{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2019-09-03", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -SEPTEMBER 3, P.M.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 5:17 p.m.\nRoll Call - Present:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Knox White, Oddie, Vella and\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5.\n[Note: Councilmember Daysog arrived at 5:24 p.m.]\nAbsent:\nNone.\nThe meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(19-452) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (Pursuant to Government\nCode \u00a7 54956.9); Case Name: Mortimer Howard V City of Alameda, et al.; Court:\nAlameda Superior Court; Case Number: RG18893937\n(19-453) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (Pursuant to Government\nCode \u00a7 54956.9); Case Name: Boatworks V City of Alameda, et al.; Court: Superior\nCourt of the State of California, County of Alameda; Case Numbers: RG14746654,\nRG16823346, RG16841240; Court: First District Court of Appeal; Case Numbers:\nA151063, A151919\n(19-454) Public Employee Performance Evaluation Pursuant to Government Code \u00a7\n54957; Positions Evaluated: City Manager - Eric Levitt and City Attorney - Yibin Shen\n(19-455) Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Pursuant to Government Code\nSection 54956.8); Property: Emma Hood Swim Center, 2256 Alameda Avenue,\nAlameda, CA 94501; City Negotiator: Amy Wooldridge, Recreation and Parks Director,\nCity of Alameda; Negotiating Parties: City of Alameda and the Alameda Unified School\nDistrict; Under Negotiation: Price and terms of payment for the lease of the property\nFollowing the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and the City Clerk\nannounced that regarding Howard, staff provided information to Council and Council\nprovided direction to staff with no vote taken; regarding Boatworks, staff provided\ninformation to Council and Council provided direction to staff by unanimous vote to\nauthorize a settlement for the case (Alameda Superior Court Case Number\nRG14746654, Court of Appeal Case Numbers A151063, A151919), which involves a\nlegal challenged raised by Developer Boatworks against the City's Development Impact\nFees (\"DIF\") ordinance codified in Alameda Municipal Code Chapter 27-3; on May 15,\n2019, the California Court of Appeal held that that the City's Parks and Recreation fee\ncomponent of its DIF is \"invalid and unenforceable\" and upheld the trial court's order for\nthe City to pay Boatworks its attorneys' fees incurred at the trial court; in July of this\nyear, the Council amended the DIF Ordinance to address the Court's concerns; in order\nto fully resolve the case and avoid further costs and litigation regarding attorney's fees\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 3, 2019", "path": "CityCouncil/2019-09-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2019-09-03", "page": 2, "text": "incurred at the Court of Appeal, the Council authorized the City Attorney to settle the\nmatter by paying $77,334.03 to Boatworks, plus necessary statutory interest, if any is\nincurred; Performance Evaluation, Council provided direction to staff with no vote taken;\nand regarding Real Property, staff provided information to Council and Council provided\ndirection with no vote taken.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 7:00\np.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 3, 2019", "path": "CityCouncil/2019-09-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2019-09-03", "page": 3, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -SEPTEMBER 3, 2019- 7:00 P.M.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:08 p.m. Councilmember Oddie led the\nPledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Knox White, Oddie, Vella,\nand Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\nNone.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(19-456) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft made brief comments regarding Miranda Robles-Tuttle\nand called for a moment of silence in her memory.\n(19-457) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft read a proclamation declaring September as Childhood\nCancer Awareness Month.\n(19-458) Lincoln and Wood Middle School students Kaia, Alexandra, and Laila made\ncomments regarding a butterfly project to support children in migrant camps.\n(19-459) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft read a proclamation declaring September 15 to October\n15, 2019 as National Hispanic Heritage Month.\nAGENDA CHANGES\n(19-460) Vice Mayor Knox White inquired whether Council would consider combining\nthe two rent items [paragraph nos. 19-480 and 19-486].\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like to keep the items separate.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(19-461) Alan Teague, Alameda, stated there is a housing crisis; suggested placing two\nmeasures on the ballot to modify Measure A to allow for development.\n(19-462) Chaz Arurang, Toys for Tots Foundation, made an announcement that a\nstorage and distribution center is needed for the toys.\n(19-463) Nancy Hird, Save Alameda's Working Waterfront, submitted information;\nexpressed concern over the Alameda Marina project.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 3, 2019\n1", "path": "CityCouncil/2019-09-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2019-09-03", "page": 4, "text": "(19-464) Cheri Johansen, City of Alameda Democratic Club, announced an upcoming\nevent.\n(19-465) Richard Neveln, Alameda, expressed concern over noticing for entry into units\nat Independence Plaza.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nThe Fire Station 5 feasibility study [paragraph no. 19-471]; ferry terminal resolution\n[paragraph no. 19-476]; and ordinance [paragraph no. 19-477 were removed from the\nConsent Calendar for discussion.\nVice Mayor Knox White moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.\nCouncilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph\nnumber.]\n(*19-466) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings Held on July 2,\n2019. Approved.\n(*19-467tified bills in the amount of $ 24,327,141.65.\n(*19-468) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Contract in the\nAmount of $120,000 with Operation Dignity to Provide Mobile Outreach Services for\nAlameda's Homeless Population for Fiscal Year 2019-20. Accepted.\n(*19-469) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager, or His Designee, to Execute\na Ten-Year Agreement for Temporary Assignment of Vehicular Equipment with the\nState of California Office of Emergency Services for a Type 1 Fire Engine to be Utilized\nfor Statewide Mutual Aid Response and Local Use. Accepted.\n(*19-470) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute an\nAgreement for the Purchase of One Horton F-550 Type I Ambulance and Related\nEquipment in an Amount Not to Exceed $391,464.51. Accepted.\n(19-471) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager, or His Designee, to Execute\nService Provider Agreement in the Amount of $24,970 with Shah Kawasaki Architects,\nInc. for the Feasibility Study of Fire Station 5 New Site Construction Cost.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired where the funding for construction and having an\nadditional Fire Station would come from; how does the funding maintain the revenue\nneutral policy for Alameda Point development; stated going into a recession is not the\nbest time to take on additional General Fund expenditures.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 3, 2019\n2", "path": "CityCouncil/2019-09-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2019-09-03", "page": 5, "text": "The Deputy Fire Chief responded the Fire Department is looking at an intermediate term\nproject; stated the Feasibility Study is the starting point and will estimate if the existing\nfacility can be used within reasonable bounds; there are additional considerations due\nto the historic nature of the building; the Study will allow for a second site to be\ndetermined if proven to be more economical; a station will be needed for Alameda Point\nin the future.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the Feasibility Study will allow Council to\ndetermine the funding in the future, to which the Deputy Fire Chief responded in the\naffirmative.\nThe City Manager stated there will a point in time where revenues and tax base can\nsupport the operation; there are three Staffing for Adequate Fire & Emergency\nResponse (SAFER) grants for employees and there is hope for three more; ensuring\nsufficient funding is the priority.\nVice Mayor Knox White inquired whether the Master Infrastructure Plan (MIP) for\nAlameda Point includes the funding to build Station 5 and whether the new station will\nbe trigger within the Plan when a certain occupancy is reached.\nThe City Manager expressed agreement for the concept; stated the nuance of when the\nconcept occurs and what fiscal neutrality means at full buildout will be factors.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft questioned whether the timeline for full buildout would be 20 years\nfrom now, to which Vice Mayor Knox White responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the reason for doing the Feasibility Study now is to look at\nconstruction costs.\nThe Deputy Fire Chief stated that construction costs will certainly change; suggested\nnot looking at full buildout until the need is present; stated the Fire Department is\nrecommending what the community needs in order to provide services that are\nexpected, and Council may provide direction; full buildout is not anticipated until the\nservices are needed.\nVice Mayor Knox White stated the trigger for building Station 5 is not full buildout, it is\nsometime after Site A opens; the coverage for operation costs are built into full buildout.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated the breakdown is consistent\nwith the Master Infrastructure Plan (MIP).\nVice Mayor Knox White expressed support for receiving an update on the plan.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether the feasibility is related to the construction\ncosts, not the anticipated revenues required to staff the station, to which the Deputy Fire\nChief responded in the affirmative.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 3, 2019\n3", "path": "CityCouncil/2019-09-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2019-09-03", "page": 6, "text": "Councilmember Daysog stated the concern for future costs will need to be a separate\nanalysis; hopefully the previous plan will be able to carry the annual and long-term cost\nobligations.\nCouncilmember Oddie outlined the feasibility study goals; stated shovels are in the\nground; response times need to be ensured so that all Alamedans on the former Base\ncan experience the same level of public safety.\nCouncilmember Oddie moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nVice Mayor Knox White seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the contract amount is lower than the\namount the City Manager needs to come to Council for consideration; however, a\npreviously authorized study for rehabilitation brought the total amount close to the limit;\nthat she will vote to approve the feasibility study, but there are many different ways to\nprotect the Island; there is only so much revenue coming in and there are many\nexpenditures; a recession may be coming in the not too distant future; the item will\nproceed one step at a time.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(*19-472) Recommendation to Accept the Work of Rosas Brothers Construction for the\nRepair of Concrete Sidewalk, Curb, Gutter, Driveway, and Minor Street Patching, Fiscal\nYear 2018-19, Phase 19, No. P.W. 07-18-26. Accepted.\n(*19-473) Recommendation to Accept the Semi-Annual Report for the Period Beginning\nJanuary 1, 2019 through June 30, 2019, on 1) Litigation and Liability Claims\nSettlements, and 2) Whether Any Records Previously Withheld from Disclosure Have\nNow Become Available to the Public. Accepted.\n(*19-474) Recommendation to Authorize the City Attorney's Office to Follow Purchasing\nGuidelines Set Forth in Administrative Policies and Procedures, Number 5; and\n(*19-475) Resolution No. 15576, \"Repealing Resolution No. 13893 Empowering the City\nAttorney to Employ Special Legal Counsel.\" Adopted.\n(19-476) Resolution No. 15577, \"Authorizing the City Manager to Consent to the Six-\nMonth Extension of the Landing Rights Agreement to Land at Harbor Bay Ferry\nTerminal By and Between San Francisco Bay Area Water Emergency Transportation\nAuthority (WETA) and Tideline Marine Group.\" Adopted.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he will support the item with one caveat; expressed\nconcern about public facilities being built with public funds and private operators coming\nin at lower costs \"Uber-ing\" the Water Emergency Transit Authority (WETA); stated that\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 3, 2019\n4", "path": "CityCouncil/2019-09-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2019-09-03", "page": 7, "text": "he would like to ensure a card check neutrality agreement to protect workers when the\nitem comes back.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the WETA Board of Directors approved the extension\nagreement unanimously; outlined the agreement approval process; stated a new life-\nscience company at Harbor Bay Business Park moved to Alameda from South San\nFrancisco with many employees still living in South San Francisco; a private water\nshuttle will be permitted with the approval from WETA.\nCouncilmember Vella stated staff brought information to Council prior to WETA\napproval; WETA's process is informed by Council discussions and direction.\nVice Mayor Knox White moved adoption of the resolution.\nCouncilmember Vella seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(19-477) Ordinance No. 3248, \"Amending Alameda Municipal Code Section 30-2.B\n(Zoning Regulations) to Define \"Animal Shelter\" and Section 30-4.10 (Zoning\nRegulations) to Add Animal Shelter and Supervised Outdoor Animal Runs as Uses\nRequiring a Use Permit within the C-M (Commercial-Manufacturing) Zoning District.\"\nFinally passed.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he has previously not supported the item and he will\ncontinue to not support the item.\nVice Mayor Knox White moved final passage of the ordinance.\nCouncilmember Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote:\nAyes: Councilmembers Knox White, Oddie, Vella and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 4. Noes:\nCouncilmember Daysog - 1.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(19-478) Resolution No. 15578, \"Appointing Elizabeth Rush as a Member of the Public\nArt Commission.\" Adopted;\n(19-478 A) Resolution No. 15579, \"Appointing Kirstin Van Cleef as a Member of the\nPublic Art Commission.\" Adopted;\n(19-478 B) Resolution No. 15580, \"Reappointing Simon Chiu as a Member of the Rent\nReview Advisory Committee (RRAC). Adopted; and\n(19-478 ( C) Resolution No. 15581, \"Reappointing Brendan Sullivan-Cheal as a Member\nof the Rent Review Advisory Committee.' Adopted.\nCouncilmember Oddie moved adoption of the resolutions appointing the Public Art\nCommission members.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 3, 2019\n5", "path": "CityCouncil/2019-09-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2019-09-03", "page": 8, "text": "Vice Mayor Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5.\nThe City Clerk administered the Oath of Office and presented certificates of\nappointment to Ms. Rush and Ms. Van Cleef.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted the RRAC might go away but still has one meeting left;\nstated reappointing the members for the potential last meeting would be nice.\nVice Mayor Knox White moved adoption of the resolutions reappointing the RRAC\nmembers.\nCouncilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5.\n(19-479) Public Hearing to consider Resolution No. 15582, \"Adopting a Mitigated\nNegative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Climate Action\nand Resiliency Plan (CARP). Adopted.\nThe Deputy Public Works Director gave a brief presentation.\nExpressed support for encouraging carpooling to the ferry terminals: Alan Teague,\nAlameda.\nExpressed support for the comprehensive plan; urged approval: Lauren Eisele,\nCommunity Action for a Sustainable Alameda.\nDiscussed focusing on the goal; urged implementation of the Plan: William Smith, Sierra\nClub.\nVice Mayor Knox White inquired whether the Mitigated Negative Declaration needs to\nbe adopted first, to which the City Attorney responded the resolution is set forth and\nsequenced so that Council adopts the environmental document first, then approves the\nPlan within one resolution.\nVice Mayor Knox White moved adoption of the resolution with the addition of the\nClimate Action Emergency Declaration being added as pages 2 and 3 ahead of the\ntable of contents.\nCouncilmember Oddie seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Oddie stated there is a referral coming later to deal\nwith bicycle priorities and Stopwaste is discussing reducing organics due to Senate Bill\n(SB) 1383; expressed support for finding ways to partner with local grocers and the\nFoodbank to address food waste.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 3, 2019\n6", "path": "CityCouncil/2019-09-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2019-09-03", "page": 9, "text": "Councilmember Daysog stated that he appreciates the section related to building\nresilience into physical environment and infrastructure; expressed concern over\ncongestion pricing; stated a toll through the Webster Street tube will be burdensome for\nresidents and businesses.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:\nCouncilmembers Knox White, Oddie, Vella and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 4. Noes:\nCouncilmember Daysog - 1.\n(19-480) Urgency Ordinance No. 3249, \"Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by (1)\nAdding Section 1-8.01 Concerning Hearing Procedures, Hearing Officers' Decisions and\nAdministrative Regulations, (2) Repealing in Their Entirety Article XIV (Currently\nSuspended) and Article XV of Chapter VI Concerning (a) Review of Rent Increases\nApplicable to All Rental Units and Rent Stabilization Applicable to Certain Rental Units\nand (b) Limitations on Evictions and the Payment of Relocation Assistance Applicable to\nAll Rental Units; and (3) Repealing Ordinance No. 3246 (Uncodified); and (4) Adding a\nRestated Article XV to Chapter VI Concerning Rent Control, Limitations on Evictions\nand Providing Relocation Payments to Displaced Tenants, including Section 8.\"\nAdopted;\n(19-480A) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by (1)\nAdding Section 1-8.01 Concerning Hearing Procedures, Hearing Officers' Decisions and\nAdministrative Regulations, (2) Repealing in Their Entirety Article XIV (Currently\nSuspended) and Article XV of Chapter VI Concerning (a) Review of Rent Increases\nApplicable to All Rental Units and Rent Stabilization Applicable to Certain Rental Units\nand (b) Limitations on Evictions and the Payment of Relocation Assistance Applicable to\nAll Rental Units; and (3) Repealing Ordinance No. 3246 (Uncodified); and (4) Adding a\nRestated Article XV to Chapter VI Concerning Rent Control, Limitations on Evictions\nand Providing Relocation Payments to Displaced Tenants, including Section 8.\nIntroduced;\n(19-480B) Resolution No. 15583, \"Establishing Relocation in Accordance with the City\nof Alameda's Rent Control Ordinance; and Recommendation to Approve the Content of\nthe Rent Registration Statement.\" Adopted; and\n(19-480C) Recommendation to Approve the Content of the Rent Registration\nStatement.\nThe Community Development Director gave a Power Point presentation and outlined\nupcoming workshops.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired about the noticing requirement for the 10% increase.\nThe Community Development Director responded a rent increase in excess of 10%\nrequires a 60-day notice.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 3, 2019\n7", "path": "CityCouncil/2019-09-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2019-09-03", "page": 10, "text": "Councilmember Oddie stated the tenant would have one month or more of increased\nrent.\nThe Community Development Director stated the tenant may move out anytime within\nthe 90-day period if they are unable to pay the rent increase and are interested in\nrelocation benefits.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether a process for Costa Hawkins involving a non-\nbinding decision from the Rent Review Advisory Committee (RRAC) would no longer be\navailable, to which the Community Development Director responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether a voluntary program will be available.\nThe Community Development Director responded rent program staff are all trained\nmediators and are happy to mediate when there are two consenting parties.\nCouncilmember Daysog left the dais at 8:30 p.m. and returned at 8:32 p.m.\n***\nIn response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry, the Community Development Director\nstated the new rent relocation is tied to the number of bedrooms; stated the prior\nnumber was based on the number of years lived in the unit.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether there is data related to an uptick or downtick in\nthe impact on landlords making Section 8 available.\nThe Community Development Director responded the housing choice voucher program\nwhich makes Section 8 vouchers available in the private sector is completely voluntary;\nstated it is challenging to find landlords willing to take Section 8 tenants when the max\nrent is set by payment standards; there are currently over 75 tenants with vouchers\nlooking for housing in the City of Alameda; if Council were to extend just cause eviction\nprotections to housing choice voucher holders, there could be a depression in landlords\ninterested in accepting Section 8 tenants but it is unknown; loss of funding for vouchers\nwill be one of the long term effects if the Housing Authority is unable to place voucher\nholders with private sector landlords.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether the information can be tracked; stated when\njust cause was implemented, and Section 8 was exempted, there should have been an\nuptick in Section 8 given that people could be evicted.\nThe Community Development Director responded the next agenda item after would\nprohibit discrimination based on source of income and provides protections to Section 8\nvoucher holders.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated there is an exemption if there are contracts for housing\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 3, 2019\n8", "path": "CityCouncil/2019-09-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2019-09-03", "page": 11, "text": "services that provide some type of just cause protection.\nThe Community Development Director stated since 2016 the ordinance has exempted\nunits with regulatory agreements.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether those are stronger or weaker than City\nprotections.\nThe Community Development Director responded when a regulatory agreement exists\ndue to a tax credit project, just cause is needed to evict a tenant.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether Housing Authority properties are excluded, to\nwhich the Community Development Director responded most Housing Authority projects\nare subject to regulatory agreements.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether there will be a report back to Council on the\ntype of reports which are going to be generated, and if so, when can the report be\nexpected.\nThe Community Development Director responded the ordinance continues to require an\nannual report updating the Council about the rent program; stated Council will see the\ndetails in the annual report for the current Fiscal Year 2019-20.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether units affected by natural disaster would be\nincluded in rent protections.\nThe Community Development Director responded relocation benefits would be allowed\ndepending on the cause; stated if a fire is not caused by negligence of the landlord,\nrelocation benefits would not be paid.\nStated changes affect the Housing Authority; outlined his experience as an active\nparticipant in the housing choice voucher program: Alan Teague, Alameda.\nOutlined his experience as a renter in Alameda; discussed renters being treated fairly:\nHarry McCurdy, Alameda.\nStated that she is a Section 8 voucher holder; urged Council to extend protections for\nSection 8 tenants: Connie Trusseh, Alameda.\nExpressed concern over treatment of renters: Austin Tam, Alameda.\nStated relocation payments for no fault evictions need to be tied to Alameda and should\nincrease by 70% of Consumer Price Index (CPI); discussed hotel rates and increased\nlandlord costs: Dona Fisher, Landlord.\n***\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 3, 2019\n9", "path": "CityCouncil/2019-09-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2019-09-03", "page": 12, "text": "September 3, 2019\n10", "path": "CityCouncil/2019-09-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2019-09-03", "page": 13, "text": "Alameda; urged adoption of the urgency ordinance: William Smith, ARC.\nStated landlords need to be able to remove problem tenants; everyone should not pay\nfor the extreme cases: Nancy Gordon, Alameda.\nStated that she is a small landlord and is angry about what the City is proposing:\nRosalinda Fortuna, Alameda.\n***\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft called a recess at 9:12 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:29\np.m.\n***\nCouncilmember Oddie stated housing is a basic human right; society will judge how the\nmost vulnerable are treated; noted the sign stating \"everyone belongs here\" in\nChambers; stated every tenant has created a home, where they enjoy life and when\nthat is disrupted it is stressful; expressed support for the item; stated it is important to\nhave diversity in the community; outlined concerns raised related to the Housing\nAuthority and treatment of tenants; noted that he will bring a referral back related to\nHousing Authority concerns; stated that he would like to ensure tenant protections\nparticular to Central Avenue; Section 8 incentives should be looked at to ensure the 75\nvoucher holders can be housed in Alameda; the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) was\nnot discussed, but the housing stock should be kept in good shape; I tenants deserve\nhabitable residences; expressed concern over discrimination; stated the database\nshould be brought back soon with interim data; no one should be going through what he\n[Mr. Rishin] is going through.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated it is right to feel for the plight of the Rishin family; policy\nshould be made with direction from both heart and head for all sides, both renters and\nsmaller \"mom and pop\" landlords; it is not City Hall's place to make unilateral dictates,\nwhen reasonable alternatives exists to protect both renters and smaller landlords; the\noriginal Ordinance 3148 was a workable solution for both renters and smaller landlords;\nrather than continue to gut that ordinance, Council should have made modifications;\nthere are real repercussions to making drastic changes; to have small landlords come to\nmeetings and comment is a tell-tale sign that the burdensome policy changes being\npursued fall differently on different sized landlord categories; Council should have taken\ninto account smaller landlord operations; the penalties cannot be passed on to tenants;\nhe believes that Council should have made accommodations in both protecting renters\nand smaller landlords, as well as stifling excessive rent increases; Council is going\nmuch too far; outlined upcoming State-wide rent controls; stated smaller mom and pop\nlandlords will get out of the rental business thus reducing rental stock; diverse\npopulations are lost as a result of rent control in areas such as Berkeley and Santa\nMonica; he will not support the item.\nVice Mayor Knox White stated it is possible for people to remain thoughtful with different\nideologies and consider all sides to look for the best route forward; he is a small mom\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 3, 2019\n11", "path": "CityCouncil/2019-09-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2019-09-03", "page": 14, "text": "and pop landlord; expressed support for the item; stated certain outcomes will be more\ndifficult if the urgency ordinance is not passed today; the burdens are part of the bargain\nthat landlords make; landlords are providing housing for someone else; if there were\nsimple solutions, everyone would do it; solutions that have been put into place are not\nworking; expressed support for most of the item; stated some changes might be needed\nif Council is open; there should be requirements for temporary relocation benefits; once\na unit is available for moving back in, there should be a move-in timeline; expressed\nconcern for the temporary relocation schedule, which can be addressed at a future time;\nstated the schedule seems high; relocation payments should be based on receipts or\nsome form of direct payment, not a flat $335 per day payment; temporary relocation\nmust happen, but the cost is too high; reasonable assumptions must be made; if a\ntenant can find a room for $200 per night the relocation payment should be for $200 per\nnight, not just the flat $335 rate; expressed concern over the use of data from the\ndatabase; stated information has to be provided as part of a Public Records Act (PRA)\nrequest; the database should not be treated as a public record; Council should have\ninput from tenants and landlords to ensure information provided is aggregated\nappropriately; expressed support for clarifying partial payments when dealing with\nHousing Choice Vouchers; stated the item is important and is a community-wide\nconcern; expressed support for the urgency ordinance.\nCouncilmember Vella expressed support for the temporary relocation amounts coming\nback and passing the ordinance as written; stated one thing to include is additional\nadvance notice; the unit does have to be available on the date listed; there needs to be\na process if the unit is not made available on the date the tenant was advised;\nexpressed support for direct pay; stated there may be discrepancy issues without direct\npay; suitable accommodations must be found; expressed support for weekly and\nmonthly amounts; stated that she would not include partial payments from the US\nDepartment of Housing and Urban Development (HUD); expressed support for hearing\nthe language; questioned whether the ordinance can be changed and still pass or if the\nitem would need to come back; expressed concern over the database related to access\nto all information; requested a follow-up presentation be made after information\nrequests have been made; stated Council previously passed a resolution regarding\nfederal government requests for information; Council should be notified prior to any\nrelease of information to the federal government or federal agencies; Council approves\nthe Housing Authority board; Council should consider compounding issues for some of\nthe most vulnerable populations; there is a desire to do what is deemed best for the\nperson, however it is not always what the person believes is best for them; a process\nshould be in place before an eviction or loss of housing voucher occurs; expressed\nsupport for passing the urgency ordinance; stated discrimination is already happening;\nshe does not want to create a period of time where discrimination is allowed to continue;\nthe urgency ordinance must be passed; Council has to legislate for everybody;\ndecisions cannot be made specifically for one individual; both intended and unintended\nconsequences must be thought of; there is room for additional discussion at a later\ndate.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft discussed a workshop; stated the one landlord affecting Mr. Rishin\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 3, 2019\n12", "path": "CityCouncil/2019-09-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2019-09-03", "page": 15, "text": "does not typify the majority of landlords in the City; expressed support for the urgency\nordinance; requested Council consideration for items which may have unintended\nconsequences; stated relocation payments for certain categories of renters, such as\ntenants 62 years and older, tenants with disabilities, and tenants with minor children in\nthe household, will be augmented; outlined exhibit A; stated the numbers are based off\nHUD figures; the augmented rent raises the amounts by almost $2,000; the unintended\nconsequence could be discrimination based on income or supposed future hardships for\nthe landlord; the rationale behind augmented relocation fees are to help those that are\nmost vulnerable; to aid in relocation, a consultant service can be used when a renter\nreceives a no fault eviction notice; discussed Measure A; stated Alameda's multi-family\nhousing stock is limited and is getting older; the ordinance can still move forward on an\nurgency basis and Council can decide to eliminate the column in the table; expressed\nconcern for the per diem rates on hotels and motels; stated the meal cost is acceptable;\n$335 per day is steep; a modification can be made; an unintended consequence is\ndiscriminating against tenants who have pets due to added relocation costs; habitable\nhousing stock is needed; consideration must be made for the financial burden being\nimposed on landlords; changes should be made to the augmented relocation payments\nand the housing per diems.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he is happy to look at the per diem costs again; his\npreference is to pass as-is and bring it back for further discussion; expressed concern\nfor the potential discrimination against tenants with disabilities or children; stated that it\nis illegal but does happen.\n(19-482) Councilmember Oddie moved approval of suspending the rules to allow\nCouncilmembers to have more time.\nCouncilmember Vella seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated further discussion is needed; he would like information on\nother cities which have augmented relocation benefits.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she does not want to ascribe bad motives to\nsomeone's decisions, but fair changes have been made; Council can have relocation\nconsultants come in and provide the help needed.\nCouncilmember Vella stated there are weekly and monthly rates for boarding costs for\npets; relocation benefits are not necessarily a basis for who landlords will rent to; there\nis a 2% vacancy rate; there is a differentiation protecting those who are already housed;\ndue to the difficulty the most vulnerable has being able to find housing, it is important to\nkeep those who are housed in their home; outlined relocation consultant drawbacks\nbased on a trial use in Los Angeles; stated there are a number of issues including\nliability costs potentially being bore by the City; evidence needs to be found that\ndiscrimination occurs based on relocation costs; expressed support for not incentivizing\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 3, 2019\n13", "path": "CityCouncil/2019-09-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2019-09-03", "page": 16, "text": "The Community Development Director stated staff can come back; having a fee\nschedule in place is important; a temporary relocation situation has yet to happen since\nthe original ordinance has been in place; returning October 1 would be acceptable.\nCouncilmember Oddie seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Vella requested that the direction to staff include\nproviding costs of the alternatives.\nThe Community Development Director stated the Rent Program staff is scheduled to\ncome back the second meeting in October with the Annual Report; another option is to\ncome back with a revised resolution for Council consideration the second meeting in\nOctober.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support of staff returning the second meeting in\nOctober.\nThe City Attorney stated given that there are two different ordinances and a resolution,\nCouncil should take three separate votes.\nVice Mayor Knox White moved adoption of the urgency ordinance.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 3, 2019\n14", "path": "CityCouncil/2019-09-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2019-09-03", "page": 17, "text": "Councilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote:\nAyes: Councilmembers Knox White, Oddie, Vella and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 4. Noes:\nCouncilmember Daysog - 1.\nCouncilmember Vella moved introduction of the non-urgency ordinance.\nVice Mayor Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote:\nAyes: Councilmembers Knox White, Oddie, Vella and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 4. Noes:\nCouncilmember Daysog - 1.\nVice Mayor Knox White moved approval of the relocation payment schedule as-written\nwith direction to staff to come back by the second meeting in October with options for\nconsidering how to deal with the qualified tenant household column, whether or not that\nis continuing as approved or some sort of relocation consultant or other options, as well\nas revised language for the temporary relocation payment that allows for the Alameda-\nbased housing direct payment as discussed.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted the action includes adopting the resolution.\nCouncilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote:\nAyes: Councilmembers Knox White, Oddie, Vella and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 4. Noes:\nCouncilmember Daysog - 1.\nThe Community Development Director stated a motion is needed to approve the rent\nregistration statement.\nVice Mayor Knox White moved approval.\nCouncilmember Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote:\nAyes: Councilmembers Knox White, Oddie, Vella and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 4. Noes:\nCouncilmember Daysog - 1.\nAGENDA CHANGES\n(19-483) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the next rent item [paragraph no. 19-486 would be\nheard after other agenda items.\n***\nCouncilmember Vella left the meeting at 10:22 p.m.\n***\n***\n(19-484) Vice Mayor Knox White moved approval of hearing all the remaining items.\nThe City Clerk inquired whether the motion includes the Council referrals, to which Vice\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 3, 2019\n15", "path": "CityCouncil/2019-09-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2019-09-03", "page": 18, "text": "Mayor Knox White responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would support the motion if it is amended to have\nthe meeting end at midnight.\nCouncilmember Oddie seconded the motion with the amendment to end at midnight,\nwhich carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent: Councilmember Vella - 1.]\n(19-485) Recommendation to Provide Direction to Increase Parking Enforcement\nResources to Support Parking and Transportation Management Goals.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director and Public Works Coordinator gave\na Power Point presentation.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether there will be a decrease in revenue, to which\nthe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired where the revenue would increase under Option 2 or 3.\nThe Public Works Coordinator responded revenue targets will be realized with complete\nenforcement; stated parking revenue has declined over the years, and with proper\nenforcement at a compliance rate of 75%, revenue will stabilize and meet the\nprojections of $2,000,000 annually.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired about the $5,000,000 to $8,000,000 number listed in the\nstaff report.\nThe Public Works Coordinator responded those figures are looking out at the future\nparking supply; the projection is shown at the existing rates for existing time limits, not\naccounting for more advanced parking management such as dynamic pricing.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated the parking program needs to\npay for itself; revenues must cover expenses; costs can be covered in any of the\noptions; the question is whether the parking program will eventually generate revenue\nor solely cover costs; outlined transportation related funding opportunities should the\nparking program generate revenue.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired the total cost of Option 3 includes long term pension\nand Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB) liabilities.\nThe Public Works Coordinator responded said projection has not been done; stated\nstaff can take direction to bring back estimates.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 3, 2019\n16", "path": "CityCouncil/2019-09-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2019-09-03", "page": 19, "text": "Expressed support for the goal of reducing traffic congestion and greenhouse gas\nreduction; stated another goal should be reducing single-occupancy trips to and from\nthe ferry; urged caution about fines: Alan Teague, Alameda.\nStated imposing costs on drivers can be burdensome; urged the Council not to\nsubsidize driving; expressed support for Option 4: Denyse Trepanier, Alameda.\nVice Mayor Knox White stated the Issue is important; the parking policy has been\ndiscussed for over a decade; expressed support for Option 3; stated Option 4 would be\na two-year contract with a possible one-year extension allowing the City to put hiring in\nplace; the problems with hiring officers is causing difficulties for Options 1 and 2; if\nOption 4 is selected, prevailing wage requirements need to be met.\nCouncilmember Daysog expressed support for Option 2.\nCouncilmember Oddie expressed support for Option 2; stated his preference is Option\n3; outlined sections of the staff report related to parking incentives; stated that he does\nnot believe in outsourcing public jobs whatsoever as mentioned in Option 4; Option 3\nallows for revenue to reach a point where costs are covered and parking can become a\nrevenue generator and incentivizes a change in behavior.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he supports part-time police assistance because\nthey are part of the local fabric.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for Option 4; stated the situation needs to be\naddressed; the length of the contract can be revisited if needed; climate implications are\npart of the problem; outlined driving issues related to parking and merchant difficulties;\nstated if parking is not enforced; people tend to leave their vehicle on the street and\nothers cannot get in to support local businesses; an economic downturn is coming;\nparking revenue can be increased with Option 4; contract employees can be worked\ninto a full time position; Option 3 costs more than $2,500,000 at full build-out.\nVice Mayor Knox White inquired whether Option 3 includes current OPEB and long-term\nliabilities and not projected figures.\nThe City Manager responded that he is not sure if the figures do or do not include the\ncurrent liability.\nThe Public Works Coordinator stated the figures include today's current total costs.\nThe City Manager stated with the way California Public Employees' Retirement System\n(CalPERS) has changed the structure, future costs are predicted.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated if the economy does have a downturn, there could be\nmore people wanting to be part-time employees; there are anti-raiding provisions that\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 3, 2019\n17", "path": "CityCouncil/2019-09-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2019-09-03", "page": 20, "text": "state people cannot be taken from companies; discussed Oakland's experience with\noutsourcing.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he has lived near Webster Street for about 10 years\nand he has received at least 10 parking tickets; part-time parking enforcement staff are\nefficient; expressed support for Option 2; stated the cost for outsourcing is bore by the\nCity, but some vendors might over-ticket causing issue within the community.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council should think about what message is being sent;\nchoices should encourage walking over driving.\nThe City Manager stated with Options 2 through 4 there will be much more\nenforcement; there will be impacts and an increase in complaints; urged Council to take\ninto account that parking is a sensitive issue; stated moving to other modes of\ntransportation is an effective strategy.\nVice Mayor Knox White stated there are 8 part-time positions available and only 3 were\nable to be filled; expressed support for Option 3 or 4; stated Council has just passed a\nClimate Action Plan that requires Council to start adopting policies; there are many\nplans in place to help achieve the goals; the 3 parking enforcement staff members are\nefficient, however, they cannot cover the work of a full staff of 8; questioned whether\nthere could be consensus for a two-year pilot program that leads to Option 3.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated the thought that people will return when jobs are\noutsourced is magical thinking; that he has a visceral reaction to outsourcing jobs to the\nprivate sector; inquired whether there could be a hybrid of Option 2 and 3 with some\npart-time and some full-time staff.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether it is possible to include language that protects\nvalid interests, but also look at the reality of the situation.\nCouncilmember Oddie responded the matter is about values; discussed a rally he\nattended for Kaiser due to outsourcing of janitorial services and gardening services.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated there appears to be a plurality not a majority; values can be\nkept intact while addressing the issue; expressed support for a hybrid Option 4 leading\nto Option 3 as it will be most effective.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated the Charter requires 3 votes for any Council action.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council is providing direction.\nVice Mayor Knox White stated giving direction to move forward with a hybrid contract\nmodel will do no good; the contract will need to be approved by 3 votes.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 3, 2019\n18", "path": "CityCouncil/2019-09-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2019-09-03", "page": 21, "text": "The City Manager stated there is an option to look at Option 2 and 3 together; the\ncontract model can be with another public agency with public employees.\nVice Mayor Knox White stated that he would like to get to Option 3; expressed concern\nabout Option 3 being 18 months out until there is service and not meeting transportation\ngoals; expressed support for Option 4 with a shift to Option 3, along with providing\nprotections; stated the City has contracts with private companies that provide public\nservices; the conversation can be tabled until Councilmember Vella returns.\nCouncilmember Daysog expressed concern over Option 3; stated the $2,700,000 to\n2,800,000 needs to be translated into some kind of average traffic ticket cost which may\ncause sticker shock, especially with long-term liabilities; expressed support for Option 2;\nstated direction needs to be given to find appropriate staff; if staff cannot be found,\nCouncil needs to hear a strategy that can allow for proper part-time parking\nenforcement.\n***\nCouncilmember Vella returned at 11:07 p.m.\nThe City Manager stated one option is to hear from Councilmember Vella; a second\noption is to table the discussion and allow staff to come back with recommendations.\nCouncilmember Vella inquired whether Option 4 could be done as a pilot.\nVice Mayor Knox White outlined Councilmember standings on option preferences;\ninquired whether Councilmember Vella supports a specific option.\nCouncilmember Vella expressed concern over contracting out; stated that she does not\nsupport outsourcing work; outlined her experience with contracted work not being of\nquality; stated it is a time pressing issue; that she does not support Option 4 as a pilot;\nwhat is being proposed is a stop-gap measure, allowing for staff to negotiate with\nbargaining units involved to create a full-time model.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated one of the things to consider is time to ramp up to filling\nneeded positions; inquired how long a stop gap would be needed.\nCouncilmember Vella responded there is a public safety component; stated the middle\nground includes the bargaining unit weighing in on concerns; if a stop gap measure is\napproved, language would need to be included stating the intent is to have a bargaining\nunit and full-time positions; perhaps people hired on within the temporary time could be\ngiven the opportunity to be hired full-time; inquired how much time is needed to get to\nthe full time model.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 3, 2019\n19", "path": "CityCouncil/2019-09-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2019-09-03", "page": 22, "text": "Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the meeting will not go past midnight and there are\nadditional items to be heard; questioned whether the item can be brought back and\ncontinued to a date specific.\nThe City Manager suggested the item be continued to October 1.\nThe City Clerk stated the item can be placed on the next agenda without being\ncontinued.\nVice Mayor Knox White moved approval of to coming back on October 1 with the\ninformation requested from Councilmember Vella to have a stop gap contract model,\nwhere the length of the contract is based on the time it would take to work with\nbargaining units, set up positions, and hire staff.\nThe City Manager requested the item be moved to October 1 and staff be allowed to\ncompile options in order to keep the discussion open.\n(19-486) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding\nArticle XVIII to Chapter VI Concerning Fair Housing and Tenant Protections by\nProhibiting Unlawful Tenant Harassment, Disruption of Housing Services and Housing\nDiscrimination including Source of Income. Introduced.\nThe City Attorney gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether it is correct to say that when a landlord\naccepts a Section 8 tenant, they are also entering into a contract with the Housing\nAuthority which stipulates the landlord will supply a unit adhering to certain standards\nestablished by HUD and monitored by the local Housing Authority, to which the City\nAttorney responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether landlords have to accept Section 8 and\nwhether landlords must accept the standards stipulated in HUD.\nThe City Attorney responded in the negative; stated landlords must not discriminate on\nthe basis of source of income; outlined legitimate and illegitimate reasons for landlord\nstipulations.\nCouncilmember Daysog questioned whether a tenant legal advocate could take a case\nof Section 8 thought as discriminatory.\nThe City Attorney stated the scenario is hypothetically possible; outlined a gender\ndiscrimination example.\nDiscussed Section 8; stated both sides should be held to the same standard, not just\nlandlords; inquired about documentation; expressed support: Alan Teague, Alameda.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 3, 2019\n20", "path": "CityCouncil/2019-09-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2019-09-03", "page": 23, "text": "Stated the Alameda Progressives supports extending the protections that have been\nfought for: Cheri Johansen, Alameda Progressives.\nStated that she strongly supports the ordinance; discussed Assembly Bill (AB) 686:\nMadeline Howard, Western Center on Law and Poverty.\nExpressed support for the ordinance; urged approval: Lana Rishina, Alameda.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether immigration status can be included in the\nlanguage, to which the City Attorney responded said status is fully protected by State\nlaw.\nCouncilmember Oddie expressed support for the item.\nCouncilmember Oddie moved introduction of the ordinance.\nCouncilmember Vella seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Vice Mayor Knox White inquired whether the public speakers'\nquestion can be answered by the City Attorney.\nThe City Attorney responded a landlord can legitimately go into a unit to document\ndamage.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the City of San Jose passed a similar ordinance in the\npast month; there are certain provisions included related to a fix-it period; discussed\ndelaying the ordinance for 60-days.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the ordinance requires a second reading; there is 30 days\nfor landlord education; the prohibitions listed in the ordinance are things landlords\nshould know.\nVice Mayor Knox White stated it would be 45 days before the ordinance goes into\neffect.\nCouncilmember Vella stated that she is not inclined to add another 15 days.\nVice Mayor Knox White stated that he is a fan of education and conversation.\nCouncilmember Daysog expressed concern for bureaucratic HUD standards causing\nsmaller landlords not to be involved with the program; outlined HUD standards.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated workshops will be scheduled in September and October;\nstaff can be asked to provide more information.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 3, 2019\n21", "path": "CityCouncil/2019-09-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2019-09-03", "page": 24, "text": "Councilmembers Knox White, Oddie, Vella and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 4. Abstention:\nCouncilmember Daysog - 1.\n(19-487) Recommendation to Approve Adding a Prosecution Unit to the City Attorney's\nOffice and to Provide for Facilities Upgrades to Accommodate New Staffing;\n(19-487A) Resolution No. 15584, \"Approving Workforce Changes in the City Attorney's\nOffice to Add Two Positions: Assistant City Attorney and Paralegal, and Upgrade an\nAdministrative Services Coordinator Position to Management Analyst.\" Adopted;\n(19-487B) Resolution No. 15585, \"Amending the Fiscal Year 2019-20 General Fund\nOperating Budget by Increasing City Attorney's Office Appropriations by $172,000.'\nAdopted; and\n(19-487C) Authorize the City Attorney to Enter into Any Agreements Necessary with the\nAlameda County Superior Court and Alameda County District Attorney's Office to\nEffectuate the Implementation of the Program; and Provide Direction on Whether the\nCity Attorney's Office Should Work with the Charter Revision Subcommittee on a\nPotential Charter Amendment Authorizing Prosecution of State Law Misdemeanors.\nThe City Attorney gave a brief presentation.\nExpressed concern over the funding; discussed other more important, critical things that\ncould be funded: Alan Teague, Alameda.\nCouncilmember Vella stated laws without enforcement are meaningless; the item helps\nthe City enforce laws to the full extent, including some that go toward Climate Action\ngoals; many things resulting from State law have been impacting the City Attorney's\noffice; the item will allow growth and enforcement of laws in working with the District\nAttorney's office; the City Attorney has had experience with enforcement; expressed\nsupport for the proposal.\nCouncilmember Vella moved approval of the staff recommendation [including adoption\nof the resolutions].\nVice Mayor Knox White seconded the motion, with a friendly amendment to include\ndirection to have the Charter Review Subcommittee review Charter language for\nconsideration.\nCouncilmember Vella accepted amendment to the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Oddie stated the item is the most important thing\nCouncil will consider due to the enforcement element; Council has to be responsive to\nconstituents; requested consideration be made for the staff member reviewing sensitive\nmaterials to have an office with walls instead of a cubicle.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 3, 2019\n22", "path": "CityCouncil/2019-09-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2019-09-03", "page": 25, "text": "CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\n(19-488) The City Manager introduced the new Assistant City Manager.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\n(19-489) Consider Reducing the Number of Commission on Disability Members from\nNine Due to Difficulty Achieving a Quorum for Meetings and Limited Staff Resources.\n(Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft and Vice Mayor Knox White)\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft and Vice Mayor Knox White made brief comments regarding the\nreferral.\nCouncilmember Oddie moved approval of the referral.\nCouncilmember Vella seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Vella stated there are other boards that have quorum\nissues; expressed support for staff advising the board of the scope of the board's\nmission.\nOn the call or the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(19-490) Consider Providing Direction to Staff on Transportation Priorities in Advance of\nthe Active Transportation Plan Work. (Vice Mayor Knox White and Councilmember\nOddie)\nCouncilmember Oddie and Vice Mayor Knox White made brief comments regarding the\nreferral.\nCouncilmember Vella moved approval of the referral.\nCouncilmember Vella stated the item relates to the impact on existing neighborhoods as\nmuch as new developments focusing on being safe and accessible for cyclists and\npedestrians.\nCouncilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote:\nAyes: Councilmembers Knox White, Oddie, Vella and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 4.\nAbstention: Councilmember Daysog - 1.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 3, 2019\n23", "path": "CityCouncil/2019-09-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2019-09-03", "page": 26, "text": "(19-491) Councilmember Daysog made an announcement regarding attending the East\nBay Division meeting of the League of California Cities.\n(19-492) Councilmember Oddie stated Stopwaste is doing a Proposition 218 election to\nlower the hazardous waste recycling fee, whichwill be a mail-in only if opposed type of\nelection; announced that he attended National Night Out.\n(19-493) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she and the City Manager toured the closed\nAlameda County Glenn Dyre jail, which is being considered as a proposal to shelter\nhomeless persons.\n(19-494) Vice Mayor Knox White stated a link has been provided for the League of\nWomen Voter's Charter workshops; discussed Estuary Park homeless encampment.\nADJOURNMENT\n(19-495) There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting\nat 11:58 p.m. with a moment of silence for the victims of the dive boat accident in\nSouthern California, and a moment of remembrance for the victims of mass shootings\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 3, 2019\n24", "path": "CityCouncil/2019-09-03.pdf"}