key priority for the city, its first $50 million project, which most of that is a cost of building it. Most of that is labor that goes into it. It pays people jobs, pays people who are working two jobs that allow them to live in the Bay Area. 10,100 new jobs, $2 million worth of infrastructure, housing, parkland, a new water main and Bay Trail realignment. So I'm properly prepared to support both going forward tonight. Again, with time is of the essence as far as getting the provisions of the memo you met. Speaker 0: Everyday. Speaker 5: Thank you. Thank you very much to the members of the public who came out not just tonight but two weeks ago on this matter. This is an important matter, given the magnitude of the jobs and the, uh, just the way that it's positioning Alameda in terms of the regional transit network. It's also important in terms of how we move forward with Alameda Point, not just in terms of affecting the built environment, but also making sure to treat the natural environment correctly. And that natural environment does include wildlife, not just on the old runway, but also in the waters in and around Alameda Point. So we understand the magnitude of this project. Because as a council, you know, we deal with a lot of issues that come before us, not just here in Alameda Point, but throughout the city. And as each and every issue comes before us, city council in conjunction with staff and in conjunction with all the previous commissions and boards . What we are tasked to do, among other things, is to evaluate what threats and risks arise when projects come as well as, you know, what are the opportunities. We have to evaluate the threats and risks thoroughly. And we also have to come up with the right and the best mitigations to threats to the environment if and as they arise. So the question then is, has the city council and has the process leading up to tonight as each of the members exercised basically the term of due diligence? And is there a framework in place, i.e., the lease agreement, as well as a memorandum of agreement, to move forward and to embrace the opportunities that arise, but also protect us against threats and risks should they arise. I think the city staff has put together a proposal that all of us in Alameda should embrace. It is something that moves us forward, not just economically but also environmentally. And I just want to make sure, to reiterate one point that I said last at the last meeting. What I said then was that, you know, this is a city staff and this is a city council that's willing to listen and modify accordingly. And we work well together at within. On this day as as well as we work well with the community, we're not here to just shove things down the throats of people. You know, we're here to get the work of the public done to move us forward as a community. Not just having blinders that just look at jobs and and our economy, as important as that is. But also, we look at the natural environment, do what we can to protect it. So as I indicated as well at the last meeting, okay, if we need to improve how we're going to deal with the harbor seals, then then let us do so. And we've done that. And it's important for me to mention this because I got to say, I mean, we three of us on council here. Council member Odie. Council member as he Ashcraft and myself. I mean, we get really castigated in the press. I mean, the way in which we got castigated in the press, basically calling us people who don't care about the harbor seals. It was incredible. I've never seen something like that. And I've been on the council for a long time. I got to tell you, I've. The way in which we are castigate in the press. It was very, very. Not very happy. But, you know, there are times when, you know, you get good news in the press. So, you know, as council members, you know, you have to balance it. But you've got to understand, members here in the public as well as those watching in the in the in the through the Internet or on television. Now, this is a council and this is a staff that's doing its level best. And we're always open to modifying things, but we're going to move forward. And, you know, if there are questions that people think that there are unknowns, I think that that's a valid question. But I think that question has to be balanced against, well, was there a framework in place that treat unknowns right now as well as treat whatever might happen down the down the path? And I think we do have a framework in place. I think I've read the lease statement, I've read the environmental sections, which is section 12 of the lease. You know what? Can't can unfortunate things happen like in the oil spill. It could happen. Unfortunately, we live in a life where there are threats and risks and threats. But the question is, as a council, have we done our due diligence to be able to deal with those as they arise? I mean, think about it. We're building a new gas station right outside of the Webster Tube coming into town. Now, this is I mean, think about what that means. Think about that. Even setting aside the fact that we're building a gas station, that we have gas stations in town, all cities. Of risks and threats. The question is not simply do we do nothing because there are risks and threats. The question, the real question, I think is are we putting in place the right processes to deal with those as they are as they arise? But at the same time, embracing what opportunities there are with regard to improving our environment or improving. Our our economy. And I think we struck that balance. I want to thank, you know, wheater for making the investment in in the city of Alameda. I want to thank the representatives from Richmond for taking the time to coming out here. But know that we had a facility will be built in Alameda. And I want to end it by this way. I really thought that what Leslie Cameron, owner of Bay Shipping Yard, said was not only great, but I think that alliteration was great when she said win, win and welcome Wieder. Indeed, I think that's what tonight is about. Win, win and welcoming Guido. Speaker 0: So I, i to appreciate the project and the work that's been done to date. However, when I heard at the beginning of this meeting that this issue, that the last public meeting prior to the last council meeting was way back in November 2010. And that was the planning board meeting that there have been no meetings actually reaching out to our community, showing them what we're talking about. We have a project going on right now, a site A, and Joe Ernst has been going around this community with drawings, reaching out multiple places. We haven't had that here. And I agree with the speaker in regards to. Our ecosystem there, the natural area that we haven't heard really from the community. And I appreciate that we have had representations or speakers on behalf of the unions and we leader coming out here and encouraging. And the jobs. But I my concern is that we haven't done our due diligence in regards to reaching out to Alamitos when meetings take place in San Francisco held by WETA. They're not advertised here. I personally am very active in our community, as I know many of our speakers that came tonight who honestly did not know and do not know very much about this. And they have questions and I think they have a right to have their questions answered prior to the approval. That doesn't mean that it would have to. It would it would create a delay for the project. It doesn't mean that after by giving the community an opportunity to weigh in on a project and have meaningful discussions with our community, it doesn't mean that we'd end up necessarily at a different place. It means that our community has an opportunity to hear answers to their questions and concerns. We had a speaker that brought up that the site would be better for a park, that they would have preferred this to go to the estuary. I think the public has a right to know why. Why that location? In regards to the MRU for the SEALs, I have concerns in regards to the location. I'm not sure that it is as simple as just being suggested that you can just build another hall out and the seals will go there, that they'll return. And I also don't know. I think the SEALs are actually the surface of the ecosystem there. And when we have 12 ferries coming in every evening, making noise, being refueled, leaving in the morning, what impact does that have on the habitat? And not just the SEALs, but everything else that's there. I don't think that's been addressed. And we did have a speaker at the prior council meeting speak to protecting concerns about the campground. She had thought about that. We would have that campground as an option in the future. Well, we may have the campground, but it's going to have. 12 ferries coming in every evening and leaving in the morning and who knows what else. Damage to the ecosystem and and and I don't think it's appropriate to have one standard for Joe Ernst to to go around and communicate with the public. And a completely different standard as in the last prior meeting was November 2010. Here we are or a year later. Being asked to approve a project with no other meetings with our community. I think it's a serious problem. I think that we can do better and unfortunately we have. This is city land, by the way. We have very little city land. When a private developer owns land. We we have less input on what will happen there than when it's Alameda land. This is Alameda Ann's land. This is not council's land. This is not Wieters land. They don't own the land. This is the city of Alameda, this land. And that to me is a serious difference. Then I think it's even more incumbent upon council and staff to engage the community in this decision. And so the other issues that were raised in regards to the fuel tanks, the height of the building, the success of the sale out of the hall, out, how will that all be measured? I think those are all questions that the public deserves answers to before the lease is approved. After that, it will be too late, as it was already explained to us earlier. Thank you. We have a motion. Speaker 6: I will move. Man City Council. We need to do it. Speaker 4: And we should do them separately. And you should do the M.O.. You first. Okay. Speaker 6: All right. So I will move that council, authorize the city manager to execute a memorandum of understanding between the city of Alameda and the Water Emergency Transportation Authority regarding the construction of a replacement seal haul out at Alameda Point. Speaker 5: Second. Speaker 0: All those in favor on. Speaker 6: This. Speaker 0: Issue. Speaker 6: As well. You had your hand up. Speaker 2: Yes. I have a friendly amendment, if you would consider it that. A staff brings through the city manager a report on the status of site location. In in a timely fashion so that we have a ability to track the progress. And if it gets out of hand, we know sooner rather than later. Speaker 6: And I would actually say that I don't think that that needs to be an amendment to the memorandum of understanding is in that direction that we give to. Speaker 2: That is where. Speaker 6: We also give staff direction. Okay. That we can do that. Okay. And that we in addition to authorizing city manager to execute the reference memorandum of understanding, we also give staff direction as to what he said. Speaker 2: Report out. May I ask what the maker of the motion. We don't have any. Speaker 6: I'm the maker of the machine. Speaker 2: I'm sorry. Then the amendment person who made the initial proposal regarding time the proposed amendment. Like to be sure that staff has clear direction on a monthly basis. On a monthly basis. I would ask that you not do that. I would ask that you look more at a bi monthly basis. We already have monthly reports on side. We have the budget coming up. The staff is overwhelmed right now with the reports and we just agree to come every two months with this. Speaker 6: And I actually think there was a speaker who suggested that very thing every two months. Speaker 2: So would you? Well, we only have so many people on staff. Understood. Thank you. Okay. Speaker 6: And I know our brilliant city clerk got that all down. Right. Speaker 0: Okay. Another comment. Speaker 5: There's a second. Speaker 0: Russians point. All those in favor. I oppose. I oppose. Speaker 2: Madam Mayor. Oh, you know, I'll make a motion that we accept the recommendation and direct the city manager to execute the lease. Speaker 6: I think it's actually final passage of the ordinance with the second reading. Speaker 7: I'll second the vice mayor's motion. You're not going to make him read the whole thing, are you? Speaker 4: No. It's fine that you're enacting the ordinance. It's fine. Speaker 2: Thank you. Speaker 0: All those in favor. I those I oppose. Speaker 6: The mission. Speaker 2: Pass. Speaker 0: Motion passes. Two one. Speaker 1: Then 60 introduction of ordinance, approving a lease and authorizing the city manager to execute documents necessary to implement the terms of 24 month lease with Advanced Roofing Services. California Corporation for Building 612, located at 1450 Viking Street at Alameda Point.

Regular Agenda Item

Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City of Alameda and the Water Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA) regarding the Construction of a Replacement Seal Haul Out at Alameda Point; and Final Passage of Ordinance Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a 60 Year Lease Agreement and Approve a Temporary Right of Entry Permit with Water Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA) for 0.73 Acres of Undeveloped Upland Real Property and 3.4 Acres of Submerged Lands Located along West Hornet and Ferry Point Streets at Alameda Point. [Requires four affirmative votes] (Base Reuse 819099)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_03172015_2015-1354

Speaker 1: Then 60 introduction of ordinance, approving a lease and authorizing the city manager to execute documents necessary to implement the terms of 24 month lease with Advanced Roofing Services. California Corporation for Building 612, located at 1450 Viking Street at Alameda Point. Speaker 0: Good evening, mayor and city council members. I'm Nanette McConnell. And what you do, i mean to wait for the. Speaker 3: People to. Speaker 6: Leave, maybe it would be more humane. Speaker 2: Actually. Speaker 7: Might we suggest a five minute bathroom reset? Speaker 0: But we'll be taking a recess for 5 minutes. Five minute recess. Speaker 7: Thank you, Madam Mayor. Speaker 0: Take their seats and we're going to resume. Thank you. We are on item six C. Speaker 6: I know. Speaker 0: Okay. Good evening, mayor and council members. I'm Nanette McConnell. Speaker 3: So what. Speaker 0: You have in front of you tonight is at least a renewal for the tenant advanced roofing systems. They've been a tenant at only two points since June of 2013. This is a renewal for just two more years. And I want to first say that I know that the mayor has concerns about lease rates that we have in Alameda Point. And again, I want to reiterate that when we do our budget presentation, we're going to do a presentation, a piece of it about how we set our rental rates so that you can have a better understanding of how we view market and things like that. And really it goes to the public will then have an understanding of why the point there's like how you come up with it. Okay, perfect. This is a 4000 square foot building. We're charging $0.57 per square foot in the first year and it goes up to 58 in the second year. And I hope that you'll be able to support this renewal. Member questions or comments. Speaker 6: We have no speakers. Speaker 3: No speakers. Speaker 0: No speakers slept. So I don't remember. Discussion and comment. Speaker 6: So I'm I mean, I'm prepared to actually make a motion. I see that this is a tenant that has been here for a little while. This is a renewal of their lease. And it's not a long lease. It's 24 months and. I'll make. Speaker 2: A second. Speaker 6: Thank you. I move that. I move. Actually. Introduction of an ordinance approving a lease and authorizing the city manager to execute documents necessary to implement the terms of a 24 month lease with Advanced Roofing Services California Corporation for Building 612, located at 1450 Viking Street in Alameda Point. Speaker 2: I second in that. Speaker 0: Any questions or comments by counsel. Speaker 2: I'd just one comment if I could request in the future that as we have these leases come forward, if it's possible, can we get the number of employees that are attached to each of these? Sure. I think that's important to start building that inventory, especially if there's room for growth. I think it'd be interesting. Maybe pursue a tenant option to buy. Speaker 0: Certainly I do. And I have a question as to the 24 months. Is there a reason why are we only doing two year releases now? No, I, I believe if this building is in a location where we want to have some flexibility about either future development, and so we just do a shorter term lease with them unless it's a use it's a storage storage for roofing materials. And if if we get it, if it becomes a zone where there's a lot of tenant activity, mixed uses, we have some flexibility to attract like, like part of our, our asset management strategy is to develop sort of, I guess clusters isn't the word. Speaker 3: That you use anymore but cluster. Speaker 0: Industry. So we have, you know, our. Speaker 3: Spirits. Speaker 0: Alley, we have makers, we have we're trying to develop clusters. So having a shorter term lease with a tenant that may not be the type of tenant that we want to have in our long term mix gives us flexibility. So it sounds like it's two years at the request of city as opposed to the tenant. Yes. Other questions or comments. Speaker 6: And my only other comment is I'm having worked with Miss Marcano for a while now. I know that she's very creative at finding other homes for tenants that, you know, this may no longer be the optimal location, the highest and best use of that area, but she knows her inventory and often finds them someplace else to light . So. Okay. And we have the most. Speaker 0: All those in favor. Speaker 2: I. Speaker 0: I thank you. Passes unanimously. Thank you. Thank you. 60 was full by staff. So now we're on 60.

Regular Agenda Item

Introduction of Ordinance Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a 24 Month Lease with Advanced Roofing Services, a California Corporation, for Building 612 located at 1450 Viking Street at Alameda Point. (Base Reuse 819099) [Requires four affirmative votes]

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_03172015_2015-1414

Speaker 0: Thank you, Staff. Right. So now we're on six F. Speaker 1: Recommendation to direct staff to establish a process for recruitment of a new manager. Speaker 3: Good evening, mayor and council members. I'm Stephanie Geller, Brant Sierra, your administrative services director. I'm here today to discuss with you the process and timeline for selecting a new city manager. And staff is seeking some direction on how to move forward at this point. I believe you've seen the report that talks about the general timeline that we're looking at. And I think the some of the major questions that we need to. Some guidance on at this point is the where we go forward in terms of the recruitment. We have two avenues which to choose. One is to do an internal recruitment. The second is to go outside with a recruitment firm. In my experience, when you're hiring someone at the level of a city manager, it is typical to use an outside recruitment firm. They are the folks who are out there with their fingers on the pulse of who's who's available in the city manager, land and city staff. Really, we don't have that information. They will also put out the full color brochures. They know what the trends are and this is what staff is actually recommending at this point. I'm here for any questions on the report or the timeline. Speaker 5: Member Daisuke. The question I have and I sent it earlier to the city manager because I seen it recently, one city they've put out to bid the the service to define city managers. For example, in your staff report, you've identified a whole number of potential human resources agencies. I think in the past, I think we just kind of selected one I can't remember generally. Speaker 3: Well, we've done both internally and we have selected firms based on you know, I called around to find out basically what they're charging and who's available. And one thing I have found is that some firms are very busy right now. And so it's going to be depending on who's available and who people, you know, say that they, you know, are available to do a city manager recruitment, the city of Alameda, because that's a big recruitment. Speaker 5: So let me just the question I have is and I'm not locked into any position, it's just a question that I want to make sure to put out there. You know, what thoughts have you given to putting out to bid? Yeah. Who who we select. Speaker 3: Well, in terms of bidding process, and it's a good question, this isn't the kind of thing that normally goes out to bid. Number one, the cost level is quite low. We don't usually put out things to bid until unless they're at a higher price point. And this is also a type of professional service where the cost is, is they're all pretty much charging the same. It's really a matter of who we like the most. And because it's a matter of quality, we can do that without going out to bid. I can simply just call people and find out who's available, who's good, who I like, who puts out, you know, good brochures, who I know does the job. Because we've all been out there and we've been recruited personally and we know who who's the kind of what firms will send out those letters to all those aspiring city managers or experienced city managers. So it's actually easier for us to simply do that legwork without going through a formal bidding process. A formal bidding process would also extend the timeline for another probably two months. All right. Thank you. Okay. Speaker 0: There are no speaker soaps. Correct. Member. Speaker 6: Ashcroft Thank you. And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your report. And I agree with staff that this is a major recruitment for our city. We are facing some very big decisions and projects right now. I also happen to know that H.R. is up to their ears in H.R. work. And so I think and I know just from talking to colleagues in other jurisdictions that there are a number of very good search firms out there to choose from. And I think that this will and of course, if we go this route, the private search firm is going to work with our H.R. department. So we certainly tailor the kinds of communications that are sent out. But I know that these firms have, for instance, very extensive databases and and contacts, and they can cast their net wider than I think we would be able to do from here. So I am very pleased that we've selected a very competent interim city manager for the time being, but it's still one of our major tasks that this council needs to take on and soon. So I would follow staff's recommendation there. Thank you. Speaker 0: Are there any other member comments? Speaker 7: Brody I have a slightly different take on it. I guess. Councilmember Ashcraft is correct this is probably the most important decision will make and. I don't want us to rush into this. And I still believe, like a lot of people here, we are a unique city. I mean, we have our unique challenges with the base conversion and with our position as an island and traffic and egress and. And such. And. I guess my worry is that, you know, we're going to get a cookie cutter city manager because that's kind of what the search terms go out. And we didn't get a cookie cutter last time. And we were blessed that we we had him for the time that that he was here. Wish it was longer, but it is what it is. So, I mean, I'm wondering. Is it? I like the idea of interviewing the potential search firms and kind of talking to them and seeing how they'll understand Almeida's culture and, you know, our specific issues. And because I don't really want to have a cookie cutter search for this. And even if it's two months and we get the budget and all this going on, but, you know, this this is our mark on the city. You know, all all of us. Well, it's going to be our. Our city manager. Speaker 3: Well, let me speak to that just a little. Once a for us, if we select a search firm and I'm if our department so recommends a firm, what would happen? The next step in the process is that they would go and then come to you and get guidance on what you are looking for. And they would actually have a process in open session where you would talk about your candidate profile, what you're looking for. And that's what they do. They are in the business of doing that, communicating with the governing body and with staff to find out exactly what you need. And so. Speaker 4: I don't if they. Speaker 3: Were just going to get a cookie cutter city manager, I don't think they'd be in business long because their job is to heed to the wishes of the folks who hire them. So I think that that's going to be taken care of in the process. If you go out to like a bid process, frankly, that's not normally done. And I'm not sure who would respond. I'm not sure that you would actually get people responding to it and then coming for a question and answer session. And then because of the nature of the public process, you would actually have to do the interviews in public. That would be an interesting procedure. I've never seen that done. Speaker 0: I swear. Speaker 2: Let me ask a question. When we hired the finance director, did we use a search firm? Speaker 4: We did not. Speaker 2: Did we? Speaker 3: No. Yes, we did. Yes, we did. We did. Speaker 2: And what about the assistant city managers? We did not. City managers. Is there anything that would prevent you as the head of h.r. In dealing with a search firm would do. Speaker 3: As I explained before, I think the major challenge that we would have as an h.r. Department is in the. Speaker 4: Outreach and. Speaker 3: In the database. I don't have a database of city managers. I can't pick up the phone and ask people if they're interested in coming to work for the city of alameda. We do civil service processes. We do a whole different type of recruitment. When you're talking about executive recruitment. You're calling on a firm that have these people on the line. They've been talking them for years, and usually they know exactly who's looking. They know exactly the kind of person who would want to come into a city of Alameda and they're going to use their networking capabilities. You know, when there's an opening, you know, I'll get calls or letters and because they'll know who to target. Speaker 4: And I can't do that. And we really want that capability. Speaker 0: Four days ago. Speaker 5: What thought have you? Let me say two things. The first thing is, you know, the question that council member Jim Odey raised was a great question. But by the same token, I thought the response by city staff person was a great response as well. So there was a great. Perry interesting there. I wanted to note that. The second point I want to raise is. So what thoughts have you given the you the the search firm working with a committee not of council members but of should we so decide community members. Is that is that would that happen within the framework of the decision? Speaker 3: Absolute. Well, not in this decision. What typically happens is in the process of selecting a city manager first, you know, they'll go out, they'll beat the bushes, they'll get all the letters of interest and the resumes and all that. And they'll come forth with it with a big pile of folks, and then they'll do an initial screening to really figure out who are the most qualified candidates with the the candidates who are the most qualified. Then you're going to be able to pick panels and do panel interviews. And those are your community members, your executive management, and you can pick whatever panels you want to really screen these folks into to going forward in the process and sifting out exactly who you want. But what a search firm will do is they'll put out the pretty brochure after getting guidance from you and what you're really looking for. And then they're going to beat the bushes and they're going to get, you know, 150 applications probably. And then they're going to go through them and they're going to, you know, they're going to vet them. And we really rely on these kind of that kind of professional vetting and they'll, you know, make the phone calls. Speaker 0: Sorry to interrupt. Sorry. At 11 p.m.. Okay. We have a motion to continue past 11. Speaker 7: I moved to you. Them. Speaker 0: All of them favor. I passes unanimously. Thank you. Speaker 3: And just continue. And then once he gets into the panel interview stage, that's when staff really helps the firm quite a bit because we're going to help put together those panels and we're going to be scheduling them and then we're going to get all this public input and then it gets really sifted down into who you really , really are looking at based on the scores. And this is just a matter of like a winnowing that that big pool into a smaller pool. And for the initial stages, that's what an executive search firm is so good at. Speaker 0: So I'd like to speak real quick. I agree with member Otis comments in regards to how important this is as a council that that we know how important a decision it is. And my most recent experience on the school board was when, when our prior superintendent was brought in, it was, we used to search firm, but most recently we we did it internally. And I personally like the internal process and then then council really does own it. But we but my experience has been you work with H.R. to craft what you're looking for specifically. But then nowadays with social media, it gets out there and and times have changed, I think. And it allows, you know, anyone that is interested to respond when it's posted publicly like that. And then it comes. And what we did on the school board is we set minimum requirements. And if every candidate that met the minimum requirements that we as a board decided that we got to read the the resumes, cover letters and decide who we wanted to then interview, as opposed to leaving it to a search firm to narrow it down for us. And personally. I agree. It is one of the most important decisions that will be made. And I would like I would prefer that we do it internally and then have a council of as much say, you know, where we decide who we're going to interview from the entire pool of resumes that meet the minimum requirements that we decide are important but that we work as the Council. Speaker 4: Is just. Speaker 3: Hearing your comments as an alternative idea. Keep in mind that you can also ask a firm. They can do the brochures. Speaker 4: And the outreach. Speaker 3: And then you can ask to look at everything that's submitted. I mean, you can still do that. I think it's the the outreach that we just don't have the internal capabilities for. And in terms of setting the amcu's interest or the minimum qualifications. Again, sifting through 100 resumes, again, our staff is really, really. Booked up right now. And so I'm not sure that we're going to be able. Speaker 0: To so personally then I would be interested in someone that does this really as little as possible. I really think that they can they can decide where they're going to post. I mean, with our input, we can help come up with ideas of where to post. And that is very easy nowadays with social media and the internet and people I think really do know. Executives know where to look. But then I would want to hire someone that does as little as possible. We come up with the minimum requirements as opposed to having someone that really is owning it. That's my concern. Yes. Speaker 2: Member, I. Speaker 7: Guess to kind of maybe add to that and see if those concerns could be alleviated. Is is the proposal that you would just go out if we said, we want you to hire somebody, we don't care who it is. Then you would just go off and do it. I mean, could we say. Pick somebody and bring them back here and let's talk to them. And if we don't like them, I know it's still kind of the interview process, but I'd really like to really to meet the person who's going to be doing the search for us and ask them questions and have them hear from us what we're looking for and have them hear from the public, you know, so they can get a flavor of of our culture and our city. And if that doesn't work well. We could decide, well, maybe we want to go with it. You know, go back to you and say, okay, bring back a different search firm. Or we could say. Okay. We don't like the search firm idea now that we've heard it in more detail. We want to go internal or just have them do, as the mayor suggested, the minimal amount of of work. And then we can do the. I don't know. I just. I'm a little uncomfortable just saying, go off, pick somebody and then we'll hear from you in however many months it is when there's a, you know, a list of finalists. Speaker 3: Wouldn't work that way. Again, the the process would be is we'd get into go into a contract with a search firm, and then they would immediately come back and then engage in discussions with you on your candidate profile and find out exactly what you're looking for, how much involvement you want to have. And then it would be a very much of a one on one relationship with them. And you know what you need. Speaker 7: I guess the weight of this responsibility is is heavy in on this. So but I appreciate I just worry that we're going to do it. I want to make sure we do it right. Speaker 6: Anderson Madumere. Speaker 0: Rascoff. Speaker 6: At the same time, I first of all, I think we need to heed staff saying that they don't have the wherewithal and the the capability of doing this search. I think we would be selling ourselves short if we simply relied on social media. I think there's some really competent firms out there, and I think we'll see that when we do look at maybe a couple of them, but once we select them and you know, let's cross that bridge when we come to it. But the idea that we have them do as little as possible. I mean, let's get the our money's worth out of the contract that we enter into. We can always make our decision. And I, I do appreciate the that the mayor came from the school board. The city is not the school board in. And I think the school board chose an excellent superintendent and he'd worked there before because I met him when he was the assistant superintendent. So, you know, whether social media was a major factor, I don't know. But I think that this is an opportunity for us to see just what's out there and to, you know, find out what we might not even know about what the potential is. And, you know, at the end of the day, we want to do what's best for the city. Speaker 2: Okay. Speaker 0: Member de soccer. Speaker 5: I'll just say quickly. I think our city staff, Stephanie Sierra, has outlined a process for me at least. She's answered questions that I had. I think her main value proposition proposition tonight, what I'm hearing is that you need a search firm because of their professional capabilities, which go a long way in attracting the right set of candidates . With regard to professional capabilities, what that means is the glossiness of your brochure, the wording that you use, the the channels through which you deliver your marketing materials, including the various social media outlets readily available to us. By the same token, maybe there are some social media outlets that we're not very well aware of. So I think the core proposition you're making about going with a professional in my from my vantage point, I buy into and also the way in which you outline it that. Once you're working with a professional service, that it's flexible in terms of how you engage the city council as well as the communities. I hear that as well. So thank you. Speaker 0: I swear. Speaker 2: I agree with the comments that I don't want. This Council will lose the opportunity to vet all the applicants. I think it's very important. The. We understand that. And I think in front of that, I think it's very important that we have established some parameters of what we want and whether glossy brochures should the way people. Or looking for jobs. Still look for jobs. I, I have a hard time in, in today's state, so I don't know that we need the the 20,000 plus. Firm, and I'm the only reason I'm considering having a professional help is that from your statement, as you don't have enough people to execute this, even if you felt confident that you could go to the League of California Cities newsletter or wherever you these things are posted these days and and do it in a timely manner so that we can get some recruits in here to interview. Speaker 5: I was only saying glossiness as an illustration. Speaker 2: But I keep hearing brochures. I don't know that nobody uses brochures anymore, but. Speaker 3: Oh, absolutely. It's it's it's very much. Speaker 2: But I think to use brochures having gone through the process. Speaker 6: Did Riverside have a nice one? Speaker 2: But I do. I think where I'm adamant is that I don't want them screening the applicant for us. I think it's very important that we get a shot at looking at whether it's a subcommittee or whether our council that we do the sifting and we do it against the criteria that. Also can share. And then the individual criteria that we have as as council members on our own, because we all have to work with each other and we all have to the person will have the pleasure of reporting to all of us. Speaker 0: So in regards to choosing the firm I have, I would like to have more than one meet with us so that maybe two, maybe three that we get to choose who it is. I'm concerned if only one firm comes and talks to us and then we just take that one. And in regards to a color brochure, I actually I don't know if they mail them out to possible applicants. I don't really think it's necessary. I think really you can post anything nowadays and it gets distributed in regards to and I agree with Vice Mayor that we should be determining, seeing, seeing the applications. I think that's very important. And in regards to if we're going to have a subcommittee, actually, but I would not support that. I would think all of us would want to be involved in this decision. Unless someone does not want to be there, that's up to them. I personally would think that, you know, if we all want to be should we should all be included. And Member De SA. Speaker 5: One final question for now. Now, when we went about hiring at the time, Debbie Kurita as the city manager, I think this was in 2004. I can't remember. We as a council also went down to the day of Santa Ana. Does the budget contemplate those, those or any related kind of costs that are kind of. Different. And then perhaps, uh. Considered. Speaker 3: I'm sorry. I don't understand why you went to Santa. Speaker 5: Oh, we went to go and interview people who. Worked with Debbie Kurita on the front. I mean, we went down to meet community members in Santa Ana, right? Mm hmm. Yeah. So I thought it was very helpful. I just need to know. I mean. Speaker 4: Well. Speaker 0: Could I just remember? Speaker 7: I'm still struggling with this because it's kind of a big decision. Yeah, I think the mayor could speak for herself, but I didn't interpret her comment about social media to say we would advertise on social media. I think her comment was people will know about this because of social media. And yet we didn't use a search from last time and we got lucky and we were really blessed. The school board is maybe the school board, but it didn't use a search firm. For the current one. And I think everyone thinks he's amazing and the perfect fit for that job. And there was not that agreement with the previous superintendent who was selected by a search firm. So. I'd really like to hear from one of these or two of these or three of these. If you think it only needs to be one, I guess I could go with one. I prefer more. But if they don't want to do a dog and pony show, then maybe, maybe we don't want to hire them. But I'd like to hear from them and just see what they have to offer before making the commitment that we're going to go with a search firm or that particular search firm. But. I may be in the minority there and may be outvoted, but that's just my hunch. Speaker 0: So in regards to members comments, can I hear from the other members if they would be agreeable to having more than one firm? That's what you're saying. Members of your your your group there. Okay. Member Ashcroft. Speaker 6: I'm. I think that I. You know, I think there's more than one good firm out there. I think Mr. Garbrandt is extremely capable. If, you know, why don't we let her go out and beat the bushes and see what she finds out? But yeah, we could we could certainly consider more than one if you can do it in a timely fashion. Speaker 3: What I would propose is we maybe a. As for me, I saw this week agenda as a meeting where if I can get two or three folks to come up and talk about their experience, I can try and do that. And if I can't, I'll let you know. But I'll put out my feelers and I'll say, Hey, in this council meeting, this item will be agenda ized. I'm not sure if they'll want to be paid for their time or not. But we can see who's available to do that, I think. I think that there are some of them are in our base in Sacramento, actually, most of them are based in Sacramento, though, come to think of it, it may be difficult for them to come to an evening meeting and they might want to be compensated, but. Speaker 2: That might be fine. Speaker 0: Did you want to make a comment and attitude? Speaker 7: Maybe I don't. Speaker 6: So are we. And remind me, what were you just looking for? A recommendation from staff. So. Speaker 3: Well, some. Some direction. And tell me which direction you need me to go. And that's fine. I can. What I can do is I can call some search firms and find out whether they're amenable to coming to a council meeting and discussing a little bit about their process so you can feel more comfortable about them, kind of look them in the eyes and all that good stuff. And I can see how successful I am doing that. Speaker 0: I think. And then as assistant city manager, former deputy. Speaker 3: One of them. Thank you, Madam Mayor. So I think I know, for example, of one particular firm who's in Southern California who's excellent. In fact, we tried to use her for our finance director position and she was completely booked. I'm on an h.r. LISTSERV and so i get a lot of traffic about who are good, you know, good folks to use. My only concern about the about what Mr. Trauger Brant has. I'm sorry. Your Brent's here just like sorry to call you Stephanie is that you might exclude people who are not local and then that just I mean it maybe that's okay with you. But I know, for example, that this one in particular is an excellent firm and they are from Southern California. And so you might by requiring them to show up, you might exclude them from your possible list of folks. Speaker 2: Uh. And Brody, you. Speaker 7: Know, I mean, if if he can't buy an airplane ticket from L.A. to. San Francisco or Oakland to make a presentation to get a 20 or $28,000 bid mean. No, no. I mean, that's kind of how it works. You, you know, go out and. I don't know. That's just my thing. Speaker 6: So my take on it is it's, you know, we've got still one more item. So is that we've agreed that we're going to go with an outside search for Miss Garrabrants. Sierra is going to contact a couple of them and see about getting them here for presentation. I don't think it's productive to make judgments about what they will and won't respond because we haven't even contacted them yet. But I think I think we'll know more when we know more when we hear back. But I think this is a good first step to take in. So and just so I understand, we're not talking about a special meeting, just an agenda item on. Speaker 3: The agenda item. Speaker 6: Yeah. Thank you. Speaker 3: And and hopefully it would be early so they could just come and right on. Speaker 7: If you get, if you ask eight people and none of them say, you know, I'm not going to do that. Then we'll know. And maybe then we'll know that we we have to give you direction to pick one and just bring one back. I don't know. I just. I want to close, just like the mayor and the vice mayor want to see every applicant. You know, I don't want to close off any doors on how we do the selection. Too soon. That's all. Speaker 0: And then in regards to a subcommittee of council, we want to give her feedback at this point. Speaker 7: I don't think we're going to be able to agree on who that is. Speaker 0: So so I think we're in agreement that we would all want to be included in the process. Were there any other issues that you had wanted? Feedback? No. Speaker 3: That gives me some direction on how to move forward. Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Thank you. Speaker 2: Thank you. Speaker 0: And then. I am seven. Speaker 1: He manager, hasn't he?

Regular Agenda Item

Recommendation to Direct Staff to Establish a Process for Recruitment of a New City Manager. (City Manager 2210)

AlamedaCC

AlamedaCC_03172015_2015-1423

Speaker 1: Nine is considering establishing the Economic Development Commission for the City of Alameda. This item was placed on the agenda at the request of Councilmember Mandarin. Speaker 0: So would you like to start? Speaker 2: Vice Mayor Thank you very much. This is the continuation of the referral or the the resubmission of the referral that was provided on January 20th at the meeting. And it remains that I'm requesting that this Council consider directing the city manager and the city attorney to take steps to reestablish the Economic Development Commission for the city of Alameda for the purposes of recommending policies and plans, particularly for bringing businesses to Alameda and or replacing jobs that were lost when the Navy left, Alameda point to work with current businesses and business associations to attract and retain businesses here in Alameda. Also to provide ways to coordinate with regional efforts to grow our local economy here and our. Commercial tax base as opposed to our residential tax base and to perform other economic development activities at the direction of the city council. And just because I know there were some criticism as put before the Economic Development Commission was disbanded that it wasn't doing anything. I think the City Council has the opportunity to give it direction in updating our strategic plan for economic development, which I think is even more important with the demise of of redevelopment, a tool that the city had and also to capture the successor. I think there's a couple of bills that the governor signed in October. AB 229 and. It's something Senate Bill 658 both had infrastructure bond funding mechanisms that could be used to spur economic development. But the review, the sifting and the analysis of those, I think would get a public hearing as well as another view before those things or our recommendations come to the city council. And also there are regional efforts, and I know there were regional efforts, a green corridor, for example, that was back in 2009, ten of the cities along 8880. Looking out, how do we take advantage of new technologies and cluster them around this particular corridor? And I think those were tests that an economic development commission could carry some weight for the city and bring a recommendation to the council. Also give a a system that is answerable to this council, and it's a system that provides a public input into the formation of recommendations that will eventually come to us for policy. Speaker 0: Member. Speaker 6: Ashcroft Thank you, Mayor Spencer. So I read this over for the last time it was on this agenda. And the couple notes and I made is that with regard to these tasks and objectives, I think we as a council need to ask which of these tasks and objectives staff is already pursuing and can they be accomplished through city council direction to staff rather than creation of a commission that a previous council decided to eliminate in an effort to streamline due to staff reductions? And I'm not saying I really haven't made up my mind. I want to hear my colleagues, but I do think we don't want to be redundant. We don't want to reinvent the wheel. And I remember, you know, when we drastically cut staff. Bear in mind, because he's now announced it. Our other assistant city manager, Alex Nguyen, is also leaving at the end of April. And Mr. Nguyen now is the staff liaison to many of our boards and commissions. So timing wise, might we want to think about if we were to go forward with this proposal, to wait until we at least have somebody, at least in the interim, filling that position or maybe have been hired to fill that position permanently. That's just a logistical consideration. I think that we also need to look at what sectors of our business community do we need to emphasize more and would we like to grow more? Because, you know, from Alameda Point to the Harbor Bay Business Parkway and and, you know, Marina Village Business Park in between, we have a lot of different kinds of companies. Maybe we do have some imbalance somewhere. Is it the Economic Development Commission or would it be staff? Were the two entities working together who might determine what we want to what sectors we want to pursue more? I know we have attracted a lot of new businesses here just by word of mouth. Recently, actually, the mayor and I attended a sit down, kind of meet and greet with the folks at Sila Nanotechnology, which is part of Alameda landing there on the Mariners Square Loop and just kind of behind the the tube almost. And they're thrilled, by the way, that there's Safeway and Target and all that there. But these are all these young, bright Stanford grads who actually were back in Atlanta, Georgia, and then they wanted to come back to the Silicon Valley, but they found they couldn't afford it. And besides which they didn't find there, the folks they had in Georgia didn't find the Silicon Valley as welcoming as they were used to in Atlanta. So they started a search. They were using a broker, but they actually told us that they referred to Alameda as the Zappos of cities. And if any of you have done your online ordering from Zappos, you know, they're just they're known for their stellar customer service and, you know, prompt delivery and all. And they said they gave us the example that their broker contacted a number of cities. Gerald Dunn got that call and he immediately said, I've got a meeting or I've got five people we need to talk to. And it was like all the relevant department heads. And they said, as compared to these other cities where the first meeting there was one person there and the second there was two. By the third meeting, maybe they were talking to everybody they needed to talk to. But Alameda did it all at one time and they said that's where we want to be. A good percentage of their people use me these young techies and so this probably means I'm talking to much of our living in Alameda and they're also I got a nice email to thank the present CEO for hosting us. And he emailed back and said, Oh, we're thrilled to be here. And we're telling all of our colleagues and friends to to come here, too. So we definitely want to capitalize on that. But I'd say, you know, economic development, community development is doing a good job already. Could we help them do better? Perhaps timing is somewhat of a concern. And I did want to ask vice mayor on page one of your your council referral, there is this reference that to consider reestablishing the Economic Development Commission in order to and then there's some subparagraphs. So under subparagraph C research and provide recommendations to the City Council on funding city sponsored redevelopment projects. Can you help us understand what. That means. Speaker 2: And I was referring to the two Senate bills and a vehicle for that. This recent letter and our equity, our ability to raise equity in land is now ours point. As infrastructure goes, it is one of the things that occurred to me is we have a brand new water main courtesy of Witter that's going to run from the Wheeler facility to Pacific. So to me that means there's opportunity there. We could put other utilities if we stretch a little bit, see if we can put the other utilities in the ground at the same time there. And suddenly the properties and that's right through site B, suddenly the properties don't have the the burden of not having reliable water. And if we put same time to earth, we put at the same time from whatever capital reserves, aluminum, municipal powerhouse, we put new power there. Then those pads, those commercial pads then are worth more than they're worth now. And we own the land that will be industrial. And that's the kind of activity that I think an economic development commission could look and analyze. At these different pieces that are coming at us as part of a strategic plan. We have a strategic plan somewhere. It's on the shelf. I know if it's ever been renewed. But I want to remind people that strategic plan was put in place in 2000 and we actually executed quite a bit of it, not the least being the theater in the parking garage on Park Street, because that was in the original strategic plan document. So I think that's the kind of of practice that I'd like to be able to. To emulate. Using whatever tools we have today. And right now, we've got land that has a level of value that's pretty low. But each time we well, with this wheat project, there's going to be an increase in value around it. And we need to figure out how to capitalize that from an economic development standpoint. Speaker 0: And Brody. Speaker 7: You met a married man. I can ask maybe the vice mayor through the. Speaker 2: Chair. Speaker 7: Beside grants used to be part of Economic Development Commission. Speaker 2: That's absolutely right. Speaker 7: And how was that done now? Do we have that program still or. Speaker 2: Which grant. Speaker 7: Assignments? Somebody asked me about this earlier this week. So. Speaker 3: So a good evening. A nice tie in between the budget discussion and the facade improvement program. The department will actually be coming back as part of the budget process, proposing that we relaunch the facade improvement program in the next fiscal the next two year budget cycle. So that is a program that did go away with the demise of redevelopment. And we would like to access some of the boomerang funds to to bring back that program. Speaker 7: And the question through the chair to the vice mayor, I mean, is that is that something that you think that this new reconstituted EDC would be responsible for. Speaker 2: Or Park and Webster Street? It was part of the charge of the Economic Development Commission to provide input in that. And it was one of the most successful programs that we had on the streets. I think those small programs as well as the larger programs. And B can be put on the table of this commission. There, Mr. Doan apparently is hired for economic development. So I think there's a there's a synergy there with staff and and a body that can and help do some of the work that's intermediate between staff people and and the city council. And a lot of it depends on city council giving good direction. Speaker 7: And for example, we decided we wanted to pursue a fiber loop. At the point. It just kind of a. Big ticket idea. But is that something that, you know, through your your suggestions about the infrastructure development? And is that something. Speaker 2: I see that as a key economic development question because again, it raises value to land that we own. Speaker 7: Just as my comment I when we brought this up the first time, I was very supportive of it and the Council had asked the Vice Mayor to go back and come up with specific tasks that the new reconstituted EDC could do. And, you know, I'm pretty impressed by the list that that he put together. That's even more than I expected when we first discussed this. So I think this merits. I think this merits moving on this moving it. Speaker 0: Four days ago. Speaker 5: A thank you. That crosses my mind is months ago or so we had established what we call the Mayors Economic Development Committee and. I'm not sure if we've given it time to do it. Do what it needs. Do its tasks. That's really the thought that crossed my mind. I think there is a lot of attention in the media in terms of business interaction, working with city staff, doing the legwork and then bringing in the ask force as a kind of a closer of sorts. And frankly, I think the story of. Speaker 2: Oh. Speaker 5: We. All right. Speaker 2: Right, right. Speaker 5: Speed, in a way, is emblematic of that, given that the owner of that business bumped into an alum even when he was at a at a conference or workshop in Healdsburg. I remember this story to me. That's kind of what all of the task forces used. Person. Human contacts that they have. Recognizing that, you know, task force is going to do legwork. That's that's going to fall on staff. So that was something that we. Um, certainly I think best in 2014, and I'm not sure that it's been given. 2013. 2014. I'm not sure it's been given time to to attempt to reach its potential yet. So that's the thought that crosses my. Speaker 2: Amir have spot. Do what I said. Just just a question. My understanding and this is my information is that the task force was never seated and never met. Correct. Speaker 3: So the city council in October of 2013 voted to adopt an ordinance disbanding the EDC and voted to look to a different format for undertaking these same kinds of activities that have been outlined by the Vice Mayor via a Mayor's Task Force for Economic Development. And the idea was to really look at a structure that would be more flexible and more nimble than kind of the more traditional economic development commission. A lot of the activities that have been identified about business attraction, retention, expansion are confidential. When they start out, they need to be kept confidential and the ability to work with high level representatives of the business community in a confidential nature and then bring the project forward to the public with. You know, receptions and press conferences and that kind of thing was one of the focuses of of a group that where you could rely on individual members of that committee to help us reach out and kind of leverage our resources with the specialized sectors that we've identified as being important to Alameda and really creating ambassadors who would work with us on a more one on one and more flexible basis. And so that is the structure that we were proposing in 2013, and that is the structure that staff is recommending that we continue to work with and put in place. Speaker 0: So I'd like to speak to that. Speaker 6: Could I ask a question of your comment? Speaker 3: Yes. And so one more thing and one more point just that might help inform the discussion is that we do have scheduled a presentation on April 7th about our economic development division, which incidentally, is the exact one year anniversary of Darryl's hire date. And he we're proposing to present to you what we've been doing with the division over the last 12 months, and that that may give you more information to inform the decision about moving forward with the more traditional commission as it was composed. Prior to 2013 or looking at the more sort of what we think is the more kind of structure that reflects the best practices of undertaking economic development and business recruitment, attraction and retention activities. Speaker 0: ASHCROFT? Speaker 6: You know, I was going to say, I thought there had been an agenda item, maybe the last meeting or so, that very presentation. And I was just asked I was going to ask if that had been scheduled to come back. So it's our PowerPoint. Speaker 3: Is in legislator and going through the internal review process and will be coming coming to a council meeting soon. It's scheduled for April 7th. So that's your next meeting. Speaker 0: So I'd like to ask the question in regards to these tasks that the Vice Mayor has laid out. Are some of these how would staff propose? If we if we continue on the path of having the mayor's economic development committee, then how how are these tasks addressed? Speaker 3: Well, the issues that have been identified are the initiatives that have been identified, I think are a combination of high level policy issues, for example, the enhanced infrastructure of district financing. That is a high level policy issue where you might want an analysis and input from folks who are familiar with it, with financing and former redevelopment legislation to advise the council. Some issues are more operational about, you know, how we would implement the facade improvement program that is more of an operational issue where we might not you know, we might not come to council, we may, you know, get authorization for the program. And then staff would come up with with the implementation procedures for that. We we would be we are going to be proposing as part of the budget cycle to update the 2008 Economic Development Strategic Plan. That is a key initiative that we would definitely look to reaching out to the business community for input on the strategic plan and coming back to council for input and feedback and ultimately approval of an updated strategic plan. So there are a number of important initiatives that I think you might benefit from hearing from the economic development manager about how we're currently implementing a number of these strategies. We're undertaking focus groups with representatives of some of our key sectors. We're going to be starting with the maritime industry and we're looking at the hospitality industry. So these are focus groups that we're as we as staff are moving forward with now to solicit input and information that can then be used to inform our policy recommendations to the Council. So we would see the economic development panel, the mayors panel, as I like to think of it, as kind of leveraging staff resources and allowing access to some of the key business folks in the city of Alameda, some of our key sectors and experts on some of these key topics like infrastructure financing, how to add value to city owned property. And we could reach out and we we leverage the work of staff that way. Speaker 0: So. So in regards to that, for me personally, this is a committee that was started back in 2013, apparently, and of October 2013. It's something that I those this is something I and staff have been working on talking to businesses and I think it is. So I would like to give that a chance because I really appreciate the confidentiality of working with businesses and how important it is that we leverage staff's time as well as we have some amazing businesses in town that may not be there, but they but they would want to discuss may not be appropriate at a commission level here. Sitting up here five people on the dais with staff. And so I would like to give this right, this economic committee, an opportunity to. See how it works, working with staff. And then if in fact, at some point council thinks that we want to try to do the commission and it may be for other tasks, quite honestly, it may be for some other things that staff at this point is thinking that they would be sounds like more appropriate to have presentations actually to council to make decisions. Speaker 4: On. Speaker 0: Member day. Speaker 5: From my vantage point, I mean many cities have economic development commissions and rightfully so. So I understand the place of an economic development commission. But I think to me, the value added when it comes to. What I call what we're calling the mayor's task force. The Committee for Economic Development. What we're talking about is really a group of people who are positioning themselves with regard to economic development implementation. The Commission certainly would have a role when it comes to economic development planning. But by the same token. You could conceivably have the economic develop, the updated economic development strategic plan serving as the goals and objectives and the. And of the setting. Speaker 2: Or. Speaker 5: The Economic Development Task Force, the mayor's economic development task force, when it comes to doing work. And also when it comes to that, the staff person, economic development manager doing work. You update the economic development strategic plan from 2008 from 2000 to 2008. Now five. Almost ten years later. 2015. And that updated economic development plan says, you know what our goals and what are what are the strategies that we're going to put in place to achieve each of the goals and the implementation and who's going to do what? And a lot of that who because you've got the plan in place with implementation, is the staff person. So the staff person is going to look out for opportunities with regard to businesses in certain industry clusters. Now we're the. Mayor's task force comes into my mind. Is there the closer? At the point in time that that our economic development manager has identified certain opportunities. We're going to wow those opportunities because now they're going to see on. They're going to see this task force with. Very reputable companies. They're going to see them either in person or they're going to see them on the letterhead. They're going to say, hey, this is a city that's geared to acting. So in my mind, all that can happen. Independent Development Commission. And to the extent that it has not yet happened. Me. Argues for giving it a chance to happen. Speaker 0: Member Ashcraft. Speaker 6: Thank you. So just for clarification, and so the term is mayor's task force, but I believe the actual choice, it's more like a select committee and probably it would be input from the entire council if we were to go that direction. I'm wondering if, given that we're going to have a presentation on the Economic Development Department, what they're proposing in terms of updating the strategic plan, if it might behoove us all to put off. I know we don't like to delay decisions, but I'm wondering whether it might make sense to wait until at least we've had the benefit of hearing that presentation. I do believe we were supposed to have heard it by now, but it was one of those agendas that had to get short because of the hour. I think. I think the vice mayor has proposed some some very interesting ideas. I'm just thinking that we don't know. But there might be overlap with what's already in the in the works with the Economic Development Department and Community Development. So is there a way I don't know whether it's just a report or whether there's an action attached to the the the the report that's coming to us, sorry to make you read back and forth, but is there some sort of action associated with the item coming to us on April 7th? Speaker 3: Coming to the council is a PowerPoint presentation that is for information only. It is not structured at this point to include in the action. Speaker 0: So could we discuss this item along with that? At that point, would staff be the input that's appropriate regards to the next step? Speaker 3: Do we? Yes, we. I think staff could take direction as as an aspect of that presentation. And it's time. Speaker 7: To do that before April seven. Speaker 3: And we would have time to I mean, I suppose we could change the freeze and. Speaker 4: The agenda hasn't gone out right for. Speaker 3: The media. Speaker 4: So we could add that in a fraction. Speaker 3: I swear. Speaker 2: So, if I understand correctly, will continue this item. Into a spot right behind that PowerPoint presentation. Speaker 4: Oh. If I can help, maybe. I don't know that you need to continue this item if you're actually. The referral process allows for the council to decide whether it wants to come back or not with some staff work and this could be what its coming back as. Speaker 7: Yeah. I'd like to actually direct staff to include this idea of economic development commission in the analysis. I mean, is that. Speaker 0: Also I would actually so I would like to also include, you know, their discussion of pros and cons. How they would address these issues that are being raised here. But their recommendation is and hear back from our economic devil. Speaker 3: So we could we can add a couple of more slides to the PowerPoint presentation to address the the issues that have been raised this evening. Speaker 2: And could we make it an actionable item? Speaker 3: Yes. That's what it. Speaker 4: Is. Yes, we can. I've just got to. I'm not trying to overcommit you, Miss Potter, though, if you don't think you can do that level of analysis. Speaker 3: Well, I think what we would do is capture the some of the pros and cons, some of our what stats proposals are about how we might recommend the the the input and advice and sort of strategic help on economic development in the community. We can certainly do the PowerPoint slides, I think, to a to a level that would help inform the discussion by the council and then receive direction from from the council on this issue. Speaker 0: Vice Mayor, does that sound good? Speaker 2: Yeah. Speaker 0: All right. Any other council member comments? So that satisfies this item? Yes. Speaker 3: Thank you. Speaker 0: Thank you. And now we have council communications. Any comments? Yes. Member Desai?

Council Referral

Consider Re-establishing an Economic Development Commission for the City of Alameda. (Vice Mayor Matarrese)

AlamedaCC