City Council - Regular Meeting

Yes, they're ready. Oh, you are so sweet.

Thank you, Rosalina.

Thank you.

Oh, all right. This is a one-minute warning, maybe less than one minute. It's so funny. At the Alameda County Transportation Commission, we're not supposed to touch the microphones. They have signs. And so I always get a little, because they're really sensitive, I guess. And so I always get a little anxious when I reach for the microphone.

But it's OK. We're all here.

All right. So, Ryan, are we ready in the balcony? Thumbs up in the balcony. All right. As we say, when the balcony is ready, we're all ready. Good evening, everyone, and welcome to the City Council meeting. This is the Alameda City Council, City of Alameda City Council meeting for Tuesday, September 15, 2026. And we are about to go into our closed session. But before we do, I would like to ask the city clerk, Laura Weisiger, to please call the roll.

Council members Bowler? Here. Dasag? Here. Jensen? Prior? Here. Mayor, is the Ashcroft? Here. Five present.

Thank you. And so next, we will go to public comment just on this single closed session item. Madam Clerk, do we have any public comment? There is none. All right. We will close public comment. And we are about to adjourn into closed session to consider this individual item that I will ask the city clerk to please introduce.

Conference with labor negotiators pursuant to government code section 54957.6. The city negotiator is the human resources director, the fire chief assistant city attorney. Employee organizations is the International Association of Firefighters Local 689. Under negotiation are salaries, employee benefits, and terms of employment.

Thank you. And with that, everyone from staff who is involved in this item, come on back to the conference room. And for the rest of you who might be watching both in person and remotely, we intend to be back before you at 7 o'clock this same evening. Thank you. all right everyone if you would please take your seats good evening and welcome to the City Council meeting for the city of Alameda tonight is Tuesday My watch thinks I've fallen. No, I didn't. I don't know why. Something about calling a meeting to order. OK. Sorry, where were we? We are calling a meeting to order gently. This is the City of Alameda City Council meeting for Tuesday, September 15, 2026. The city council recently returned from a closed session. And so I would like to ask our city clerk, Laura Weisinger, to please announce any action taken in closed session.

Yeah. The city council met regarding labor, and staff provided information, and council provided direction by Five Eyes.

Thank you. And with that, we will adjourn the special meeting, the closed session, and I will call to order the regular city council meeting. We will start with the pledge with no advance notice. Council Member Bowler, may I ask you to lead the pledge? Thank you.

Please join me in the pledge of allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you. And Madam Clerk, would you call the roll, please?

Yes. Council Members Boehler? Here. Daystog? Here. Jensen? Here. Pryor? Here. Mayor Ezi Ashcroft?

I am here. Five present. All right. Thank you. Madam Clerk, do we have any agenda changes this evening? There are none. All right. So with that, we will start. We do have a proclamation this evening. And I have the pleasure of reading it. So if you will all pay attention, this is a proclamation for National Hispanic Heritage Month. And this is the proclamation. National Hispanic Heritage Month is observed between September 15 and October 15 to celebrate the vast diversity and culture of Hispanic Americans and the histories and contributions of these Americans whose ancestors came from Spain, Mexico, the Caribbean, and Central and South America. September 15 was chosen as the start of National Hispanic Heritage Month as a tribute to the anniversary of El Grito de Dolores, or the Cry of Dolores, which was the call to battle in Mexico's 1810 war for independence from Spain. Additionally, several countries, including Costa Rica, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala, also celebrate their independence on September 15. What began as Hispanic Heritage Week when President Lyndon B. Johnson signed it into law in 1968. There are many in this room who weren't alive in 1968. I'm not one of them. But then it became a month-long celebration under a law signed by President Ronald Reagan in 1988. During this time, communities across the country host events that showcase Hispanic heritage through art, music, food, and public recognition of Hispanic leaders. The Hispanic population in the United States reached 70.1 million in 2026, or 21% of the total United States population, making this group the nation's largest racial or ethnic minority, according to the US Census. In California, 41% of residents are Hispanic and, This is a great statistic. 51.5% of Californians aged 24 years or younger are Hispanic, according to the Public Policy Institute of California. In the city of Alameda, Hispanic American residents comprise 12% of our population. One of California's two US senators, Alex Padilla, is Hispanic American, as are State Senator Jesse Arreguien, a former Berkeley mayor, and assembly member, and also Alameda resident, Mia Bonta. who represent us in Sacramento. And next month, Javier Becerra may become the first elected Hispanic American governor of the state of California. And I just want to note, and this is a little spoiler alert, but in the audience with us today is Salvador Llamas, the executive director of AC Transit, who is also a proud Hispanic American. We'll hear from him a little later. And in the city of Alameda, many Hispanic Americans are members of city staff and serve on city boards and commissions. And in Alameda, where our official motto is where everyone belongs, we stand with Hispanic Americans' efforts to overcome prejudice and discrimination and fight for workers' and immigrants' rights, including access to health care, housing, employment, education, and equal treatment under the law. Now, therefore, be it resolved that I, Marilyn Ezzie Ashcraft, Mayor of the City of Alameda, do hereby proclaim September 15 through October 15, 2026, National Hispanic Heritage Month in the city of Alameda and encourage all Alamedans to learn more about and celebrate the rich culture and history of Hispanic Americans who enrich our communities and shape our state and nation by attending the following event at our libraries So from September 15 to October 15, the West End Branch Library, during hours when it's open, has a take and make mini pinatas event going on. What's not to love about that? Don't you want to take and make? It's probably make and take. But anyway, you know what it means. It sounds great. from September 21 through October 15 at the Bay Farm Island Library, and again, during business hours, is community ofrenda. I'm not sure I know what that means. Mr. Llamas, do you? What does it mean?

Good evening. Good evening. What's an ofrenda? An ofrenda is an offering to the family members that have passed. It's a traditional to put food and put different elements out on a place in your home so you can so you can remember the fall-in of your friend.

SPEAKER 1- Oh, lovely. Thank you. Thank you for sharing that. He'll be back. And then there's September 19, Loteria at the main library from 2 to 4. Is that Lottery? Loteria? It's a game. A game. We don't gamble in the city. You know that. And then there's September 24th. And this is all in the cities and the library's website. Papel Picado Workshop at West End Library. That's a craft 4 o'clock on September 24th. And then September 26th, there's a Spanish movie matinee, Encanto, which is great. At the Bay From Island Library, 2.30 to 4.30 p.m. And September 26, there is a film screening of La Mezcla SF, with a discussion led by the film director. And that's at the Main Library, September 26. OK, you're going to have to decide between Encanto and La Mezcla, because that's Main Library, 2 to 4 PM. October 5, Aida Salazar is doing an author visit at the Main Library, 4 PM. And you can also enjoy a meal at one of our Hispanic-owned local restaurants. And staff kindly listed them for me in alphabetical order really quickly. The Acapulco, Calafia Taqueria, Casa Revolucion Taqueria, Serrón, Cholita Linda, El Caballo Wraps. Island Taqueria, La Penca Azul Leña, Macondo Colombian Fusion, Taco Fino Express, Taqueria Mi Burrito, and Taqueria Viva Mexico. So go to the library, eat good food, enjoy Hispanic Heritage Month. Thank you so much.

And West Cafe on Western Street.

And Wes, oh, Wes is absolutely Hispanic. Thank you. Yes, absolutely. All right, so then we move on to oral communications, non-agenda items. And this is where we'll take 15 minutes now at the top of the agenda to hear speakers on items which are not on the agenda, but over which the city council has jurisdiction. if there are still more speakers waiting to be to be heard under this item there's another section at the end of the regular calendar and then I always do my little reminder of council rules of conduct so just to remind everyone you're here at a business meeting we're conducting the business of the city of Alameda so it is not theater. It's not a sporting event. It is a public forum where we're here to do the city's business. The council is. We can have public comment, and we'll hear from staff. But for that reason, we don't applaud. We don't cheer, jeer, boo, do the wave. We don't do any of that. We just listen respectfully while other people speak. When it's our time, if we're a speaker, we come up to the podium. We speak for our allotted time or less. But we definitely don't go over time, because that just throws everything off. And I ask people, oh, and then the last thing is you can certainly hold the sign. That's your First Amendment right. I just ask that you don't hold it over your head unless you're in the very last row, so you don't block anyone's view, because everybody wants to be able to see. And the reason that I make all these requests is that, Public speaking can be, for some people, one of the most stressful things they do. And I never want anyone to not come forward and speak in a council meeting because maybe someone laughed or booed the previous speaker. This is a safe space. You're here. You can speak your mind. We don't always have to agree. We love it when you speak your mind with civility. You have First Amendment rights. But we want everybody to feel equally empowered to get up and speak, because that's what the First Amendment and that's what democracy is all about. So I know you will keep that in mind. And so with that, Madam Clerk, do we have public comment under oral communications?

There's none.

None? Oh my goodness. We'll still keep those rules in mind. OK, then we will move on to the consent calendar. And these are routine items that are approved by one motion unless council members remove items for discussion. And then removed items are called after the agenda items. And council members may speak for up to three minutes. on consent calendar items. So first of all, are there any items that council members want to pull from the consent calendar? And if an item is pulled, then we'll hear it at the end of the regular item, although you don't have to pull an item if you just want to ask a question about it. So first, any pulls from the consent calendar? Seeing none, are there any council questions? Council Member Jensen. I have some questions on 5E. OK. So why don't we go ahead and hear that. Madam Clerk, do you want to introduce item 5E while the person who is doing this presentation, Ms. Liz Accord, comes up to the podium? Thank you.

Yes, it's a recommendation to authorize the city manager to execute a one-year agreement with Action Research for Community-Based Social Marketing to increase use of Alameda County Industries' bulky pickup services by multifamily residences, an amount not to exceed $186,000.

Good morning. What would you like to do? Or it's not morning. It's morning somewhere, I suppose.

Good evening, Madam Mayor, members of the city council. I'm Liz Accord, Public Works Coordinator, and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

Sure, Council Member Jensen.

Thank you, and thank you, Coordinator Card, for answering questions. I appreciate this item, and I think it's a great addition to the work that you do in public works that we do in the city to address recycling and sorting and ensure that we're meeting the requirements of state law, especially SB 1383, which requires that as much as possible that we discard food waste into the green bin, everyone. So my question about this item, and I actually, let me ask the clerk to read the item first. We just did. OK. It's about the community-based social marketing. So my first question is, why is this necessary given that we do this work in the Public Works Department? How is this going to improve our service?

Sure. So I want to give a little context to community-based social marketing. It is a behavior change tool that is really an in-depth research-backed systematic approach to working with particular segments of the community. So Alameda has had a multifamily bulky collection program since the new franchise agreement with ACI or Alameda County Industries since 2021. And we, like other communities, have struggled with multifamily participation in that program. So this work will help us work with the specific needs of that community and continue to, in an iterative way, adjust our outreach and our approach to help them participate in the program. We currently don't have that expertise in-house. We've never done community-based social marketing work before. So the work here is to stand up this program and then give staff the education to do this work going forward in other zero waste areas.

Hopefully the one that I just mentioned.

Many program opportunities, yes.

And can you just share briefly how we anticipate that this community-based social marketing program and outreach will improve both the bulky pickup services participation, as well as how that bulky pickup participation will be impacted throughout Alameda?

Thank you for that question. One of the ways that we primarily hope to see this program advance our waste issues is that it will reduce illegal dumping. So the more people that we can get into this program or participating, especially with things that are harder to dispose of, those larger bulky items, specialty waste, we expect to see a decrease in illegal dumping. There's also other opportunities in engaging with this community to increase some of the things you mentioned, like proper sorting, more participation in organics and recycling.

Excellent. Those are my questions. I'm excited to approve this item, definitely.

And just for the record, staff probably recalls that when we did the agenda item in this, and I was looking at this item on the draft agenda, I said, why do we need to do this? But I love the answer, so thank you. Thank you for those great explanations. Anybody have any other questions on this particular item? Thank you, Ms. Accord. Good to see you. All right. So then let's see, where were we? Any other council questions about any of the consent calendar items? OK. Madam Clerk, do we have any public comment on the OK? Any further council comments or just a motion and second to approve the consent calendar?

I'll move approval.

Second. OK. We've got a motion to approve the consent calendar from Council Member Jensen, seconded by Vice Mayor Pryor. All those in favor, please signify by stating aye. Aye. All right. That passes unanimously. And so then we move on to item. Oh, this is the fun one, right? Yes. OK. Madam Clerk, will you please introduce item 7A?

Adoption of resolutions appointing Alec Chavez to the Civil Service Board, Katie Freed and Jimmy Lai to the Planning Board. Reappointing Jason Kim and Saravana Senthira. Thank you. And appointing Maria Piper and Bharat Singh to the Transportation Commission.

All right. So what we need to do, council, we, I know I say this often, but we do have amazing residents. And they're so giving of their time and talent. They apply to serve on our boards and commissions. And then it's very challenging for whoever the staff is who staffs the particular board and commission and me, because we interview. And then we go, oh my gosh, who should we pick? Because they're all qualified. But here you have, I mean, they're all the cream of the crop, but here are the ones that we decided. And they have amazing backgrounds, and they're all these busy working professionals, and yet they're stretching themselves to give to their city. So what I am looking for is we need to adopt the resolution. Madam Clerk, we can do it all in one resolution, right? Absolutely, yes. OK. So I'm looking for a motion to adopt the resolutions appointing the individuals that the city clerk just named for these boards and commissions. It's been moved by Council Member Boller, seconded by Council Member Daszak. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor, please signify by stating aye. Aye. OK. And Madam Clerk, I turn it over to you here.

OK. And we have one person remote, so they'll be up on the screen. And then the rest of you can come on up, and we will.

That's Katie Freed, right?

But she'll be up on the screen, hopefully.

OK. This is awesome that you all got here in person, almost everybody. Nice to see you. And then we're going to get to hear from them. Hi, Katie Freed. Nice to see you. There's a new planning board member here. Yes.

If you'll also raise your right hand.

Oh, yeah. Raise your right hand. And you do?

Yeah.

OK. Sure. Are we going to? Is Katie going to speak?

Yeah. Maybe Katie can speak first.

Yeah. Katie, you're on. Welcome.

Hi, everyone. And thank you, Madam Mayor. I sincerely apologize that I couldn't be there in person this evening. Can you all hear me OK?

Yeah, we can hear you.

OK, great. Well, I'm honored to join you all. Like I said, I'm Katie Freed. And my family and I have been proud residents of Alameda for coming up on 10 years. We live in the Bronze Coast neighborhood. And we have twin 12-year-old boys that attend Wood Middle School. I currently work in tech, but my background is in construction management, both construction planning and construction budgeting. I'm hoping to leverage my background in this space to understand and help solution for some of the complexities that present themselves to the planning opportunities for our city. But of course, my primary goal is to objectively understand and represent perspectives of all Alamedans, both representing the community and the long-term business lens to these opportunities. So thank you very much for the opportunity here.

Thank you, Katie. Come on up.

Good evening, Mayor and the council members. I'm Saravana Sudantira, and thank you for the opportunity to serve another term on the Transportation Commission. I look forward to continuing to support and advise on Alameda's multimodal infrastructure. Alameda has been my home for nearly 25 years, and we raised Two daughters put them through the AUSD system, and one has just graduated from AHS. So we are very excited about that. And so this community means a great deal to me. And that's why I volunteered. And I've been volunteering even otherwise in different ways, starting from the school sites council. Professionally, I am a transportation planner with a civil engineering background, bringing 25 years of Bay Area experience. across all levels of government, including Caltrans and East Bay City, and 17 years at the Alameda County Transportation Commission, where I led a range of countywide planning initiatives, including several that shaped improvements in our island. After COVID, I started my own consulting practice, primarily serving North Bay counties and Contra Costa County, continuing my work in multimodal and resilience field. So I look forward to applying that experience to help Alameda strengthen its multimodal network, infrastructure, improve safety and access for everyone, and support a resilient future. Thank you again for the reappointment and the trust you have placed in me.

Thank you for serving. Thank you. Come on up, Jimmy Lee.

Good evening, and thank you, Mayor Ashcraft, the members of the council. My name is Jimmy. I was born and raised in California. I am now raising my family right here in Alameda. I spent over a decade building housing, both market rate and affordable housing, and working in economic development in the public sector. In that time, I've helped deliver thousands of homes. The recommendation the planning board makes will shape Alameda for a long time. Good housing gets built when the process is clear and stakeholders are engaged early. And that's what I want to help this board deliver. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. Come on up.

Thank you, Mayor Ashcroft, and thank you, council members, for giving me this opportunity. The city of Alameda is almost like a Hollywood movie character in my life, as you find certain cities are in certain movies. Even though I'm a fairly new resident in just about three years, When I landed more than 25 years ago in the United States to start a new life, by happenstance, I landed up in an apartment on Bolina Boulevard just because my brother was here for some time. So since then, I have been in and around Alameda for quite a while. I spent 17 years just living across Park Street Bridge, my wife and I. did pretty much all our shopping and recreation in Alameda, much to the chagrin of the city of Oakland, I would assume. And I'm very thankful for this opportunity to give back to the community. I, as a profession, I presently serve the county of San Mateo and the position of planning services manager. But prior to that, I was a consultant for about 17 years that worked in the realm of integrating land use planning and transportation infrastructure, right from streetscape design all the way to regional planning. In fact, I have actually worked with Sarmana. on a very path-breaking project which is called the Alameda County Multimodal Arterial Plan. It was so path-breaking that we had to go to New York to explain to everybody what we did at the National Planning Association. So I am really thankful for this opportunity, and I hope to give back to this city that has been part of more than 25 years of my life, even though I just started living here. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Jason Kim, come on up.

Hi, good evening, everyone. My name is Jason Kim. I've been a resident of Alameda for about a decade now. Me and my wife and our two dogs live on the East End. We want to thank you for this opportunity to allow me to serve the community. I currently work as a public transportation planner at a Bay Area transit agency. I plan long-range light rail and bus projects and lots of other fun things. We bike, walk, take the bus, and drive all around the city. from the city to other transit modes and we look forward i look forward to really serving this community with helping figure out our transportation issues kind of in and around the city so thank you again thank you maria piper

Hi. Thank you, Mayor Ashcraft and members of the city council for this opportunity to serve Alameda. Years ago, I read a letter to the editor in the Alameda Sun from someone who started commuting to Oakland decades ago by bike and never looked back. I wasn't biking at all at the time, but that letter planted a seed. And so years later, after spending one too many days in Otis Drive traffic, I walked into one of our wonderful local bike shops and came out the proud owner of a new bicycle. I started riding around town and quickly discovered that for many trips, biking was just as fast as driving and a lot more pleasant. About a year later, my family bought an electric cargo bike so I could haul my kids to all of their activities. And that's the moment when I became an advocate. One day, approaching Veterans Court towards the wooden bridge, my cargo bike bottomed out on a newly installed bump that had been put to protect the bike lane from cars entering. And I barely caught the bike before it tipped over. I had met Bike Walk Alameda people at the bike festival a few months earlier, and I reached out to them, wondering how I could get it fixed and how I could get more involved so things like that didn't happen in the future. So that started years of transportation advocacy. And I joined Bike Walk Alameda and learned how residents, community organizations, city staff, and our schools can work together to solve problems. So at Bay Farm School, that meant working with the city, Bike Walk Alameda, and the PTA to address cars parking in our wonderful bike lanes. I spent more mornings than I can count putting out cones and taking down cones every morning for a year and a half to two years. So I'm particularly happy every time I go by and I see those delimiters in the street, I actually dance. But what I've come to appreciate about the transportation isn't just about getting from one place to another. Walking and biking around Alameda made me love Alameda even more. I notice our neighborhoods. I run into people I know everywhere I go. I experience the community instead of simply passing through it. And I want more people to have that opportunity whatever way they get around. So that means making Alameda safe and practical for people walking, biking, taking transit, and driving, recognizing that different people have different needs. Most recently, I've been working on Bay Farm's Squirts Safety Patrol, where our older students help make school drop off safer and more efficient. It's built around the core four ideas, be safe, be kind, be responsible, and be an ally. I think those are pretty good principles for transportation, too. So I'm grateful for this opportunity to work with the public, city staff, and our fellow commissioners to make it safer and easier for everyone to get around our fantastic island and enjoy the community we have here. Thank you.

Thank you, Maria. And next up is Alex Chavez. Hello.

Hello. Thank you, everyone. Thank you, Madam Mayor. My name is Alec Chavez. I am a resident here in Alameda, and I'm from California, of course, grew up in Central Valley, moved here in my 20s, and I've loved the Bay Area, and I've loved Alameda ever since. A few years ago, I decided to go to grad school to become a social worker officially. I got my master's in social work at University of Chicago. And my wife and I loved Alameda and the Bay Area so much that we decided to move back. And it's been a true gift and a joy to be able to live here. It reminds me of, you know, Hollywood even or different parts of California and I'm truly grateful just to live here because it's such a beautiful place. Right now I am a policy aid in Santa Clara County and we're supervisors and so I come from a background of public service and I really value being able to give back to the local community to be able to provide the necessary services and a good heart to constituents. So I take my oath and my duty to the public service very, very seriously for the sake of common good. And so I'm very grateful to be allowed to serve on the board and to help Alameda become a better place by having the right people serving the constituents. Thank you.

Thank you so much. And thank you to all of you. I so appreciate your service to our community and sharing your time and talent with all of us. Thank you. All right. Do we have any public comment on this item? No. OK. So then that concludes item 7A. All right. And Madam Clerk, do you want to introduce the next item 7B?

Presentation on state of AC transit.

Come on up. Come on back, I should say. Well, while Mr. Yamas is getting set up, I will say that this summer we had fun because we did a video on board the AC Transit. And he's a great cook. I learned all kinds of things besides about transportation. But we look forward to hearing from you this evening. Welcome.

Thank you, Mayor Izzy Ashcroft and council members. Appreciate you giving me the opportunity to be here tonight. I do want to mention that Director Syed was scheduled to be here tonight. Unfortunately, due to other conditions out there, and I won't say what in the field, she was not able to join us. But I know that she really appreciates this opportunity. So it's a real pleasure to be here today to introduce for some and for others to reaffirm the essential role that AC Transit plays in everyday lives of the people and neighborhoods in the city of Alameda. The Alameda Contra Costa Transit District is not an east-based city. AC Transit is a special district serving 13 cities and eight unincorporated communities across Alameda and Contra Costa counties. We span 364 square miles, carry more than 3 million riders each month, and are governed by a publicly elected board of directors. Three out of four of our riders are people of color, and nearly two-thirds are low income, making AC Transit an essential lifeline for all the communities that we serve. It's also why we're proud to have received the top honor as an outstanding public transportation system for the American Public Transportation Association in 2023. Being a top transit agency translates into 40 million riders every day, more than 140,000 riders board on a typical weekday, and we deliver more than 160,000 rides every weekend. Each weekday, more than 9,500 riders use our Transbay lines, a critical service that connects East Bay commuters to jobs across the bay. And as school returns, at least 30,000 students will depend on us to get safely to and from school each day. February, March, and April delivered our first three straight months of year-over-year ridership growth since the pandemic. AC Transit supports more than 5,100 jobs across the East Bay. More than half of those jobs are created outside of our agency. Together, they generate over $604 million annual wages, and they inject nearly $1 billion into the East Bay economy every year. Every bus we operate creates jobs, supports local businesses, and strengthens our communities. That helps explain why 65% of our riders are transit dependent. So service cuts would not be an inconvenience. They would upend the lives of those who rely on AC Transit the most. Trying to find my place here. I think I'm done. Sorry, I think I went too far.

You know so much about this.

Yes, here it is. OK. I apologize. You often hear the phrase, good stewards of public dollars. AC Transit, we're making every tax per dollar count. Independent reviews back this up. Since 2000, AC Transit has achieved average annual savings of $33 million. And the state auditor also confirmed that AC Transit coordinates service effectively with other East Bay transit agencies. These results show that our real challenge is securing sustainable funding, not mismanagement. This disciplined financial stewardship is one reason AC Transit has maintained a top-tier AA Plus credit rating. Still, we know that when fares go unpaid, the cost doesn't disappear. It creates a funding gap. That's why this summer, we launched a multilingual fare-required fare compliance campaign. The message is simple. Pay the fare and protect the bus line. But we're not standing in the sideline. Instead, we're taking action. In the last fiscal year alone, we tightened our belts by $9 million. How? We're hiring only for positions that directly support service. We scaled back temporary staffing, saving roughly $2 million annually. We brought outside professional services in-house. We're partnering with other agencies to purchase goods and services for less. We even temporarily restructured payments to the pension plan to preserve cash. We're making every taxpayer dollar count.

I think the previous slide maybe told about the financial challenges you were facing with increased fuel costs and all that. But we were reading it, so you can go ahead.

Yes. I think I'm clicking and it doesn't change. But we're back on track. The dollars must count because AC Transit faces a projected $200 million deficit over the next four years. That translates to an annual funding gap of at least $50 million beginning in 2027. Without long-term sustainable funding, service deductions of up to 16% become unavoidable. And so would the human impact, potential layoffs affecting as many as 300 employees. We've been thrown a lifeline, but it's not a permanent solution. A state bridge loan, and it's exactly that, a loan. Not a bailout, and it must be paid with interest. AC Transit's share is $55 million, enough to close this year's budget gap and avoid service cuts today. But next summer, the loan is gone, reserves are exhausted, and the funding challenges return. That's why hope now rests on the Connect Bay Area Act or SB 63. The measure would ask voters in the five barrier counties to approve a 14-year, half-cent sales tax and one-cent sales tax in San Francisco. If approved, it would generate an estimated $890 million annual for Bay Area buses, trains, and ferries. AC Transit would receive approximately $52 million, helping protect existing bus service and prevent layoffs. Without long-term funding, our bus network remains at risk. To show what that could mean for riders and communities, I'd like to invite our planning team to provide an overview.

Thank you, Mr. Yamas. Welcome.

Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council. My name is Owen Christofferson. I'm a transportation planner with AC Transit. So you've heard from General Manager Yamas about the local and regional importance of AC Transit and the financial challenges facing the agency. So in these uncertain times, how do we plan for the future? Well, our approach is simple, which is plan for the worst but hope for the best, which is why we've developed a worst-case scenario contingency service plan. The plan is just that, a contingency, and it would only take effect if no new long-term funding is secured by December 2026. If that happens, our priority is protecting as much service as possible by preserving the realign network that we launched just last summer and trying to miminize wholesale route eliminations when possible, protecting hours of service, and maintaining frequent bus service where riders depend on it the most. The proposed contingency plan is designed to protect the most service for the greatest number of riders. It does this by preserving our backbone routes, or what we call the primary route network. So these are the busiest bus lines, the major travel corridors, and also productive routes in equity-focused areas are the highest priority, while service reductions are focused where ridership is lowest, minimizing impacts to the greatest number of riders. Weekday service every 15 minutes or better is preserved on key corridors, including Telegraph, Broadway, San Pablo, and International. Line 51A, which is a primary route network line, will be preserved at 15-minute service. Now let's talk a little bit more about the local recommendations for Alameda here. So as I mentioned previously, line 51A would see no proposed reductions in service under the plan, as well as line 851, which is the overnight OWL service. Lines 30 and 31 would be reduced to 40-minute frequencies. Line 30 would only operate along the Park Street Fruitvale corridor after 7 PM. And line 31 would see reductions in hours of service. Due to low ridership, Line 19 would be eliminated under this plan. Line W would see one westbound morning trip and three eastbound afternoon trips eliminated. Line O would operate peak direction service only, and service would be eliminated on weekends. To mitigate these losses, the plan is proposing to add a new Alameda East End line with weekday 60-minute service running between Fruitvale, BART, and South Shore Shopping Center via Fruitvale Avenue, Fernside, Ensignal, and High.

You can keep talking for about another minute because I interjected a couple times in the store.

Yeah, I'll just finish So, yeah, just just quickly a quick look at the road ahead So on August 12th AC Transit Board of Directors set a public hearing for October 14th so that is where We will gather community feedback, the board, and direct any potential changes to this plan. Of course, the general election is November 3rd. After the general election, we will have a board meeting on November 18th and December 9th. where the AC Transit Board of Directors will consider and approve, if needed, this contingency service plan. If that is the case, then our scheduling teams will get to work, and the service reductions would come June 13, 2027. So, again, that is the date, June 13, 2027, that we might see this, but that is only if no new funding is secured by the end of the year.

All right.

Thank you both for those presentations. Council, do we have any council questions for our AC Transit representatives? OK. And Madam Clerk, do we have any public comment?

We do. Mitch Ball.

And we'll get three minutes. So I think we have some public comment on this item. So you all can wait if you can. We'll have the public speaker come up. Mr. Ball. And that's our only speaker, Madam Clerk? Yes. OK. So three minutes. Yeah. OK, we're going to start your time because we do have other items.

So first, I'd like to explain my outfit. This sign and this hat are what I wore when collecting signatures for the ballot initiative to save AC Transit and fund public transit across the Bay. Out of the 186,000 signatures required to collect, we collected over 300,000, 77,000 of which were collected by volunteers such as myself. The signature collection was so successful that we were asked to stop early, so I'm very hopeful that we will pass this ballot initiative. Well, I think it should be quite clear to you and our representatives from AC Transit, thank you for coming, that I certainly don't want us to have to follow through with the contingency plan. There is one part of it that I think should be implemented regardless, and that is eliminating line 19 to free resources elsewhere. AC Transit needs to increase its ridership, not only because it improves funding, but also because it means that it is providing more service to the community. While AC Transit gets reliable ridership from people who don't own cars like myself, new ridership can only come from people who have cars as an option. This new ridership can be obtained by competing to provide better service than cars, which AC Transit already does with many of its lines. Public transit routes that circumvent traffic congestion by rail or bus lane, offer more direct travel by water, or save time that could be wasted searching for parking in a high-density area, provide a value proposition for potential riders to leave their cars behind. The transit services that provide this to Alamedans are BART, any bus that uses the Webster bus lane, the Bay Ferries, and anything that connects you to downtown Oakland, downtown San Francisco, or our two commercial districts, Webster and Park Street. However, whenever buses come infrequently, lack transfers to other transit services like the Bay Ferries, or travel along long circuitous routes, this time saved is lost and the ridership is lost as well. Long circuitous routes are also doubly bad because they take up more resources to bring riders the same distance. So why eliminate Line 19? Line 19 uniquely has less than half of the passengers per bus service hour of the next lowest used route in Alameda because it's infrequent and very winding and direct, especially near the point. It doesn't compete with cars, but even more importantly, it doesn't even compete with other buses. Its entire length along Buena Vista is only three blocks away from Alameda's most used bus route, the 51A. My workplace sits at a Line 19 stop, but my coworkers avoid it to wait for the 96 or walk to a different bus stop. Instead, I would like to suggest that in place of Line 19, Line 30 gets extended from Webster along Lincoln to the point, where it can offer connections to both the seaplane and Main Street ferry terminals, and then cover Alameda Landing and Marina Village before heading into the two. This would additionally allow Line 96 to become more direct by getting rid of the needless loop around Alameda Landing and use Ralph Episodio rather than Lincoln to get to the point more directly. This, of course, is only a suggestion, but any change that makes bus routes more frequent and direct, including eliminating seldom-used lines, is something AC Transit should be pursuing to improve service and recover additional revenue. In summary, untangle at Alameda Point. Thank you.

Thank you. And do we have any other speakers? That was our only speaker. Okay. Any council comments on the presentation? Council Member Jensen?

I actually have some questions. And they may be for AC Transit director as well as for city transportation staff. So the first one may be for staff. The state of California recently prioritized residential development. adjacent to or nearby to transit and eliminating some environmental review for such projects and establishing from ministerial review for cities like Alameda and so projects near transit are a priority and I know that we have one project I believe that one at Mariner Square that has been approved because or in part because it is adjacent to the Webster Street bus line. So my question is how this potential reduction in service would impact Alameda's development priorities especially with regard to the Mariner Square project and any other

So I don't think that's an easy transit question Yes, you want to introduce yourself?

Good evening Mayor Ashcraft and City Council members. I'm Lisa Foster transportation planning manager I'm not a land-use planner. So maybe one of the land-use planners can get up and speak with more detail But I can say that Alameda Point is envisioned as a transit oriented developed area and it is we do rely on good transportation for our growth strategy and Do you want to add any details?

If I recall, the question had to do with Alameda Landing. Was that correct, Council Member?

It was about Mariner Square, about the project, specifically about one project that's been approved in Mariner Square. And I know that we have

Okay, I'm just going to ask the city attorney to weigh in on any Brown Act issues we might be coming up against You know we want to under the Brown Act Tie these council questions on this item to the AC transit presentation.

So staff's response will have to be limited and in that way when it responds to the question about transit-oriented development, if that is possible.

And again, this is a presentation on the state of AC Transit.

I think it includes some potential cuts. So I think that there's a chart in there that discusses the cuts that could happen if the measure isn't passed. And so my question has to do with that chart and the impact of the cuts to Alameda.

Other than what was presented in the presentation?

If I could. Sorry, my voice is terrible tonight. I'm going to give it a shot. So these kinds of transit reductions have been discussed in many communities. And because there's a complex web of housing laws, we would want to analyze the proposed changes against our land use plans and provide you with that analysis. It's difficult to do it one line. excuse me, one line at a time and based on hypotheticals. And so I hear the question. And we can do our best in a follow-up letter, memo, a bit of information for the council. But this is an ongoing challenge as the state of California does intermingle land use and transportation discussions. When a transportation line goes away and you've planned for higher density housing, it can create challenges. My understanding, based on my last look at this, is that your plan is your plan until it changes. And if you have an HCD certified housing element, for example, that is the plan that you're working with, even if the conditions change. And you'll have an opportunity to make your changes at the next cycle.

Thank you. Thank you so much. The city manager also has a planning background, if you could tell. Yes.

The next question, it's not related. It is specific to the supplemental memo that was included for this presentation. And so I wanted to get a little more detail about The point that's made in the supplemental memo that without sufficient AC transit service, which we have heard that that may be the case in the future, that the Transit Demand Management Association would not be providing the incentives or the subsidies for people to use transit at Alameda Point as was provided by the Transportation Director.

Welcome back. We do have Alameda TMA and West Alameda TDMA.

Which stands for?

Alameda Transportation Demand Management Association, West Alameda Transportation. I added a demand to Alameda. West Alameda Transportation Demand Management Association. They serve the Northern Waterfront, Alameda Landing, and Alameda Point collectively, and they rely heavily on transit passes. The AC Transit Contingency Service Plan would eliminate Line 19, which serves the Northern Waterfront and Alameda Point, and would do frequency reductions for Line 96, which serves Alameda Point to downtown Oakland. If this were to happen, these associations would have much less incentive to invest in AC Transit Easy Passes and Clipper Bay Passes as part of their suite of options that they offer to their members. And if they were to seek out something else because they had to, that could reduce income for AC Transit and could reduce ridership for AC Transit.

So the reductions, the cuts, could also have the effect of reducing additional revenue for AC Transit, as well as having a substantial impact on ridership at Alameda Point.

That is our concern.

Thank you. And then my last question is for AC Transit. Thank you. It's clear, as I have been talking, it's clear, I hope, that we have been looking at Alameda Point. And Alameda Point is a tremendous user of transportation, ferry service, as well as AC Transit. And we are trying to put in more housing there that will be more reliant on transit. So I see these potential cuts. And I understand that they will be necessary if there aren't funding options provided by the revenue measure. But I would just, well, first I'll ask the question. I will ask you how you partner with other agencies, especially with the Water Emergency Transportation Authority, which is our partner and provides all the ferry service from Alameda Point, especially the ferry service from Sea Plain Lagoon, which is has no transit access, no AC transit access at this point. And so I just, in a general sense, if you can talk a little bit about how AC transit partners with these other agencies, and then maybe specifically about what we can do, either in the event that the revenue measure doesn't pass or if it does, to ensure that there is expanded access for Alameda Point and especially the ferry.

Thank you, Council Member Jensen, for the question. So we do partner with the region. We serve on the Regional Network Management Council. I have a seat on that. And then our board member, President Diane Shaw, serves on the Regional Network Management Committee, which advises MTC commissioners. As general managers, we meet regularly to discuss how we can align our services, specifically to here, Alameda, and the ferry. We did have ferry service several years ago, as you may be aware. We're always looking at our communities and where there's demand for more public transit. And we do have a realigned service that we implemented last year in August. We have a Realign Plus plan. that was also developed to increase and expand service. But unfortunately, the financial cliff got ahead of that. So we are constantly looking at how we can add more service, more frequency, and more span to serve the greater communities and partner with other agencies within the region to facilitate the ability for people to use multimodal transportation across the region.

Well, I appreciate that. And I will definitely want to be working with you when the measure passes, the revenue measure. And I did just come up with one more question, actually, which is how the other important line, well, they're all important, the 51, of course, which we've discussed. But the other very important line, especially for Cross Bay riders, but also for local riders, are the O and W. And so have you thought, with regard to the financial cliff and revenue support for AC Transit, about how those lines, as for other lines are cut, those lines may tend to be used as local lines. And so has there been any thought to having local fares for some of the Transbay lines? Or is it all the same fare? I'm not sure about that.

Well, I'll jump in and just say, I took the O bus home from City Hall yesterday. And all you do is, before you tap your phone, you just tell the driver, I'm a local rider. And then they charge you for the local rate.

Well, thank you. That was my question.

Mayor is a fantastic AC Transit rider. Thank you, Mayor. That's correct.

I love AC Transit. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Yamas. And thank you very much. You can sit down. I just want to, you know, we can't do campaigning from City Hall, from the dais. But I would encourage you all to read the San Francisco Chronicles endorsement of the regional transit measure in last Sunday's Chronicle. You can look at it online. There, I just said that. And then I also want to remind everybody that September is public transit month. So if you might already be a transit rider, try some new lines you haven't tried before. Or maybe you haven't ridden it as much. Try it. You'll love it. I had my Alameda County Transportation Commission policy committee meetings yesterday. I went to and from on the bus, the 51A. And I want to vouch for AT Transit. It's not that they're withholding service from the city of Alameda. The A and the C stand for Alameda and Contra Costa counties. And those buses go all over our very large region. And so it's just a financial juggling act. And we're very lucky to have preserved the 51A because it is the workhorse. Our students who qualify for low income, they have free bus passes. And you only have to apply once. And it is yours until you're 19. And I love seeing Alameda students on the bus. They thank the driver when they get off. I love that. And I will just say for public transit month, this weekend I had formal events Friday night and Saturday night. My husband and I went to the Coast Guard ball in San Francisco on the ferry. And with the San Francisco Giants fans, we're a little better dressed than they were maybe. And I had an event, the Hall Circle 90th anniversary in Dublin Saturday night. I took part. So you can do it. It's fun. And it's just you can do other things besides sitting in traffic. Anyway, thank you so much to AC Transit for your service to our community, to the region, and for coming here this evening. Lovely to see you. Thank you. Okay, Madam Clerk, we are on item 7C. One of those sevens. Would you please introduce that one? Thank you, commissioners and board members. So nice to see you. And staff on 7C, come on up.

Introduction of ordinance amending the Island Missile Code by adding section 30-19 short-term rentals of chapter 30 development regulations to establish zoning regulations for short-term rental of residential property applicable citywide. This action is exempt from environmental review under section 15061 of the California Environmental Quality Act, common sense exception, because it would not result in any new construction or substantial change of use.

Thank you, Madam Clerk. And good evening. Welcome, and maybe introduce yourself. Oh, I'm so sorry. I need to call on my colleague, Councilmember Greg Bowler. Thank you.

I just want to announce a recusal. I need to recuse myself on item 7C, because I have a financial interest in residential real property in Alameda. And for the same reason, I'm going to recuse myself from items 7D and 7E. Thank you.

All right. So let's give him just a minute to leave. Hello. Hello.

Good evening, Mayor Ashcraft, esteemed council members. Thank you much for your time here this evening. My name is Tristan Sweer. I'm a planner here with our Planning, Building, and Transportation Department. The item before the council this evening is a public hearing to consider a zoning ordinance text amendment to establish zoning regulations for short-term rental of residential properties citywide. Before discussing the proposed regulations, I'd like to go over some background information for the benefit of the public. Let me preface this slide by acknowledging that Alameda is an outlier insofar as we do not currently have any regulations pertaining to short-term rentals of residential property. The City's 2022 Housing Element Update established the policy goal of limiting the proliferation of short-term rentals and identifies two main reasons for this. One, to return some units to long-term rentals, and two, to address some nuisance complaints. To that end, staff conducted a series of meetings before the Planning Board to solicit public comment and deliberate, starting with a background study session in January of 2025, then a community workshop in April of 2025, and finally, a public hearing in July of this past year. I'm going to read aloud here the small section of the housing element policy stating that short-term rentals should be limited because they reduce the supply of long-term housing units for sale or rent. This is the guiding principle behind the action here before you tonight. While this slide is largely self-explanatory, it is worth noting that both the home sharing and vacation rentals for these types of short-term rentals, the primary residence is the same property as the short-term rental. This is to contrast to strictly commercial activity where the units on site are all short-term rentals. In this case, what we're permitting would involve only those property owners of the same property operating the short-term rental. The planning board deliberated a number of items here. And while I won't go into detail on all of these, I'd like to read a few. One of the main deliberations was to acknowledge that this is not a widespread problem in the city, nor is it a housing supply issue. Staff has identified roughly 250 to 300 extant short-term rentals in the city, although that number does fluctuate. And while we have identified a range of issues related to those, one of the most important was the need for a good neighbor policy. And the draft ordinance before you does include items like a maximum occupancy, prohibition on events, regulations regarding trash collection, noise, and the requirement for liability insurance. These are to ensure that short-term rentals are operated in a manner that acts as a good neighbor to their surrounding residential users. And I'm happy to go into any of these in more detail as we discuss. The nature of the short-term rental ordinance as it's currently drafted is to permit short-term rentals in all or a portion of residential buildings in the city where there's a separate sleeping space that meets the requirements of the building and housing codes. This does mean that there are a number of types of units that would not permit short-term rentals, some because of state law, such as ADUs and JADUs, which cannot be used for short-term rentals, period, and some because they don't make sense based on the need demonstrated by the community, for example, subsidized housing or deed-restricted inclusionary units, because they're not intended to be operated for profit, but rather to serve a particular section of the community. Likewise, Ellis Act evictions or other ways of removing existing renters to create short-term rental housing would be prohibited. And it's worth noting that any kind of existing code enforcement cases would also result in staff denial of an application to establish a short-term rental to ensure, again, that the good neighbor policies are followed. The process that staff is settled on for administration of the short-term rentals is a ministerial review process conducted at a staff level that may be appealed to the planning board if there were some reason for that appeal. The failure to meet criteria is one reason that it may be denied. However, an application may also be denied due to failure to provide adequate info or if they provide misleading info. And it's also worth noting that while there is a progressive warning and suspension system built into the ordinance, if there were any health and safety issues identified with a short-term rental, that we do have a method for revoking those in a more timely manner. Another important note on this slide is that since the planning board hearing on this item, staff has opted to provide the draft ordinance before you tonight with a 90-day amnesty period, the reason being changes to the schedule of this hearing have resulted in a 60-day amnesty period ending during the winter holiday. And it didn't seem prudent to force both folks who have existing short-term rentals as well as staff to try to manage a great influx of those sorts of applications during the holidays. So we have opted to change that to a 90-day amnesty period to provide the beginning of 2027 a little bit of extra leeway there. With that, the recommendation before you from staff and the Planning Board is to adopt a first reading of the ordinance to amend the Alameda Municipal Code to add Section 30-19 short-term rental regulations and determine those regulations exempt from CEQA. I'm happy to answer any questions the City Council may have regarding this item.

Thank you for your presentation. Council, clarifying questions? Council Member Desai?

A question. One clarifying question. What consideration did staff or the planning board give for owners of property who own perhaps one additional single family home that So they might be able to do short-term rentals in their own residence, which is what's being proposed. But what about if they also had one more? What consideration did staff or the planning commission give to varying numbers of scenarios in the case that I mentioned? If someone has one additional single-family home that perhaps they inherited,

Right. So the intent of the limitations is to limit it to one host per property. So for example, a property that has multiple hosts may have multiple short-term rentals. And likewise, if there could be a host for each subject property, then each of those properties, even if they're owned by the same person, could have short-term rentals on them.

Oh, so it's not the case then, are you saying it's not the case then that you're limiting short-term rentals, especially in single-family homes, to residences where the owner also lives?

It has to be the host's primary permanent residence. So they would be somewhat limited depending on how they've arranged their permanent residence. But for example, a home may have multiple people in it, and those people may not have the same permanent residence. And so they may act as a host in a situation.

OK, let's not worry about this.

That's not what you're asking, though, is it?

What I'm focusing is on the property owner I think when you're saying host, you're referring to the possibility of the property owner and also, under certain circumstances, the tenant. So I just want to focus on the property owner. If the property owner owns, let's say, two single family homes, And in one, they do short-term rentals, and they live in it, and they have another single-family home. My understanding is this precludes them from doing short-term rental for the one additional in this hypothetical. So my question is, how did we land on that you could only do short-term rentals in the one that you live, versus what consideration was given to if someone had one additional home that they owned.

And you know what? We've got from the city attorney's office, Kara Silvers. We bring her up for the legal angle here.

Thank you, Kara Silver, from the city attorney's office. And I know Tristan is pinch hitting here, so we appreciate that. So you're correct, Council Member Dysak, that an owner can only rent out, on a short-term basis, one home. And the premise for that is that it has to be their primary residence, and they can't have two primary residences. The planning board did discuss that, and the reason for that is that what they wanted is some flexibility for property owners to do short-term rentals when they're going on vacation or they're not using their primary residence for a short period of time. But this regulation is not to encourage short-term rentals. rentals. It's really to discourage them and to then try to incentivize that second property to go towards long-term rentals to solve the housing crisis. Thank you.

OK. Thank you. Other clarifying questions, counsel? Vice Mayor Pryor.

Yes. Oh, I was just curious why, I mean, this is just a general curiosity. How come ADUs are not permitted to be short-term rentals for the same reason?

They're actually regulated under state law. State law prohibits them from being used as short-term rentals.

Oh, OK. That was it. I was just curious. And then I saw in the presentation that, and so maybe I just read this wrong, It said, so on page four, on the first bullet point, well, it says planning board deliberations. And then there's a bullet point, not widespread problems slash housing supply issue. Is that a statement that short-term rentals are not causing a problem with regards to housing scarcity? I just didn't know how to read that.

It's a bit of a misleading bullet. Yes, that statement is meant to explain that because there are only maybe 250 to 300 fluctuating at any given time, it's not considered a major significant section of our housing stock. And so we're not going to solve the housing crisis through this ordinance. It's an acknowledgment that this is maybe not the most pressing issue, but it is a matter of importance to us.

OK. OK, thank you for clarifying that. Yeah, it just got the whole thing. Yeah, thank you. I was confused. And then I think that was it. That clarifies my other questions. OK, thank you.

If I could just tag on to your response to the vice mayor. But you started out at the beginning of the presentation noting that Alameda is a bit of an outlier because we have no policies or ordinances regulating short-term rentals. So isn't one of the reasons we're looking at doing this in the planning board held workshops to make sure the problem doesn't become greater? Because certainly, and I am on the board of directors of the League of California Cities and a member of the Housing Community and Economic Development Policy Committee. And I can tell you, we hear from cities around the state where workers in that city can't even find places to rent because the available rental properties are used for these short-term vacations days, basically.

That's exactly right. And I can speak to my own personal experience working in some smaller valley jurisdictions where housing was very tight. And this became a very pressing issue, especially at certain times of the year. So yeah, I don't want to downplay the significance of this issue. We're fortunate that we don't yet have a very significant issue in our hands. And that is exactly what this ordinance intends to preempt.

And also maybe the concern that neighborhoods have about who's coming and going. And, I mean, it wasn't that long ago, I can't remember what year, but there was a concern on a West End street. There was home daycare in a home, and then right next door was a very active short-term rental. So isn't that also one of the reasons for bringing this?

Exactly, which is why so much attention was paid at the planning board to good neighbor policies and ensuring that that portion of the ordinance was structured in a manner that was enforceable, but also doesn't create very impactful nuisance users coming right next to very sensitive receptors like a daycare.

All right, thank you for that. Council Member Jensen?

Thank you. With regard to the good neighbor policies and with regard to the questions and the goal of this, so can you just provide a little more detail about what is the goal of the one host per property?

The goal of the one, well, so most importantly it's to make sure that the that the primary residence requirement is preserved. So essentially that the primary, that you're only hosting a short term rental out of your primary residence and therefore that the host has some responsibility for the operations of that. But also so that we don't have sort of a issue with out of town folks renting multiple properties that could be used for long term rentals and turning those into effectively commercial hotel rooms that are operated by somebody who isn't present on site. So that was really the intent behind that requirement.

Well, and I've heard in other places that have adopted similar rules that there is concern about investors procuring properties to use as STRs. And of course, that would displace those units as well. But as you said, that doesn't seem to be an issue right now in Alameda, at least.

It's not a pressing issue, as in we don't see it widespread. However, I think there are certainly examples of that. And it's absolutely something we're very aware of and trying to address through this ordinance.

And I appreciate and I definitely support the good neighbor policies. As the mayor mentioned, we have heard about some properties not being good neighbors. And so I wonder if there was any consideration of adopting those policies and then moving forward and not adopting the more stringent which will probably affect the majority, I would suspect, of the properties that are STRs right now, the one house per property. So is there any discussion of just starting with the good neighbor policies?

I think there was a discussion of it, and I can defer to Cara if she wants to speak to more of that.

Yeah, why don't we have Ms. Silver come back? Thank you.

Yeah. Although this may also be useful to you.

There certainly was a discussion of that at the planning board. And the good neighbor policies have been incorporated into the ordinance. And so that was definitely something that the planning board wanted to address. But then the planning board, as Tristan mentioned, also wanted to address the concern about investors coming in and converting single-family homes to short-term rentals and taking those rentals off the market and preventing them from being leased. So it was really a two-fold concern that the planning board had.

And so would there potentially be any other ways to address the potential or the the potential that of investors purchasing rental properties and turning them into STRs other than having the one host per property in place because I just think that's very strange and I know it's been done in other cities, but there are properties that are that are owned by local residents. As Council Member Daszak pointed out, a resident may own another property in Alameda for various reasons, perhaps because of Prop 13. And they never sold it, but they want to use it as a short-term rental. And I'm aware, actually, of an owner of a property that that would like to eventually move into the property probably soon, but didn't want to put it as a long-term rental in order to avoid having to displace a tenant in the long term. So.

Sure. Sure. So there definitely are several ways to skin this cat, so to speak. There is a provision that may or may not address the particular scenario that you're dealing with. And that is some of the legacy rentals. So there are a number of short-term rentals that are being leased for short-term rentals by owners who it is not their primary residence. And so there is an exception or a carve out for those situations.

Could you explain that a little bit better? I did read the whole presentation. So there is a grandfather or a carve out for certain?

Exactly. It's a grandfather provision. So if an- Now, just if I could pause you for a minute.

Can we bring that up on the screen? Do you wish I'd asked you that earlier? No, it's OK. We can get it. If it's possible, Madam Clerk. Of course.

So what it does is it's on page six of the ordinance. And it is, let's see if I can get the section number here. And it's called a legacy operation exception. And so if a host has operated a short-term rental for a period of at least one year, page six, Madam Clerk. they may continue to operate that even though that short-term rental is not their primary residence.

Okay. Well, thank you. I didn't read it carefully enough. There's a lot of details in here. It's strange language, but it's... Okay. Well, thank you. That's all the questions that I have.

And just to segue on that, I really appreciate the thoroughness that the planning board held one hearing. And then a few months later, they held another. And I think they took input from what they'd heard and then from the greater community. And that's why I'm so grateful. We just swore in some new planning board members, one of them still here this evening. And I'm really grateful for the work they do that they then bring to the council. Thank you, all of you. Vice Mayor, you were asking a question?

Oh, yeah. I guess I have a question about, sorry, around this legacy operations. I almost said expectations, exceptions. So if somebody had spent two years, short-term rental, and then time goes by and they're like, oh, I'm going to do a long-term rental, can they go back?

I don't think so. So long as they acquire and maintain the necessary permit for noncompliance, I would say it says for a period of at least one year immediately prior. To me, it seems to indicate that that would not be the case.

OK. Thank you. That was OK. All right.

If we have no more clarifying questions, do we have public comment, Madam Clerk?

We have one in person and two remote, so they'll get three minutes each. Up first in person is Donna Fisher.

Welcome, Speaker Fischer.

Oh, yeah.

No, I should have said that earlier. Make it yours. Yeah. This is not the Alameda County Transportation Commission.

Can you guys hear me? You can touch the microphone. All right.

We can hear you. Hi. Maybe even a little lower. Yeah.

Maybe I'll grow.

OK, testing.

OK, hi. I'm Donna Fisher, my husband, who's there in the red jacket. And I have three Airbnbs on. We have a six-unit place. We could only really rent out three of them. The other three are Airbnbs. And we have been doing these Airbnbs We're not sure it's either 10 years or 13 years. We're looking back in the database. But clearly, we're legacy people. All of these Airbnbs have kitchens and their own patios and things you wouldn't normally find in a hotel necessarily, especially in Alameda. They are located one block from Alameda Hospital, where we get a lot of guests from. I urge you to reconsider the proposed short-term rental ordinance. While I totally support protecting our neighborhoods, restricting short-term rental operations strictly to primary residences overcorrects, in my opinion. as you all know, will reduce tax payments immensely, the transient occupancy tax. I looked at ours just for this presentation. And last year, we did in TOT $14,000 to help out the city. This year, it's going to be more. Alameda, as you know, has a 14% transient occupancy tax, easy for me to say. And this would go away if people all, if you say you have to have this one-to-one matching and you can't have short-term rentals, what do you think we're going to do? Throw away the properties? No, we're going to get mid-term and long-term rentals. So forcing compliant hosts that are an asset to our city, which I'll explain in a minute, to transition to long-term tenancies eliminates that 14% tax entirely, permanently costing the city vital funding for public services. Our property in particular is three blocks. It's near the Alameda Hospital, but a little closer to Park Street. It's three blocks from Park Street. And I have to say, and the property's on Clinton Street, if you know the area. Being just blocks away from Park Street and South Shore, our guests are always going to local restaurants. They don't come to town. They come to town for lunch. funerals and weddings and graduations and if they have relatives in the Alameda Hospital or if they're traveling medical people they stay there they're going out to eat they're asking us for lists of restaurants and when we go to those restaurants they always thank us they also shop there on the thing that's attached to the agenda oh I'm gonna move on because I don't want to keep going so it could do harm to Park Street and South Shore Third, we are serving essential needs. They're not just for vacationers. We provide vital lodging for traveling medical professionals, Alameda Hospital patient families, US Coast Guards between deployments, and local residents needing temporary housing during transitions or home repairs.

Thank you so much. Our next speaker?

Karen Miller.

Welcome, Speaker Miller.

Hi there. I read the ordinance that was available online, and I didn't see the exception for one year. However, I have a couple of points. One is that anybody who operates an Airbnb short-term rentals program, They are not people who are going to be landlords. They're people, if you were to require that they have to rent their units for landlords, they're just going to sell them. And they're not going to be new rental units. It's just not going to happen. I'm concerned. I actually have a client that just bought a property that was an Airbnb and has been for years. Is that person going to be grandfathered in because they bought a new property that was always a Airbnb property? This is an elderly client who traded a property she had in Sonoma. She wants to move into this property in a couple of years because she has to wait two years before she can actually move into it. Her family is here and she wants to be here. um is she is she going to be unqualified now or disqualified from having this rental or is she going to be able to continue operating this since she didn't this is not a new business it's a continuation of an old business i i'd like to find that out thank you thank you our next speaker sophia dewitt welcome speaker do it reverend dewitt

Good evening, Council. Reverend Sophia DeWitt, Chief Program Officer with East Bay Housing Organizations, also resident of Alameda. I'm here to support the proposed ordinance. EBOHO has been interested in short-term rental regulation in the East Bay for about 10 years. And we feel it's very important in order to safeguard the stock of places available for long-term rental. And we also are interested that the transit occupancy taxes might be deposited into an affordable housing trust fund in the city. So that is a policy that we are supportive of. So we're supportive of this proposed ordinance in general, but we note that it doesn't appear that there are any provisions that hold the platforms themselves accountable for making sure that policies are followed. There's obviously regulations that the hosts have to abide by, but nothing for the platforms themselves. And we also believe that as large companies, they should be held to certain standards as well. So thank you very much for your time and consideration.

Thank you. Our next speaker. Kevin Jordan. Kevin Jordan, online. Welcome, Speaker Jordan.

Hey, thank you very much for listening. We are definitely against the ordinance. We feel that there's a lot of regulation here already, and homeowners are restricted in many ways. We disagree that Alameda is an outlier without regulation. If investors are the concern, then maybe the ordinance would address uh companies or individuals that have five or ten properties but when you're going after families that are just having one two properties you're really again you're hitting the middle class you know several years ago we voted on something to fund our schools And I think most people in Alameda wanted to fund their schools. But the way that ended up being written was there was a ceiling on it. So big corporations, for instance, the Oakland Raiders, ended up paying very little to fund our local schools when the rest of us footed the bill. And I can't remember what the name of that was, but it did pass. And again, it ended up on the backs of the middle class. And we were very concerned about wealth inequality and things that are playing out in our society. But when you restrict a family from doing with their home what they should have the freedom to do, again, you're really attacking the middle class. And that's just happened so much in our society in the last 10, 20 years as the 1% has become very, very wealthy. And the rest of us are just kind of groveling to try and pay our mortgages. When you look at teachers and nurses and police officers and the working class, We feel that this ordinance is just really directed at taking us out. And there are corporations and there are perhaps some very wealthy individuals that own many properties. And those are the people that should be starting to pay a little bit more on their share of the taxes. um families that have people coming to visit uh need some place for them to stay and and this this for instance traveling nurses or as was mentioned before people coming for graduations and and on and on so we are definitely against this ordinance and we hope that it does not pass it's a huge mistake again targeting the middle class so Thank you very much for listening.

Thank you our next speaker Okay, um, so with that we will bring it back to board discussion board discussion council discussion I think a lot of good points were raised I I do want to just remind all of us that we We are challenged with providing the number of housing units, affordable housing units, that we need, that we are required by law to provide. And for that reason, and also to protect our neighborhoods, I do think this regulation is important. Also, it's not saying there can be no Airbnbs, but there's just restrictions on which properties can be used. And then there's the legacy provision, so that's some provision. We also, in Alameda, have built some new hotels. There's a new one on Harbor Bay that's finishing soon. Those are places where people can stay, and some of them do have kitchens. On the topic of traveling nurses, I spent a number of years on the board of Alameda Hospital when Alameda Hospital led the campaign to save the hospital, to keep it open in the year 2002, and then served on the health care district board. And traveling nurses, we love nurses. We couldn't exist without nurses. They're wonderful. Traveling nurses were known around the hospital boardroom table as budget busters, because they make a ton of money. And they can stay in a hotel. They can well afford to do that. The hotels are there. We get TOT, transient occupancy, tax for that. But I think that... We do need to look at this. And it is also the protection from the institutional investors. So if we are limiting this to people, you can use this if you live in the home and then when you're not using it or if you have owned an Airbnb that's been in operation for a year or more. That's an exception. And of course, ADUs, not only are they regulated by the state, but this was a way to make it easier for people to be able to rent something that was affordable by design, just because it was smaller. And then we have an interesting item coming up next that maybe would add a little twist to that. At the end of the day, I run into nurses and teachers all the time who say they would love to live here, but they can't find a place to rent. So I would love for us to be proactive and help address that, because some people really do want to put down roots, not just stay for 30 days. And we want that. And so there's always balances, and certainly we get transit occupancy tax. But again, we did that increase in the rates that were the same as Oakland and San Leandro several years ago. And that's a good thing, but we did it. But we knew we had these new hotels coming online. But at the same time, we just don't have enough housing stock for people who would like to live here, including families with children who would love to attend our good schools. And our schools will stay more vibrant if we have the students in the schools, because we need them for the state funding that comes in and to be able to have enough teachers to be able to justify having enough teachers. So I think that the planning board has done an excellent job. And also I commend planning staff and Ms. Silver for her work on this. But I think we need to find a way to say yes. And again, if somebody who's an Airbnb operator now wouldn't be a landlord, they'll sell the property. That's OK, too. We need houses for sale. So I think this is something we should support. But I'm anxious to hear from others. Vice Mayor Pryor.

Yeah, I couldn't agree more. I am glad that there is the grandfather clause, that's what I'm going to call it, so that current investors can continue with their business. And I just want to be clear, because it's an investment. And this is just where I stand. I do believe that housing is more than an investment. It is a human right. And right here in California, we are currently trying to tackle the housing crisis. Not just Alameda, but every city in California, and I believe throughout the United States. So this ordinance is necessary. There are other ways to invest our money. And I think that's why I do like the grandfather clause. People have made a choice years ago that this is going to be how they're going to make a living. And I think that's great. But things have changed. And when we were first going through this tonight, I was thinking that we were going to just, and I'm glad after hearing the speakers earlier, that we were going to phase out all of it. And I was like, wow, if we phased out, this is my first thought, if we phased out, which we're not doing, but those 250 short-term rentals, I thought like, that's a brand new multi-family housing development. we spend millions of dollars. We will be spending millions of dollars to build something like that. So I thought, wow, this is ready-made. Isn't that great? That was my first thought. But then hearing people like, well, no, this is my livelihood, and these are the pluses to this. And I'm like, OK, I think the grandfather clause makes perfect sense. But I really feel like. we have to put our feet down. It's not uncomfortable for a person not to be able to buy a second home as an investment property. That's a luxury. So going forward, if somebody has lots of additional income and they want to invest it, they can do that in other ways. We need to put people in homes. And that is my priority. And I've said that before. So I feel that this ordinance is really good. And I'm glad to know that we don't have a huge, I guess it's not contributing even more to the existing problem of the housing scarcity. So that's it.

Thank you. Council Member Deza?

Several points, and then a clarifying question, too. But I'll start with points. I think we need to look at this from various angles. One of the angles we might want to take a look at it is from the vantage point of the residents in our various neighborhoods, whether you live in the Fernside or the West End or Harbor Bay or the Gold Coast. or around Little John. Many people didn't sign up to live in the neighborhoods. They didn't sign up to have basically kind of a quasi-hotel operating in their midst. So there clearly is a need for regulation. One of the things I do want to clarify, though, with regard to the legacy operation is let me make sure to clearly outline this scenario. Because the way that I'm understanding it is, let's assume that there is a parcel. And there is on the parcel a quadruplex four units. And currently, if one person is the owner of one of the four units and then does Airbnb for two of the units, the second unit falls under the legacy operation exception. That's my understanding. And it's based upon really the key is 30-19.4E number one. Because that then leads me to the second scenario, which is kind of the scenario that I was discussing earlier. Correct me if I'm wrong. The legacy operation exception does not apply to a situation where there is an owner who resides on one parcel at one address but has another property on a completely separate parcel that they are Airbnb-ing right now. They might have gotten the separate property on a separate parcel. Maybe they inherited it. But the legacy operation, the way it is written, does not apply. Is that correct? I hope I'm wrong, but that's my reading.

No, I think that it does allow that second scenario as well. OK. And that would be under, let's see. OK. Yes, so it would permit the leasing of a second home, even though the host is not that second home is not the primary residence. Yes.

All right. I appreciate that. We'll make sure to enter that into the record. And I just want to say, because my strict reading of E1, it says the requirement that the host, if a property owner, use only the property on which they have their primary residence as the STR. But if you're saying that there is wiggle room, then that's good.

Well, I think it's more than wiggle room. It's in the ordinance.

I'm not reading it. This is not as clear, perhaps, as it could have been.

The first paragraph, which is- Madam Clerk, can you possibly bring up the provision Ms. Silver is referring to? And again, are we 30-19.4? Section E on page 6. It also helps me because my iPad freezes when I try to go from notes to attachments. OK, 30. Here we are. OK, legacy operation. Do you see there? OK. OK. Take it away. Yes. OK.

So section E, I think what's probably confusing is that the colon should be a period. So there is an overall exception which says that any host that has operated the property for the past year, regardless of the noncompliance, they can continue to operate that. And then the second two bullets refer to situations where there is a restriction to that overall provision. And so the first provision, E1, refers to situations where there are multiple properties or multiple units on the same property. And the second bullet refers to situations where you are trying to lease an ADU or a JADU, and that's just prohibited under state law.

Well, unless it was created prior to 2017, right? And actually, Ms. Silver, I think the colon is fine because it does then refer to those too. Even if you're not complying with those two provisions, you're a legacy nurse. Are you OK? So honestly, the folks who have raised concerns for the most part this evening would be covered by that provision, correct?

Yes. For the most part, it would be, except that The operator that was operating four units on the property can only grandfather in essentially one unit.

OK, thank you. Thank you for that. And I will be quick to say we are not giving legal advice to anyone here. We were just going back and forth on council questions. OK, did that help, Council Member Dase? I'm back to you. Did you have any further? No. OK, Council Member Jensen?

I appreciate the work that's gone into the policy. But what I'm struggling with is whether a complete ban on STRs managed by owners outside of the property offsite will substantially improve the availability of rental units. You know, Alameda does have a large number of renters. We know this. And we do want to provide more housing units for all, residents for all, and anyone who wants to live in Alameda. But market research shows that we're in a semi-tight, not a hugely tight, rental market in Alameda. It's about 5% vacancy rate. So adding 200 units doesn't seem like it would have a tremendous impact, less than 2%, probably, of the entire number of units. What I wonder is whether there was much discussion or any discussion about how whether or not to allow for not just the grandfathering, but people who perhaps live in one unit and have a number of other units. This doesn't talk directly about multi-units, about having someone live in a multi-unit, one unit, and be able to rent all of the other units as STRs, which would certainly impact the units available on the market. I know we heard from a speaker to talk about I believe they're off-site units, off-site multi-unit building. But still, having an owner or a property owner in Alameda that's managing the properties and not an investor-owned company would be what I think we're working towards here. So that's one question or one issue that I'm concerned about. And the other thing is about And I don't know how pervasive this is either, but I know that I do have a couple of friends who use home exchange and Kindred, which are home exchange platforms to travel. You can share your home with someone from another country or another city, and that family or person can use your home, and you can use their home. I don't know. I'll ask this question of staff whether this was discussed. And it sounds to me like those types of arrangements would be prohibited, as well, under this policy.

Do you want to come back up, Ms. Silver? I've never done that, although friends have. I didn't think that money was exchanged. I thought it was just the homes that were exchanged.

Yeah, that was my understanding as well. So provided there's not actual payment of rent, I don't think that the ordinance certainly did not specifically address that scenario, and there was no discussion about that scenario, and there was no identification of that being a problem here in Alameda. So my... I don't believe currently that the ordinance would apply to those types of home exchanges.

So I'll just jump in to say the thing about if you're renting on a short-term rental platform, you have to have a business license. We keep track of that. That isn't required if you're just doing a home exchange.

Right, and that's a good point. And so with regard to the business license, with regard to the current requirements for a business license for payment of TOT and the transient occupancy tax, and I just want to be thoughtful about having this blanket prohibition and requirement for the owner or renter, in some cases, to live on the premises in order to have an STR. Was there any discussion or looked at any potential for having a citywide limit. I think other cities have done that, where there's been a maximum number of STRs that could possibly be licensed in a city. And if we could just start there with not just grandfathering, but just saying we have, as you said, less than 250

Right, between 250 and 300. Yes.

And they're not causing a great deal of problems. We are collecting taxes. And they actually would come under the good neighbor policies, which I completely support. So I wonder if that was any discussion about that, or did it?

Right. So I'm not aware of any other city that has done sort of a quota-based Airbnb ordinance. There's certainly land use policies with respect to other properties, like commercial square footage, et cetera, that have been implemented around a quota basis. But it certainly is something that if the council wanted to, the planning board could explore.

If I could, Mayor, I think just the idea of creating another regulatory environment for staff at this time would be challenging. So I'll put that into the policy discussion that you're having tonight.

Thank you. And I'll just jump in and say that as I'm listening to this, and I also spent six years on the planning board, and I appreciate all the thorough and deep work that they do before bringing these policies forward to us. I would suggest that we pass this as is, but we direct staff to come back in a year and to look at certain metrics. And I might even send it back to the planning board to decide, how will we be able to tell if this has been successful? Have we accomplished the goals of having more rentals? And I keep going back to the traveling nurses were raised, because we all love nurses. I was in the ER recently. They treated me very well. But the reason Alameda Hospital and other hospitals have to bring in traveling nurses, it's not that they love bringing people from across the country, outside of the country. Again, they are budget busters. They're challenging hospitals with their already strained budgets. But it's because they can't hire nurses. And nurses are quite well paid, but they can't find places to live near where they work, much like teachers. I'm sitting next to one who knows the struggles that it takes. So just keep all that in consideration. It's an intricate balance that we're trying to strike. But I think we have a very good proposal. And I would like to see us move it forward.

Can I ask one more question? A really quick question. And I just wanted to know, and it may be in the presentation, although I was just looking back at it again. Of the 250 plus units, how many of those are currently rented out and owned with an owner on site or a renter that would already fit under the policy?

So that's a great question. We don't have that data yet. And and that is one of the problems because currently there are no regulations and so we are not always collecting business licenses for All of the people all of the hosts and we don't have information on particular properties properties that are rented through a platform Airbnb they will just submit a lump sum tax amount without a specific address associated with the properties that it is collected from. Now, we did recently adopt an ordinance that does require that. So we're starting to receive some of that data. But hopefully, if the council does adopt this ordinance, we will have a much more robust registry.

Well, then to the mayor's suggestion, I agree that more data is necessary, but I'm hesitant to pass the entire ordinance as presented with regard to the information you just provided as well, since we don't have the information and the data from business tax licensing about where every unit is, in fact, and whether there's an owner or not there. So I would suggest that we start with phase one, which would be the good neighbor policy, and then get the information as it's being collected now, you mentioned, about the business license taxes, and go from there and learn how many of these units are occupied by owners. what the impact is going to be on the 250 owners, on the mom and pop Alameda residents. And we can also, hopefully, that information would demonstrate where these are investment-owned properties, investor-owned properties as well. And so that data would seem to be informative, at least, or to inform my decision making. So that would be my suggestion.

Thanks, Mayor Pryor. I mean, I have a question. I'm sorry. Sorry. OK, so maybe I misunderstood this, the legacy provision. So if I have my own house, and then I own two other houses here on the island, and I do short-term rentals, I can continue those for 10 years, let's say. I can continue those that I don't live at, those short-term rentals.

You can continue one of those.

Oh, OK. I just, I'm sorry, I didn't see in the.

How many other homes do you own?

No, I don't. I just have one. OK. So, sorry, on the legacy, I just didn't see that. So you can keep your, so I have three homes, two are short-term rentals. I can only keep one short-term rental.

That's right. And you have to live there. And then, of course, if you are a primary resident of one of those three, you can also do a short-term rental on that one.

So I live here. These are short-term rentals that I've had for 10 years.

Right, off-site, yes.

So I get to keep these, both of them.

You can keep one.

And then the other one I could make as a short-term rental. OK, so this is primary, short-term rental, and then I might have to make this one be like somebody lives there. A medium or a longer-term rental, or yes. Oh, OK. And I'm sorry. I'm so sorry to do this to you. Because I did not see that. Where was that? Because I didn't see the one and two and, sorry, and the ordinance.

That have operated a STR.

Is that also on page six?

Yes. It's letter E on page six. It says that one host has an exemption for a single short-term rental, not for multiple short-term rentals. Oh, OK.

It's the Article A, a STR.

But in addition to the one where you live. Yeah.

But it says there that the requirement that they may only use their primary residence as an STR. Going forward.

No, no. That's if they're.

Read the clause above it. That's what's referring to it.

The key phrase is regardless of noncompliance.

Right, right. I really encourage us not to kick the can down the road, but to create these housing protections, which I think are quite reasonable. And I do think the planning board spent a good long time and did their public outreach. So I'm hoping we can pass this this evening.

And then I agree. Is there also, I did think, I did like the 90-day as opposed to the 60. That was in the presentation. And is the 90-day in the ordinance? Okay. I just thought that made sense, like through things, you know, all the holidays.

Just to clarify, that's in the unpodified section of the ordinance, and that is on... page 10, section 5, it states that the ordinance shall have a 90-day amnesty period.

All right.

Council Member Desai. A question for the city attorney with regard to the enforcement section. In instances where there is noncompliance and you go through the enforcement process, the potential outcome is not a felony, right? It's not a misdemeanor. It's just an administrative fine? Is that the...

Yes, Council Member. My esteemed colleague can correct me if I'm wrong, but these would all be, I believe, civil fines. There's no criminal penalty for violating this, as with many other sections of the code.

Yeah. It's a local ordinance. I can't read your lips. Thank you.

All right. I was saying thank you.

OK.

I was going to make a motion.

Go ahead.

OK. So I move that we approve the introduction of ordinance amending the Alameda Municipal Code by adding section 30-19 of chapter 30.

I will second it with a comment and a proposed reporting amendment for staff to come back in a year to find out what concerns.

The staff direction, I believe.

Yes. Well, specifically, in addition to the comments that you raised. to collect and find out concerns raised by property owners who might have a second or third STR that by virtue of this ordinance would be precluded. So if we could just get a reporting on that at the end of one year, in addition to the matters that the mayor had raised.

Can you just help me understand? The reporting is essentially having a listening session, hearing from owners who have maybe run into challenges?

Howsoever the city manager's staff wants to put the report together. I mean, did they find it to be a significant number of persons who had come forward? So that's what I mean.

Thank you. I appreciate the flexibility.

So that in the future, if a future council wants to amend it, they'll have some kind of basis.

And Council Member Desai, I was thinking, given that the planning board held a couple of workshops for operators and tenants, would you maybe want, I mean, that could be a possible avenue to get feedback? Sure, yeah.

And then if I could have some voting comments. So I'm going to second this, because I think fundamentally, I think the key issue is that it's not just especially in South Lake Tahoe, where short-term rentals are a big issue. Fortunately, they're not a big issue here in Alameda. But we do need to... understand that residents in our various neighborhoods did not sign up to have basically a hotel in their neighborhoods. So for that reason, I think it's vital to have a regulation on the short-term rental. Another angle is we do need to make sure that we have a long-term housing stock for long-term rentals. So for that reason, I do think this regulation is supportive of that important goal. And most importantly, I think there is some flexibility in 30-19.4e. Granted, those who have a second or third or fourth unit that's being used as a short-term rental would be affected by this. But for this exception for those who are doing short-term rentals within the unit that they live in, as well as one additional unit, you know that that that that is still a possibility so um and you know one year from now if the you know if we need to modify it um then you know the future Council can can modify it so I think at least you know move ahead can I just make one more clarification could we could uh just to one year from now won't get us very much time in the saddle so can we say January of 2028

Because it doesn't go into effect for 90 days. So should it be 90, one year from the date that it goes into effect?

I'm going to say early 2028. Sounds good. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. All right. We've had a motion by Vice Mayor, prior seconded by Council Member Daszak. All those in favor, please signify by stating aye. Aye.

Opposed? I'm going to abstain.

OK. That measure passes with three affirmative votes, one abstention. And Council Member Boulder recused himself. Thank you, everyone. As soon as I stop talking. Thank you, everyone. Councilmember Jensen, yes?

Thank you. And thanks, everyone, for the input. And staff did a great job. But I'm just abstaining because of the lack of data about the impact on Alameda property owners that have STRs. And I think, as council pointed out.

Thank you. And now we're going to take a break. Thank you. There's council comments at the end of this meeting. OK, everyone, we've been going a little over two hours. It's 9.05. Let's be back here at 9.15. Thank you. All right, everyone, if you'll please take your seats. I'm calling the meeting to order. Council Member Bowler, you probably need to leave, because Madam Clerk, will you please call the next item?

Yes. Item 7D is introduction of ordinance amending the Alameda Missile Code by amending section 30-5.18, accessory dwelling units, and adding section 30-5.19, accessory dwelling units condominium regulations of chapter 30 development regulations to update accessory dwelling unit regulations to permit accessory dwelling unit Condominium conversion this action is category exempt from an environmental review pursuant to California environmental quality Act guidelines section 1 5 2 8 2 H and 1 5 0 6 1 B 3 and Councilmember bowler is has also recused himself from this one due to his financial interest in residential real property Welcome back, but go ahead and state your name for the record, please

Sure thing. Good evening, again, council. My name is Tristan Sweer, planner at the Planning, Building, and Transportation Department. The item before council now is, once again, a public hearing for a zoning ordinance text amendment, this time regarding updates to the accessory dwelling unit ordinance. Now, again, before sort of reviewing the meat of the ordinance, I'd like to, for the benefit of the public, go through some background information just to get everybody on the same page. So accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units are an innovative option for property owners to add a new inherently affordable residential unit to their lot. I'll refer to both of those here as ADUs just for the sake of simplicity. Now, in spite of challenging macroeconomic conditions for large housing developers, Alameda's property owners have continued to construct new ADUs at a steady clip over the past few years. However, ADUs have historically been prohibited from being sold or conveyed separately from their primary residence under state law. I'd also like to remind the public and council that we have an important housing element program. This is just important context to inform you how we got here. This housing element program requires annual review of ADU production and affordability. And that's exactly what precipitated this conversation. We do, as I mentioned, have reliable ADU production in the city of Alameda. And the question becomes how to ensure that that production remains consistent and affordable for our residents. and easy to do for those property owners who wish to pursue that route. The main question before us is regarding a new state law, AB 1033, which allows but does not require local jurisdictions like Alameda to permit conversion of ADUs into condominiums. Staff, as well as the planning board, are recommending that council permit the conversion of ADUs into condominiums for two main reasons. First, allowing ADU condominium conversions increases the range of housing types available for prospective homeowners. And, because ADUs are inherently more affordable than other housing types, are potentially more suitable for first-time buyers. Second, this may incentivize the construction of ADUs that wouldn't otherwise get built because of the value proposition of being able to sell or convey that ADU separately rather than having to manage a rental property. There are potential setbacks associated with allowing ADU condo conversion, which have been examined at length by the planning board. And I'll point out that while there is the potential for all of the existing ADUs in the city to hypothetically convert to ADU condominiums, that sort of widespread on mass conversion would still represent less than 3% of the total housing stock in the city of Alameda, and is therefore considered a fairly nominal risk. I'll also point out that a range of other amendments have been proposed, although those are mostly clarifications to existing standards or changes intended to implement the modifications to state law that have occurred since 2022, which was when the council adopted our last update to the ADU ordinance. It's worth noting that state law changes quite frequently with regards to ADUs, so there are sort of a myriad of changes there. However, since meeting with the planning board, staff's recommendation has been slightly modified to include a rooftop deck design criteria to allow ADUs with rooftop decks that exhibit design excellence to be exempt from design review and proceed under the typical streamlined pathway for ADUs. Rather than go into too much more detail on the specific provisions of the ordinance, I think it's best to allow questions from council and happy to follow up on any of the points I made during my presentation. Thank you.

Thank you very much for that. So do we have any clarifying questions from council before we go to public comment? Vice Mayor Pryor.

Yeah, thank you. Was the impetus for this and I think you sort of touched upon it just to incentivize Homeowners to perhaps build an ad you is that kind of the biggest?

I would say that's A plus. I don't know that that was the primary impetus for us to begin the regulation. I think it may be even more persuasive that we saw this as an opportunity to expand the options for prospective home buyers who likely might not be able to afford, say, a single family home on a separate lot here in Alameda, or maybe even can't afford a shared wall condominium, but can't afford an ADU. But prefer not to rent one so that was I think sort of the the targeted goal here That being said we consider this sort of one tool in the toolbox So to speak as far as providing more affordable housing, so it's really just a small component of that goal is there

I'm just really curious about this. Would there be an HOA, or how does that? Yeah, that's a good question.

It's exactly right. Yeah, it would be effectively an airspace condominium. So you would own the building, but there would be an HOA that would govern the shared facilities, meaning likely the yard area, any kind of, you know, shared amenities that are present on site, something like laundry, for example. And they would need CC&Rs to regulate those shared facilities and their ongoing maintenance.

And CC&Rs are what again?

Oh, excuse me. Covenants and restrictions, essentially regulations that apply to the property owners within an HOA that are deed restricted so that they're applicable in perpetuity.

And then are other cities doing this? Are we one of the first? Or is this kind of becoming common throughout the state or throughout the country?

I would say this is not terribly common. I would say we're not really on the cutting edge. AB 1033 is a couple of years old at this point. I think widespread adoption hasn't really occurred in part because This is not expected to be a monumental change. We're not expecting this to be a sea change, right? There may be some corner cases where somebody who wouldn't otherwise build an ADU may be incentivized to do so. Maybe somebody who recently constructed an ADU doesn't want to operate a rental property and wants to convert. I don't think we're anticipating this making a massive impact to, for example, our arena. And so a lot of other jurisdictions might not be incentivized to pursue this. However, as part of our annual review of the ADU ordinance, we thought it'd be prudent to examine all recent changes to state law, and this one stood out to us.

OK, thank you. Other clarifying questions, counsel? Let's go to public comment, Madam Clerk.

We have one remote. Carmen Reed.

Welcome, Speaker Reed.

Good evening, Madam Mayor and city council members. I just had a couple of clarifying questions regarding one of the slides that your staff member showed us. It has an image in the slide where it has the standard ADU where it says up to 1,200 square feet, the junior ADU up to 500 square feet, and the detached ADU up to 800 square feet. So my understanding is that currently it is permissible in Alameda to build a standard ADU up to 1,200 square feet and a junior ADU also up to 1,200 square feet. So was wondering if you could just please provide some clarification on that. And is the proposal... in that slide to then change that to make it so that the junior ADUs are up to 500 square feet and the detached ADUs up to 800 square feet. Thank you.

And just so everyone is clear, this is called public comment. And it is just that the public can call in and comment on the item before us. I will entertain clarifying questions from the council. But this is not the venue for, it's not Q&A from the public. But if any council member wants to take their time to ask that, you're welcome to. Do we have any further clarifying questions? Public comment? No? Okay, we'll close public comment and we will just go back to the item. What I just wanted to lead with is, you know, when I look at this item, I just see this as an opportunity to create home ownership opportunities for those first-time buyers to get your foot in the door. And it is something that is so elusive in the Bay Area, in the city of Alameda. And yet we know that with home ownership, You start to accrue equity. You start to have that measure of security about, I mean, certainly there's responsibilities that go with being a property owner, but it's you. And then eventually you're creating generational wealth. And so RHNA numbers, they're important. Trust me, I get it. But I don't look at developments and proposals and go, Now, how many of our requirements will we tick off with this? I think, wow, this is another tool in the toolkit. And we know that there's no one-size-fits-all solution. But as the Vice Mayor alluded to in our last item, we also know how darn expensive it is to build new housing. The cost of property is so high. I am just really intrigued by this opportunity that planning staff and the planning board have created to bring forward for the council to consider. And then I'm going to stay within the Brown Act guidelines. But years ago when I was on the planning board, and I mean that was from 2006 to 2012, years ago, I remember really urging us to do condo conversions, so to reach out to apartment owners to see if they would do some work with offering to their tenants to buy the building or buy a unit or whatever. And I think maybe we've done a little bit of that, but not much, maybe another time. But anyway, I'm quite intrigued by this and quite supportive. Other comments? Council Vice Mayor Pryor.

I will ask, well, two clarifying questions. What? So just kind of what the previous caller said, are these just examples of square footage? Or this is my question, has any square footage I guess when describing what a conversion ADU is, standard ADU, detached ADU, or a junior ADU, is this just an example for scale? Or have any of the square footage definitions changed because of the ordinance or the proposed ordinance?

Thank you so much for giving me an opportunity to respond to that. If you couldn't tell, I was super eager to jump up here. I spend a lot of my time steeped in AD regulations here at the city. So I do want to clarify this is a stock image intended to demonstrate the different types of ADUs. Nothing in this ordinance would revise the square footage totals permitted. And just to clarify that caller's specific concerns, JADUs under state law are limited to 500 square feet. They're not up to 1,200 square feet. Your typical ADU in the city of Alameda is allowed to be built up to 1,200 square feet, not 800 square feet. And that is an example of where the city's regulations are actually more lenient than the state's regulations, because we intend to encourage development of ADUs for many of the regions already explained here tonight. But thank you for giving me an opportunity to to address that no none of the square footage totals are frankly The development standards in general are being modified as part of this ordinance. They are being clarified They are being rewarded in some cases, but we're not changing those square footage totals and then what is What does this mean codified curb cut removal practices?

I

That is a great question. So the easiest way to explain this is by way of example. So ADUs are frequently converted from existing structures. And oftentimes, if you have a garage that's served by a driveway that opens up directly into the right-of-way or with insufficient space to park a car, if you convert that garage and then continue to park cars in that area, those cars will extend into the sidewalk and right-of-way, blocking it. And so in instances where there's a conversion and the remaining driveway is less than 18 feet, current city practice is to require curb cut removal so as to ensure that that situation with an obstructed sidewalk or right-of-way does not occur. This simply clarifies those regulations in the ADU section because they're currently present in a different section of the ordinance.

Oh, OK. Thanks.

Thank you. And just really quickly, I wanted to comment actually to compliment the planning staff, because it is clear that over the years, you've done a really good job at making ADU conversion and construction very user-friendly. And it's in the staff report that between the years of 2017 and 2025, Alameda has issued approximately 50, that's 50, ADU permits a year. And I just know, I don't have a scientific study, but I know from hearing from electives from other cities, that they're not all doing those numbers. And you probably know that more just being in the field. So I think we've done a lot of great work to streamline the process, to have certain plans that if you do this, it will be accepted. And we have some beautiful ADUs around town. And I think one of our historic advisory board members, Hank Hernandez, actually is a builder of tiny homes or ADUs. Other questions, comments, counsel? Well, shall we entertain a motion? Council Member Daszak.

Yeah. Let's see. Is there any sense as to how much additional ADUs would be generated by virtue of this ordinance relative to how many ADUs are typically generated under the current regime?

So I would say that the ADU condo conversion changes in particular are, you know, I think we would be looking at single digit annual increase to the number of ADUs. It's not likely to produce a double digit increase. That being said, the current clip at which we're constructing ADUs and, for that matter, issuing building permits and receiving building permits for those, I say this as somebody who works on the annual progress report for our housing element, remains steady this year and is reasonably on track to exceed that 50 ADU point. So I think, you know, by having these kinds of standards, we can really only improve that number. It's not going to reduce it in any way. But I don't expect a market increase as a result of this ordinance. I see.

Council Member Dasek, are you concerned with there being more ADUs?

Yes, I am, in the sense that similar to how, so I didn't vote for the housing element initially. But in the sense that earlier I said that some neighborhoods didn't sign up for hotels in their area. Some neighborhoods perhaps didn't sign up for an explosion in ADUs in their area. But it is certainly necessarily affordable by design because it's obviously smaller. And we're kind of in a gray area in the sense that we're not sure by how much more ADUs will be built by virtue of this change. So it is concerning, the fact that we're possibly entering a gray area there. So my druthers would be perhaps to put a sunset provision on this after five years, at which point in time the city council can, five years from now, re-up this ordinance or not. That would be my druthers. Thank you.

Would you do a sunset or just a revisit? Or you think the housing crisis will be solved in five years?

I would revisit. Well, actually, no. I would sunset at five years with a revisit. Or if staff has other ways to look at what might happen in five years, I'm all ears.

There's a couple of things. Whatever we vote on is going to have to pass by a majority vote. So we'll see where everybody else is. But Ms. Silver, you were getting up. Why don't you come and speak to any considerations that might arise from this proposal?

Sure. I just wanted to point out that there are two aspects of this ordinance. One is the ADU streamlining provisions and updates. Those, for the most part, are legally required because they are implementing state law changes. The second aspect of the ordinance is the ADU conversion. And if you wanted to provide a check-in or a sunset on that provision, there would be no legal concerns.

City Manager Bowden?

I'll just note that we do have check-ins required as part of our annual housing element implementation review. And we are looking at and tracking ADU production as part of those reviews. And so there may be an opportunity there to just have our eye on the impacts or positive or negative in terms of this regulation.

Well, and for my part, I would want to know what metrics are we looking at? Is it just sort of left to the desires or the whims of a council five years from now to vote it up or down? Or do we want to revisit and see And were there unintended consequences? Were there benefits? A, how many people actually took the step of buying? And so we've increased home ownership. I might like to look with a little more intentionality, not just give it five years and bring it up for a vote again. You know, behind every number, there's real people's lives. And so we, I think, we're all aware of how much people struggle to live here at all, let alone to be so fortunate as to get to buy. So I wouldn't want to take that away without a good reason to do that. But you may have thought more about what would go into that, Council Member Daszak.

No, actually, I was just landing on a sunset, sorry, and leaving it to the council at that time or in the run-up to that time to put together some criteria if they so choose.

If I may, it's worth noting the five-year deadline does actually put us just outside of the next housing element cycle. So it does sort of lend itself to a review of the housing element, will include this sort of review anyway, would come before the council, would give you an opportunity to speak to this a little bit, sort of already built into our long range planning schedule. Additionally, I think there's an argument here for allowing the planning board to weigh in, because I know they've considered this quite significantly. And so I know there were strong feelings there about it. So just a thought.

That's my thought.

Very good point. Thank you. So we'll be reviewing all this going into the next housing element anyway. OK, thank you. Vice Mayor Parr?

I don't have questions. I was just going to make a comment so I can wait.

You can do anything. Well, almost anything.

Yeah, I do agree with the mayor about this is a really good way to create opportunities for home ownership. just getting a down payment and all of that. I think I became a homeowner about four years ago, and it's not. It's not what it used to be. As a teacher, I work with people that were able to buy houses 30 years ago. It's very different, and it's interesting. I'm like, we all have the same profession, and I can barely afford rent, and you are building a pool for your house. We work at the same place. And so housing has changed so much in the last 20 years. And so I think we need to change and to make it just that homeownership is viable for working people. And this is not going to... solve giant problems. But we can have four more homeowners a year because of this. That's just a random number. Obviously, we don't know the numbers. But I like that. I like that this is just a tool or another way to get to our goals as a city, but I think as people have their own personal goals of homeownership.

Thank you. Councilor Jensen?

Thank you. And to piggyback on the Vice Mayor's comments, it's absolutely the best way that we can proceed. We need to do everything that we can within our jurisdiction and our authority to make housing available. And this is a good way to do it. I will just share that I heard from several people in support, several residents and constituents in support of this. this policy. But one story kind of stuck out. And it's from a business owner, in fact, a pretty successful business owner in Alameda who has a family with three children and was just asking to please adopt this policy for him, for his family, in addition to his business, so that he can be a homeowner in our city. And he thinks that this will be an opportunity. And I agree. So I'm in complete support. Is that a motion? Yep. I move approval.

I second.

All right. And I am obviously voting on this, too. I will not vote in favor of any amendment that uses the term sunset. I think it is fine to do a review, but sunset implies, doesn't imply, it means that a future council could vote to just end this. And I think that's just too arbitrary when we're talking about homes that people need and live in and I love what the vice mayor said we need to assure home ownership opportunities for more people we do I Anything further, Council Member Jason? Yes. Council Member Daszak.

Yes. Thank you. So by state law, the manner in which accessory dwelling units are allowed in a variety of our neighborhoods of various zones, there's certain regulations that we have to follow. So we can't just preclude them for good or for bad. And... With regard to the condoization of some of the ADUs, if the concern that I'm raising is about we don't know what the delta is, how much more ADUs will be built, and what is the capacity of the neighborhoods to accommodate the additional ADUs. In a sense, though, once you talk about what is the capacity of neighborhoods to accommodate ADUs, you're back to state law. So I understand. I think the fact that ADU construction has been a little less than originally sold to all of us suggests that the The condoization will probably somewhat not be as stellar as some are promoting. So for those who are concerned about neighborhood issues, I think there's some relief in that. But it is correct, though, that ADUs, by necessity, by the fact that they're smaller, they're necessarily more affordable. That's not to say that they're affordable to everyone, but relative to your standard single family home, they are relatively more affordable. And finally, I do hear staff's perspective that in a little bit over five years from now, You will be reviewing the ADU record, whether it's a standard ADUs, how much more have been built over the housing element period. But is it correct to say, question, is it correct to say that you'll also report on the number of ADUs resulting from this program?

Yes. And just as a clarifying point, the housing element update will actually occur in four-ish years now. So it'll sort of be an ongoing discussion between maybe three to five years from now. It takes some time to prepare those. But yes, short answer to your question, we would have separate data for ADU production, and then as a subset of that, ADU condominium conversion.

OK, so last point is while I would have preferred to have a sunset clause, the reality is any council in the future, they can change ordinances as they see fit. So with that, I'll be supporting this.

And I'm just going to go back to something you said that I took exception to. You said we were sold a higher number of ADUs than ended up being billed. That implies that someone, and you were referring to staff, was somehow deceiving or misleading us when, in fact, nobody has a crystal ball. And staff worked really hard on putting these regulations and the guidelines and everything they do at the planning department to make it user friendly. And so it just troubles me when we have a very hardworking staff. And sometimes it's just a choice of words, but perhaps another choice of words would have been better.

Duly noted. Duly noted.

Thank you. Because we definitely don't mean to criticize our hardworking staff. Well, then. I'm hearing that this is sounding like a unanimous vote. Council Member Jensen, did you agree to move the item? I've moved it without any amendment. Yeah, OK. Who's going to second that? I second. Vice Mayor seconds it. All those in favor, please signify by stating aye. Aye. That sounds like four to me. No abstentions, no nos, right? And so it's four affirmative votes, and Council Member Boehler recused himself. Thank you so much, staff, for that. Okay, we have one more. Don't go away. The item is 7E. Madam Clerk, would you introduce that? Oh, and Bill Chapin, you're coming up.

Introduction of Ordinance Amending Alameda Missile Code Article 15 Rent Control Limitations on Evictions and Relocation Placements to Certain Displaced Tenants Concerning Payment Relocation Payments to Tenants Whose Tenancies Are Illegally Terminated and Reinserting Clarifying Language Inadvertently Removed. And again, for the record, Council Member Buller accused himself due to his financial interest in residential real property in Alameda.

Oh, wait. Don't go, Ms. Silver. Sorry. We just have to pause for a moment. So, everyone, this is the swan song, huh? I hate goodbyes. Kara Silver has served this city so admirably for the last, how long has it been? Two years. Two years. We pulled her back from retirement. She had been city attorney with Menlo Park and Portola Valley, Mountain View, Palo Alto. And she's an amazing land use attorney, but just a lovely presence to have in any discussion. But gosh, she found that commute kind of a thing. She'd like a little more time to herself. We get it, but you don't have a clone or anything. But anyway, I just want to take a moment to thank you so much for all your great work and just that sunshiny presence you brought to every... It's so smart, but so cheerful at the same time. It's not to say that Ms. Joselani isn't as well, but... No, we're all going to miss her, right? Yeah. All right. Thank you. Thank you. I'll come back and visit. All right. Thank you for everything. Take care. Bye-bye. All right. Where were we? I thought maybe she was staying for this item, and so I just let her slip off into the sunset. So back to you.

Well, good evening, mayor, vice mayor, and council members. I'm Bill Chapin, director of the city's rent program. As you'll recall, in April, council approved several miscellaneous updates and amendments to the rent ordinance, including some that codified existing rent program policies. Staff has since then identified another loophole that we think needs to be closed. And it's somewhat important because it does involve situations where a tenant has lost housing due to a landlord's unlawful conduct. So the rent ordinance limits the reasons that a landlord may terminate a tenancy to certain allowable grounds. Those grounds fall into two general categories. For-cause termination includes things like when a tenant fails to pay rent or is in breach of the lease. In those cases, the landlord is not required to make a relocation payment. And then the no-fault category includes things like owner move-in or when there is a permanent withdrawal of the unit from the rental market. In those cases, the landlord is required to pay a one-time permanent relocation payment. The rent ordinance also requires that the landlord give written notice to the tenant identifying one of the allowable grounds. So what happens if a landlord serves a tenant with an invalid notice? For example, the notice directs the tenant to vacate the unit based on grounds that aren't permitted by the rent ordinance or doesn't identify any grounds at all. When the rent program is notified of such a situation, staff immediately directs the landlord to rescind the invalid notice. And there are typically about 10 to 20 such cases like this each year. And then furthermore, one of the updates adopted by council in April requires that the landlord offer the rental unit back to the tenant at the same rent. Sometimes, however, the invalid notice is not reported to the rent program staff until after the tenant has already vacated the unit and found new permanent housing. In those cases, the rent program's longstanding policy has been that the tenant is owed a relocation payment, the same as if the landlord had done a lawful no-fault termination. However, this is not expressly stated anywhere in the rent ordinance. So the proposed updates would clarify what a landlord must do to address an invalid termination notice. In all cases, the landlord must rescind the invalid notice. If the tenant has vacated the rental unit but has not yet found new permanent housing, then the landlord must offer the unit back to the tenant. If, however, the tenant has found new permanent housing or declines the offer to reoccupy the rental unit, then a permanent relocation payment is required. And so staff's recommendation is that you adopt the proposed ordinance to update and clarify the city's eviction protections. And with that, I'll be glad to answer any questions that you have.

Thank you so much. Council, any clarifying questions?

No.

Madam Clerk, any public comment? None. No public comments. We're going to close public comment, and we'll come back to the ordinance before us. I mean, this just sounds necessary. We appreciate you going back in and taking care of this. And why would we not pass this as is tonight? That's a rhetorical question. Are we ready to pass it?

Oh, yeah. All right. So I move that we... Vote to approve the introduction of ordinance amending Alameda Municipal Code Article 15 concerning permanent relocation payments to tenants whose tenancies are illegally terminated and reinserting clarifying language inadvertently removed.

And so if this passes, it'll be the first reading, and then it'll come back to us for the second reading and go into effect 30 days from the second reading. OK, Rosalinda and the clerk are nodding their heads. OK, so we have a motion by Vice Mayor Pryor. Do I have a second? Second. Seconded by Council Member Jensen. Any questions or further comments?

Yes, just a quick comment. This ordinance appears to simply be clarifying language as to what the staff had originally intended. While I've certainly had my concerns regarding the written ordinance, I think this is not necessarily introducing anything new, but just clarifying what the intent was.

And there would be no reason to support landlords who evict tenants without a just cause. And there should be consequences. OK. All right. So we've had a motion by Council Member, did you move? I did. Yes, that's right. Vice Mayor Pryor moved. Council Member Jensen seconded. All those in favor, please signify by stating aye. Aye. OK. That sounded unanimous. Thank you so much. You're going to go retrieve Council Member Roy. Thank you, Mr. Chapin. all right and so let's give our colleague a minute to stop watching movies or whatever okay okay we are back and we will go to item 8 city manager communication

Thank you, Mayor, council members. It's going to be really short tonight because my voice is not really with it. Just a couple of brief items. In addition to being public transit month, September is also National Preparedness Month. And I want to use tonight, again, to remind the community that Alameda's geography really makes readiness a shared responsibility. We are, as staff, continuing to work on our emergency preparedness training program, including tabletop exercises so that our employees are in the best position to help in an emergency. But at the same time, we're also encouraging our residents to sign up for things like AC Alert, build their plan, make sure that they understand their options and are ready to go if they need to in the case of an emergency. But if they are here, they have all the things that they need to be here. And so to that end, September 17th, sorry, September, excuse me, Saturday, October 17, next month. In about one month from now, there will be a disaster preparation workshop. The city is hosting this in partnership with the Alameda County Supervisor's Office. It's Lena Tam's, Supervisor Lena Tam's office coordinating this preparedness workshop. It will be at Alameda College. And we'll be sharing additional information in the coming days about how to register as a participant. There'll be an emergency go bag. Lunch will be provided to all attendees. And we're encouraging folks to register and show up for that event. I'm also going to just have a bit of a fun one. Construction has begun on Ladecker Park, our playground renovation project. So that is underway. The basketball courts and baseball fields will still remain open through the project. But the playground is being replaced. And it'll have a little bit of disruption to the parking area. But for the most part, the park will still be available and open during this time. So I'll conclude my comments. And my voice held out for that. So thank you.

We love happy news. That is delightful. Thank you. Madam Clerk, do we have any oral communication non-agenda items? There's none. We have none. OK. And we have one council referral. So Council Member Daszak, this is yours. Madam Clerk, would you please introduce item 10A?

Consider directing STAC to evaluate and present findings on a potential large format commercial vacancy fee. This item was placed on the agenda at the request of Council Member Daszak.

OK. Council Member Daszak.

Great. Well, thank you. Prior to working where I currently work, For a long time, I've been in the field of economic development consulting with a lot of our projects involving analyzing the economic impacts of new super Walmarts or new Costcos. How would the introduction of such a large format store, general merchandise store, affect especially competitors who are not as big, but grocery stores, for example, or pharmacies, as well as other general merchandise stores? especially stores that anchor shopping centers. And so such economic analyses were required as part of the CEQA process for proposed new such as super Walmarts or proposed Costcos. They were required as part of the CEQA process, the Environmental Quality Impact Analysis, because the underlying theory, as approved through various a California court decisions was that should the opening of a super Walmart in one part of town result in the closure of another anchor to a shopping center in another part of town, or maybe even in another city, but within the trade area? should the closure of these anchors then result in closures of smaller retail stores within the shopping center, the impacted shopping center. The court decision was basically saying that cities have a right through their ability to exercise their police powers with regard to making sure to prevent blight. So that's why. In the field of urban decay analysis or super Walmart impact analysis, there is a special place that the closure of large foot traffic generating retail uses, such as grocery stores or super or pharmacies that typically anchor community or neighborhood shopping centers, that there is a place with regard to understanding the collateral effects when these foot trafficking anchors close. And along that lines, that got me to thinking that, the city of Alameda has a number of shopping centers across the city that are anchored by pharmacies or anchored by grocery stores. And as such, one of the things that we might consider doing is putting together a vacancy tax in the event that these anchor sites or anchor stores, albeit now vacant, go vacant for some extended period of time. Because to the extent that they're vacant for an extended period of time, that then affects all the other smaller retail spots So my focus is for the city of Alameda to consider having a vacancy tax on the larger foot traffic generating anchored stores, specifically grocery stores or pharmacies that anchor shopping centers. And that we would generate a vacancy tax and then put it back into the project itself to help speed along its recovery. So I'm just putting that out there for consideration. I believe this might ultimately have to go to a vote of the people because it's a tax. So something to consider.

Thank you, Council Member Daszak. I have a question for the city attorney. If the council were to want to direct staff to look into this, because I think that's all we could do, could a vacancy tax such as Council Member Daszak described be applied retroactively? It's nothing like tossing a softball question at your city attorney. And so if you'd like to look into that more, let me phrase that. I'll do the Jeopardy question. No, it is a question that I would want to know before I could even make up my mind about how I'd want to direct staff. Because I thought maybe you were Perhaps you are thinking about the Harbor Bay Landing shopping center that we are all very concerned about. And some work is being done on it. But if it's a matter of those horses have left the barn, then we're just preventing future scenarios when I do think we want to address that situation. And we can't talk about it in open session, but there's some things percolating. So that is a question I would need to have answered.

Absolutely, Mayor. We can look at that. I think in general, taxes are not retroactive. There's not really a mechanism for that, just like most laws that the council adopts cannot be adopted retroactively. There are constitutional limitations on that. But of course, we can look at that further.

That's what I was thinking about. And I think that's something for council to consider. Council Member Jensen?

Thank you. And thank you, Council Member Daszak, for this referral. I absolutely have been long interested in a vacancy tax. And it's my understanding that, well, that the council gave direction at some point during the strategic planning process to develop a vacancy tax. So I have talked to the city manager about this in the past. And I'm curious to see how this tax might fit into what we have or may not have in place right now.

And I don't know whether the city manager can speak to this. And it's something that, again, staff can look into. I do believe that I've read that in cities that have vacancy taxes, they haven't been found to be that effective at meeting the objectives, which were to fill the vacancies. Do you have any knowledge about that?

We have not dug in. That has been the anecdotal evidence that I've been able to glean from colleagues who are in communities where this exists. And what I would say to, if I might, just in terms of the strategic plan, when this started originally percolating in the discussion or in the council communication, I looked at the strategic plan. There is a vacancy fee or a vacancy tax reference in the strategic plan, and it does show as something that was complete. But I haven't been able to dig into the record to understand how that box got checked. So I do need to go back, and I don't have I got to check in with our department that would be overseeing that and our directors away this week. So yeah, still trying to sort that out in terms of how it shows up as complete in the strategic plan update.

OK. Other questions, comments, Council? Council Member Bowler?

Thank you. And I guess I'm still trying to get a sense of the referral in terms of its scope, in terms of large, complex commercial establishments, grocery store, pharmacy, these types of things. Is it by square footage? Is it by? amount of customers. Is there any way to narrow it and do we know currently how many businesses in Alameda might fit this category in terms of right now being vacant?

My hope is that, yes, we should be able to specify the large format store in terms of uses, grocery stores or pharmacies. Because these stores have a repeat customer basis. People go shopping once, you know, once a week, or maybe once every two weeks. So in that sense, they're foot traffic generating. They're bringing people. So I think we can go beyond the generalities of large, how large, or beyond the generalities of foot traffic. I think it's important to have those, but I think we can also frame it even by specifying grocery stores or pharmacies that meet certain criteria. Are they anchors to a community or neighborhood shopping center? So yes.

Do you think there's more than one business in Alameda currently? Because there's obviously other stores of those categories that are probably smaller than the CVS that was at Harbor Bay. But I don't know if there's anything similar.

Yeah, no, I don't think there is. I think there's very few shopping centers in Alameda that fit one of the criteria. I think there's only one in 94502.

And I just want to say, Councilmember Dayslug, and to the entire council, that I do appreciate this referral. I live in Harbor Bay. I'm very aware. Constantly, every week, I'm in the shopping center. And I've talked to literally hundreds of residents in Harbor Bay. had a meeting at one point which was covered by the media that 300 people showed up to because they're concerned about this. But I wouldn't want this referral in any way to deter the city, and I don't think it will, by the way, from doing additional things to try to really address the situation. I know the mayor referenced that as well. So I would just want everyone in the public to understand, too, that this in no way would minimize the additional efforts we would do. And ultimately, this is private property. And so it's a communication and a negotiation that the city has to really carefully navigate. And that's, I believe, what is currently happening now. And I believe it's a high priority for the city manager and his staff.

If I can make a quick point on that, and also to the point raised by the mayor. In the best of all worlds, we will always negotiate with our partners or property owners using carrots. And I think when it came to what ultimately became Nob Hill, we kind of had a carrot approach. But I think there are times when you might need a stick. So this would be that. Does it apply currently to any situations? I don't think it applies currently to any specific situations. I mean, if the vacancy tax is approved, and I think has to be approved by the vote of the people, if it's approved by the vote of the people and there's still situations that meet the criteria a year from now or two years from now, well, then at least you have you have this arrow in your quiver, so to speak. So I don't know about retroactivity, but I think the effectiveness is down the line.

And to that point, I mean, you can't go back, I don't believe, but you can go forward. But I think the pertinent question among others is, but will it be effective? With this particular owner, I'm not sure that the steepest fine is going to motivate them. And I think there also has to be some nexus you can't just Charge, you know, whatever there has to be some basis and reason but ultimately if you want is to improve that shopping center That might not be the way to do it. But would you be collecting? Tax revenue that then would be directed somewhere that could help the city. I don't know what I have I'm thinking as we go but I I would think that at the very least, well, maybe this is what I would be willing to do, is to ask staff to look into what the possibilities are. and the vacancy fee, and maybe if there's any other or in tandem with. Because I think at the end of the day, you want results, not just to say, oh, look, we passed this. Because it's also not going to be an immediate solution, because you're not going to get it on the ballot anytime soon. So what we need to do, I think we need to do in the near term as well.

And also, there might be a regulatory way in terms of it being more of a, Council Member Day thought it was tricky in terms of carrot and stick and sounds more like a penalty of the tax, I guess is the right term. But there might be a vacancy tax or a penalty that's more because of regulatory issues that have to do with code enforcement that wouldn't necessarily require a vote at the polls.

Madam Mayor, if I may?

Yes, please. Just to respond to your query, Councilmember, yes, if it was a general tax, it would have to go to the people on a ballot measure and comply with any applicable procedures under Prop 218 or Prop 26. And to your point, Councilmember Boehler, obviously this would be more of a staff level determination in terms of what is brought back to you. But of course, there is a wide array of different kinds of taxes and fees and assessments and mechanisms of that nature. that can likely be looked at. And then I also just did want to clarify, Madam Mayor, for the public that, of course, while Harbor Bay Landing is, I think, maybe generating the council's discussion on this and interest in this topic, of course, any tax fee assessment, whatever mechanism that council may ultimately adopt would, of course, apply citywide and would not be targeting one particular site or property owner.

If there's no other comments, maybe I'll just make a motion that directs staff to come back to the city council in March 2027 with the findings of their research and whatever recommendations that they have.

Six months from now.

Yeah. I mean, six months? Does that give you enough?

We've got a motion. Do I have a second?

Yeah, that's my motion.

Council member Bowler. So it's been moved by Council member Dasog that we direct staff to look into this item and come back in six months, March of 2027, with a report to the city council. And that motion was seconded by Council member Bowler. Any further discussion?

I would like to make an amendment. Just because I would like to get more information immediately about if there are any potential, as I mentioned earlier and as the city manager responded, there is a vacancy tax policy that was discussed and checked off in the strategic plan. So I would just like to have a report back sooner to this council regarding the status of that policy and whether that policy might be used in current situations.

And Councilor Jensen, I don't think we need to amend Councilmember Daszak's motion, because I heard the city manager say that he would look into that. So I think staff direction was given. I'll look it back to the full council on this topic. And he'll report back. And sooner than March of 2027, right? Soonish.

I want to make one quick statement, really quick. A real quick statement I want to make is this is, for us owners of small retail spaces, of which there are many on Park Street, for example, they would not be subject to this.

One other thing. One other thing.

Thank you. Also, it's not directed towards the motion, but if appropriate, I would like to ask staff to report to council as soon as possible and the public when it's appropriate on other efforts to address the situation.

I think some of that may take place in closed session soon.

Yeah, OK, thank you. Thank you.

OK, we had a motion by Councilmember Daszak, seconded by Councilmember Boehler. All those in favor, please signify by stating aye. Aye. OK, I heard five ayes, right? OK, that motion passes unanimously. And then we go to, I haven't gotten to this yet.

You know what kind of a week, couple weeks I've been having.

I have not. Oh, but anyway, I skipped over. 11 is council communications, where council members may speak for up to nine minutes, but don't feel that you have to, to address any matter not on the agenda, including reporting on conferences or meetings. Why don't we start on my left with Council Member Jensen.

Oh, thank you. Madam Mayor, I did actually, I'll start by saying that I've attended a number of events recently, including the opening today of ribbon cutting for a new dental practice in the first floor of the Arrow Building. So we're getting retail and services. in the Arrow Building at Alameda Point. And it's a beautiful office. So if you need your teeth done, we've got the place for you. The other events were last Sunday that I'll just mention. The kickoff for the Measure L campaign, very well attended and excited. There's a lot of excited community members. working on measure L and later on Sunday was the first annual Alameda porch fest including music about 12 to 15 bands performing on people's porches in in and around Franklin Park and in Apparently, there was no calls for service, no issues, no problems with parking or anything from what I understand. And so hopefully Sylvana will continue in future years because it was really lovely. And I'll just use the remainder of my time to express my support for the three agenda items that the council approved this evening, although I did abstain on one of those. All of the policies I believe will have a positive impact on Alameda's rental housing market. And the last policy, especially that was approved, will protect Alameda tenants. So we do need to do these amendments, I think, regularly to make sure that we're instituting all the protections that we can for our tenants. As I mentioned in my comments on the short-term rental policy, Alameda's 5% vacancy rate suggests that we have a balanced rental market compared to places like San Francisco, where the vacancy rate's much lower and the rents are much higher. That may be true. We have to continue to support tenants while ensuring that landlords are able to maintain and improve their units. I believe that maintaining healthy rental availability and preventing affordability squeezes continues to require that we be proactive. And our policies and our staff have been doing that. So all three of these rent-related policies adopted are so effective. And there'll be strategies that will create and and expand Alameda's long-term rental market, I think. So hopefully we'll continue with the leadership of the city manager and with the outstanding staff from the city manager's office and the city attorney's office. Bye-bye, Kara. Although Kara will be gone, but we still have great staff to continue on this path to make Alameda a supportive and affordable place to live for both renters and homeowners.

And that's my comments. Thank you. Thank you. Vice Mayor Pryor.

Yeah, I looked. It doesn't look like I did. I've been busy, but I have not done any city events. But we are going away next week to Cal City Conference. So I will have lots of things to report when we come back in two weeks.

Two weeks? Three weeks? OK. And it won't be a matter of leaving the morning after a council meeting, just because of the way our meeting is set, which will be lovely. Council Member Boulder, let's go to you.

I have nothing to report.

Thank you. OK. Council Member Daszak?

along with Mayor Ashcraft attended the ceremony of the remembering the 25th anniversary of 9-11 that was at along with our city manager Jerry I got there at 630 Our chief said get there at 6.30, so I got there at 6.30.

Good for you. I didn't.

But it was at Fire Station 1, and it was a very nice, solemn ceremony that our... men and women in our fire department had put on. Also, on the previous day, on September 10, I attended on behalf of the mayor of Alameda and also expressed it on behalf of my colleagues on city council. At Coast Guard Island, recognizing the enlisted person of the quarter. as well as a civilian employee of the quarter. So that was a lot of fun attending that and getting breakfast.

Thank you. So I, let's see, on November, goodness gracious, September 2nd, I was interviewed by the editor of the Ensenal High Echo. Did you have the Ensenal High Echo when you were there? We had Jet Noise. Jet Noise, I love it. gotten quieter maybe. This is an online publication, but great questions. And it was a fun interview. I think Miss Isabel Kim interviewed me on September 7, which was also Labor Day. The vice mayor and I met up with a group of the residents in the Marina Shores development and did a walk and talk, which led to one of the council referrals that we will hear at the next meeting. And on September something or other, the 10th, I think it was. Yes, sorry. The 10th of September, I spoke to the Chamber of Commerce Leadership Forum. It is an amazing program. Madeline Sadek does a great job of pulling together about 24 members of the class. And it is almost a year long. And they learn so much about the city. We've had at least a couple of folks who've graduated apply and be nominated a name to our boards and commissions. So it's a great opportunity. And then also that day, I spoke at Mastic Senior Center. They have kind of a civic engagement group. And they ask lots of good questions. And yes, on the morning of September 11th, but I probably got there at quarter to 7, I joined the city manager and council member days at Fire Station 1 for a remembrance of the 9-11 event. And a 25-year anniversary, in fact. And then later that evening, my husband and I went into San Francisco on the ferry to attend the Coast Guard Ball, which was very nice and very well attended. It was my second ferry trip into San Francisco that day, because I had my MTC policy committee meetings. But the ferry is a great way to get around. Public transit is. And then the next evening, September the 12th, was the 90th anniversary of Bohol Circle, which started 90 years ago, I guess it was in 1936, by this group of, Filipino immigrants, they were men, all young men, and they came here, they worked, they were laborers, but at the same time, and they weren't making a lot of money because they were laborers, but they were sending money back to their families, to their homes, and And again, this group of a dozen young men, one of them fell ill and died. And then the others were left with this dilemma of, how do we provide a dignified burial? And how do we provide for his family back home he was supporting? So that's how Baha'u'llah Circle came to be. It was a mutual aid society. So in addition to taking part of their wages to send back to their families in the Philippines, and paying whatever they needed to pay to pay rent, and buy food, and support themselves here. They were setting aside to create this mutual aid society so that when Filipino immigrants had needs, they could help them. And eventually, and Council Member Desai, help me remember, what's the street that the Bohol Circle, the clubhouse is on?

I think it's Lafayette.

I think you're right.

Lafayette below, like below Buena Vista?

Right above Buena Vista. And eventually, first they were just allowed to use this property that belonged to a gentleman who was a landscaper, a gardener, another Filipino. And they put up an awning, and then they could have meetings and do things there. Eventually, they bought the property. And eventually, they were able to build the clubhouse that is still there. And so 90 years later, and it was a lovely event. I was asked to speak, the attorney general Rob Bonta was the keynote speaker. His mother, Cynthia Bonta, introduced him. Her introduction might have been longer than the keynote speech, but she's a very proud mom. And then the consul general, the Philippine consul general from the consulate in San Francisco, and one of his consuls were there as well, and so was Malia Vela, a former council member and vice mayor of Filipino descent. But very nicely attended. And I mean, people came from as far as Sacramento, and just generations of folks. And there was a great slideshow going on in the back. So that was very lovely. It was out in Dublin. The next afternoon, I attended an Eagle Scout Court of Honor. For a young man who did this lovely project, he created a wheelchair training facility at one of the schools in the Oakland Unified School District for their special education class so that these students, and I'm sitting next to special ed teachers, so they can practice using ramps. There's even an area that simulates an AC transit bus stop. And to do 180 turn, to go through a doorway. There was a whole list of things. And it was really impressive. That was this Eagle Scout project. I love going to those events. In Alameda, they have a really vibrant scouting program from the Girl Scouts, the Boy Scouts, and the Family Scouts, they call it, that are accepted boys and girls. And one of the leaders of one of the Cub Scout packs was telling me, they have so many scouts that they're starting a new pack. And I said, where in Alameda? And she told me, on the West End. And I love that, because there aren't enough of those facilities. But I was thanking the parents and the chaperones and guardians and stuff who were there, because these programs couldn't exist without our parent and other adult volunteers. And it's not that Alamedans are any less busy than everybody else, but there is just this history of contributing. And they always introduce Eagle Scouts who were there that day, and some very notable names that you would know from local businesses were there. So that's how much history there there is in this city. And I'm the mother of an Eagle Scout, too. So anyway, that's it in a nutshell. Oh, and I should also say that this is, today, September 15, is National Voter Registration Day. You have until 15 days before election day. And election day is November 3. There's a way to register provisionally on election day, but really, It's so easy to do it online. Do it now. Get yourself registered. I know the city clerk is gearing up already for election day. And you know, there's been a lot of nonsense out there in the media, things that people are trying to do at, say, the federal level that the Supreme Court thankfully shot down yesterday. But I always tell people, get that ballot, read it over, complete it. Because we all get vote by mail ballots now. And be sure before you seal it and take it to deliver it that you've followed all the instructions on the envelope, done everything you're told to. My strong suggestion would be take it to one of the three drop boxes in Alameda, Oak Street right along City Hall, out in front of the Ledecker Library on Bay Farm, and out in front of the College of Alameda on the west end. Or you could take it to the Registrar of Voters in Oakland. That would be my first choice before putting it in the mailbox. But if you choose to, better to take it and put it at the post office in the slot there. You don't need a stamp. But get it in. And don't wait till the last minute. It just makes things a little more streamlined. But whatever you do, vote. So with that, oh my goodness, it's 1034. Let's get out of here. Thank you all for your time. Thank you, staff. Great job. And at 1034, the city council meeting is adjourned. Thank you, everyone.