{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-03-03", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- MARCH 3, 2020- 5:30 P.M.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 6:00 p.m.\nRoll Call - Present:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Knox White, Oddie, Vella and\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5.\n[Note: Councilmember Vella arrived at 6:04 p.m. and left the meeting at\n6:48 p.m.]\nAbsent:\nNone.\nPublic Comment\nNicki Collins, Boatworks, stated the development plan is basically the same; a public\npark will be built and maintained; a 2 acre park is proposed; the development plan will\ngo to the Planning Board on March 23rd; the Settlement Agreement can be terminated if\nthe development plan is not what both sides want.\nThe meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(20-112) 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: RG16823346,\nRG16841240, RG19041531\nFollowing the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and the City Clerk\nannounced staff provided information; the City Council voted to approve a Settment\nAgreement by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Knox White, Oddie and\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 3; Noes: Councilmember Daysog - 1; Absent: Councilmember\nVella - 1, as follows:\nThe matter involves three separate litigations filed by Boatworks against the City\nrelating to property located at 2229, 2235 and 2241 Clement Street; the litigations\ngenerally challenge the City's Development Impact Fee (DIF) ordinance, seek to\nforestall the expiration of a tentative map approved by the City in 2011, challenge the\nCity's zoning decisions and attempts to enforce a 2010 settlement agreement that the\nCity contends was never fully consummated; Boatworks contends that the City owes\nBoatworks in excess of $4.4 Million dollars as contemplated by the 2010 settlement\nagreement and that various City decisions and actions caused further damages to\nBoatworks in excess of $44 Million dollars; the City disagrees with Boatworks'\ncontentions; nonetheless, in the interest of promoting the development of much needed\nhousing and to avoid the uncertainty of litigation, the City Council authorized the City\nAttorney to settle every pending litigation and dispute between the City and Boatworks,\nconsistent with the following terms:\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMarch 3, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-03-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-03-03", "page": 2, "text": "1. Project approvals\nWhile the Council's authority over land use cannot be contracted away, the\nsettlement is structured so that the benefits of the settlement will only occur if the\nCouncil and Planning Board grant certain regulatory approvals; the approvals\nare:\na. Tentative map, development plan, development agreement with 15 year\nterm, and density bonus, Final Map authorizing a182 unit project with:\n21 affordable units (13 very-low; 8 moderate);\nGenerally consistent with the 2016 development plan previously\napproved by the City;\nApproximately two acre waterfront open space, to be maintained by\na\nHomeowners Association (HOA) but open to public; no longer on\nlands owned by the Army Corps; and no longer requiring Bay fill.\nb. Rezoning two acres of open space as \"R2-PD\" (planned development).\nAt each approval, both sides have the opportunity to agree to\nmodifications or cancel the settlement.\nC. Other necessary approvals, including building permits.\n2. Dismissal of lawsuits, and a release of all past claims\nThe dismissal and full release only occur if:\n1. City Council first grants the above approvals.\n2. Boatworks submits a different project than what is agreed to here or\nsubsequently; or\n3. 15 year passes and nothing happens at the property.\n3. Settlement Payment\nThe City would pay a total of $1.8 million to Boatworks generally phased to\ncoincide with the issuance of qualifying building permits for the project.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 6:57\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\nMarch 3, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-03-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-03-03", "page": 3, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL\nAND SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE\nCOMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (SACIC)\nTUESDAY--MARCH 3, 2020- -6:59 P.M.\nMayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:10 p.m.\nVice\nMayor/\nCommissioner Knox White led the Pledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers/Commissioners\nDaysog,\nKnox\nWhite, Oddie, and Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft - 4.\nAbsent:\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Vella - 1.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Oddie moved approval of the Consent Calendar.\nVice Mayor/Commissioner Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent: Councilmember/Commissioner Vella - 1.] [Items so\nenacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]\n(*20-006 SACIC) Minutes of the SACIC Meeting Held on January 21, 2020. Approved.\n(*20-113 CC/20-007 SACIC) Recommendation to Accept the Second Quarter Financial\nReport for the Period Ending December 31, 2018. Accepted.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at\n7:11 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger, City Clerk\nSecretary, SACIC\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and Successor Agency\nto the Community Improvement Commission\nMarch 3, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-03-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-03-03", "page": 4, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - - MARCH 3, 2020-7:00 P.M.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:12 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Knox White, Oddie, Vella,\nand Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5.\n[Note: Councilmember Vella arrived at 7:55 p.m.]\nAbsent:\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\nNone.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(20-114) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft made brief comments regarding fallen Officer Robert\nDavey Jr.\n(20-115) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft did a reading for the Season for Non-Violence:\nCompromise.\n(20-116) Proclamation Declaring March 2020 as American Red Cross Month.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft read the proclamation and presented it to Harry Hartman,\nAmerican Red Cross.\nMr. Hartman made brief comments.\n(20-117) The Community Development Manager made brief comments regarding the\n2020 Census.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(20-118) Pat Potter, Bike Walk Alameda, expressed her appreciation for the Cross\nAlameda Trail grand opening; made an announcement regarding the March 21st Spring\ninto Biking Pop-Up Faire.\n(20-119) Maria Gallo, Alameda, discussed the Fernside Boulevard traffic calming\nefforts.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMarch 3, 2020\n1", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-03-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-03-03", "page": 5, "text": "Vice Mayor Knox White moved approval of the Consent Calendar.\nCouncilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n4. [Absent: Councilmember Vella - 1.] [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by\nan asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]\n(*20-120) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings Held on February\n4,2020. Approved.\n(*20-121) Ratified bills in the amount of $4,809,393.58.\n(*20-122) Recommendation to Accept the Quarterly Sales Tax Report for the Reporting\nPeriod Ending December 31, 2019 (Funds Collected During the Period July 1 to\nSeptember 30, 2019). Accepted.\n(*20-123)\nRecommendation to Award a Contract in the Amount of $5,749,133,\nIncluding Contingency, to Mountain Cascade Inc. for Construction of Group 4 Sewer\nPump Station Renovations for Reliability and Safety Improvements Project (91008602),\nNo. P.W.08-17-37. Accepted.\n(*20-124) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Five-Year\nAgreement with Rojas Flores Landscape, Inc. for Landscape Maintenance of Median\nStrips, Areas Including City-owned Buildings, Main Street Ferry Terminal, Areas of Park\nStreet and Webster Street Business Districts and Marina Village Landscape and\nLighting District Areas in an Amount Not to Exceed $2,217,248.96, which includes\ncontingency. Accepted.\n(*20-125) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Five-Year\nAgreement with Tri-Signal Integration, Inc. for Fire and Intrusion Alarm Monitoring,\nMaintenance and Repair in an Amount Not to Exceed $317,062.34. Accepted.\n(*20-126) Resolution No. 15633, \"Authorizing the Mayor to Sign a Sister City\nMemorandum of Agreement (MOA) Between the County of Yeongdong, the Republic of\nKorea and the City of Alameda, United States of America.\" Adopted.\n(*20-127) Recommendation to Approve the Legislative Agenda for the City of Alameda.\nAccepted.\n(*20-128) Ordinance No. 3263, \"Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending\nSection 1-7 (Administrative Citations) of Chapter I (General) Concerning Code\nEnforcement and Administrative Citations.\" Finally passed.\n(*20-129) Ordinance No. 3264, \"Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding\nSection 5-31 to Establish Procedures for Expediting Permit Processing for Electric\nVehicle Charging Stations.\" Finally passed.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nMarch 3, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-03-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-03-03", "page": 6, "text": "(*20-130) Ordinance No. 3265, \"Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending:\n(1) Article I (Uniform Codes Relating to Building, Housing and Technical Codes) of\nChapter XIII (Building and Housing) to Adopt the 2019 Edition of the California Building\nCode, the 2019 Edition of the California Residential Code, the 2019 Edition of the\nCalifornia Historical Building Code, the 2019 Edition of the California Electrical Code,\nthe 2019 Edition of the Plumbing Code, the 2019 Edition of the California Mechanical\nCode, the 2019 Edition of the California Energy Code, the 2019 Edition of the California\nGreen Building Standards Code; and (2) Amending Section 15-1 of Chapter XV (Fire\nPrevention) to Adopt the 2019 Edition of the California Fire Code with Alameda Local\nAmendments.\" Finally passed.\n(*20-131) Ordinance No. 3266, \"Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Revising\nSection 2-59.3 (Limitation and Power to Make Contracts) of Article IV (Contracts) of\nChapter Il (Administration), Authorizing the City Manager and the City Attorney to Settle\nLiability Claims up to $75,000 Unless Otherwise Limited by Law and to Settle Liability\nClaims Involving Payments by Excess Liability Coverage.' Finally passed.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(20-132) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Councilmember Vella would like to address the\ngun safety ordinance [paragraph no. 20-134 and budget [paragraph no. 20-136];\ninquired whether Council would consider hearing the Midway item [paragraph no. 20-\n133] and park priorities item [paragraph no. 20-137 to wait for Councilmember Vella to\nbe present.\nVice Mayor Knox White moved approval of amending the order of the agenda items.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the park priorities could wait\nfor Councilmember Vella if it is a split vote.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft responded in the affirmative.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent:\nCouncilmember Vella - 1.]\n***\n(20-133) Recommendation to: 1) Direct Staff to Conduct a Four-Week Request For\nQualifications (RFQ) Solicitation Process for the Development of the West Midway\nProject; 2) Approve Debbie Potter, Community Development Director; Michelle Giles,\nBase Reuse Manager; Lisa Maxwell, Assistant City Attorney; and Eric Levitt, City\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMarch 3, 2020\n3", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-03-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-03-03", "page": 7, "text": "Manager, as Designated Real Property Negotiators for the West Midway Project; 3)\nApprove the Finding that the West Midway Project is Not Subject to the Surplus Lands\nAct as Amended; and 4) Direct Staff to Include a $350,000 Appropriation for the\nRESHAP Project Backbone Infrastructure Design in the Mid-Year Budget.\nThe Community Development Director gave a Power Point presentation.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether staff has considered having market rate\nfunding fund the $350,000 appropriation.\nThe Community Development Director responded should the City Council not\nappropriate the funds, the cost will be an obligation to the market rate developer; stated\nthe work would not start until the developer is selected, an Exclusive Negotiation\nAgreement (ENA) and a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) are\nnegotiated; there is also opportunity to structure the $350,000 as a loan to be repaid by\nthe developer once selected.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired about the plans for the commissary building.\nThe Community Development Director responded the building needs to be demolished.\nThe City Manager stated the concept for the funding is to pull funds from the General\nFund as a loan and decide whether to forgive the loan at a later date or apply the loan\nto the Development Agreement (DA).\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired about the timeline for the project.\nThe Community Development Director responded the RFQ will be published no later\nthan Monday with four weeks to respond.\nCouncilmember Oddie questioned whether a staff recommendation will be included.\nThe Community Development Director responded in the affirmative; stated staff\nanticipates receiving proposals and conducting interviews; staff will return to Council\nwith a recommendation.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether there is an estimate on when staff will return to\nCouncil, to which the Community Development Director responded staff anticipates\nreturning to Council with a recommendation at the first meeting in June.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired the timeline should Council decide not to declare the\nproject exempt from the Surplus Lands Act (SLA).\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft responded the land is exempt.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nMarch 3, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-03-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-03-03", "page": 8, "text": "The Community Development Director stated under the SLA, should a property\ndisposition be required to meet the noticing and negotiating requirements, a notice must\nbe published for 60 days; if interest is expressed, a minimum 90-day negotiation period\nfollows.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether compliance with the SLA is possible should 60\ndays pass with no interest, to which the Community Development Director responded in\nthe affirmative.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated it seems something will be presented to Council within the\nsame time-frame, regardless of what happens.\nThe Community Development Director stated there should not be an assumption of no\ninterest; there is a list of over 400 interested parties.\nCouncilmember Oddie questioned whether there are any interested parties willing to\nbuild 100% affordable housing.\nThe Community Development Director responded non-profit organizations have not\nbeen afforded an automatic opportunity in the past; stated the SLA has expanded\nopportunities for organizations.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired about the process should someone disagree that the\nproperty is exempt.\nThe City Attorney responded a disagreement can arise from a number of places; stated\nany party at any moment can indicate the property is subject to the SLA and request\ncompliance including the Attorney General, third-party interested parties, Housing and\nCommunity Development (HCD); it is difficult to predict any precise moment; the\nmoment the City proceeds to take the exemption, it is possible that someone could take\na position of disagreement; the project would develop a significant amount of affordable\nhousing; it is relatively less likely, but not impossible, for a challenge to occur.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether the potential challengers would be State\nagencies and affordable housing developers.\nThe City Attorney responded local agencies, such as the School or Parks District, in\ntheory, could also challenge; however, no such challenge has occurred thus far.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether there is a point in which the challenge would be\nremoved or the statute expires.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMarch 3, 2020\n5", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-03-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-03-03", "page": 9, "text": "The City Attorney responded the statute trigger will not occur for quite some time; stated\nthe development process is long; agreements are not signed for a length of time;\npublishing a Request for Proposals (RFP) does not trigger the SLA.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired at what point will it be known that there is no risk of a\nchallenge being presented.\nThe City Attorney responded there is less risk once negotiations commence, conclude,\nCouncil votes, and 90 days passes; stated the law is new; knowing exactly when no\nchallenge could be filed is difficult; the RFP process is exempt from the SLA; Council's\ncurrent action does not implicate the SLA.\nVice Mayor Knox White inquired the process or criteria for staff selection based on the\nRFQ being issued; whether staff will return to Council with a recommendation or a list of\npotential development firms.\nThe Community Development Director responded staffs evaluation of development\nproposals generally involves a rubric which looks at: team experience, high level\ndescriptions of the proposed project, financial team, experience on prior military bases\nand affordable housing development; staff will adhere closely to the rubric.\nVice Mayor Knox White inquired whether the rubric will be included in the RFQ.\nThe Community Development Director responded the RFQ typically talks about what is\nrequired to submit; stated the RFQ notes a point system is used to evaluate; the rubric\nitself is not included; the intention is to have staff return with a recommendation.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether staff contemplates getting input from Council\nas to some of the qualifications different Councilmembers might have or want to see in\nrespondents.\nThe Community Development Director responded a previous subcommittee of\nCouncilmembers Oddie and Daysog developed questions that are included in the RFQ.\nCouncilmember Daysog requested two or three of the questions be shared.\nThe Community Development Director stated one of the subcommittee questions\naddressed social justice and enterprise aspects of the developer's experience;\nspecifically, the actions the developer might take to better integrate or ensure proper\nand full integration of the RESHAP parcel with the market rate parcel.\nStated the housing crisis is unprecedented; State funding is available; infrastructure is\nneeded: Abby Potluri, MidPen Housing Corp.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nMarch 3, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-03-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-03-03", "page": 10, "text": "Expressed support for moving forward; stated funding opportunities should not be\nmissed; expressed support for strengthening the criteria; stated Alameda Point\nCollaborative (APC) would like to provide input: Doug Biggs, APC.\nVice Mayor Knox White stated that there does not seem to be any criteria listed in the\nRFQ; expressed support for moving forward with the RFQ; stated that he is frustrated;\nthe previous developer left in September and a slightly revamped RFQ could have been\nissued in October; he would like to see movement on this project as fast as possible\nafter five months have been lost; Council has made it clear that the project is important;\nsupporting RESHAP is important; noted Council does ask a lot of staff and\nacknowledged staff for their work; stated housing has been one of the top, if not the top,\nCouncil priority; stated the project is an opportunity to help move the priority forward;\nexpressed support for the staff recommendations, including funding; stated that he\nwould like to move forward, but that he would like to see a phase two plan for how the\nCity can help move the project forward outside of the backbone infrastructure funding of\n$350,000; expressed support for knowing what it would take for the City to move\nforward to meet the 20-year promises on the RESHAP project.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that it would have been great if Alameda Point Partners\n(APP) would have been able to move forward with the project; unfortunately APP\ndropped out as an interested party; expressed support for moving forward; stated the\nproject is a unique opportunity to not just build market rate housing, which is critical for\ninfrastructure payment; expressed concern about a developer with a vision for the\ntypical, affluent style housing; expressed support for open minded developers who are\nopen to looking at the project through a social justice lens to make the market\ncomponent work with the APC component; there will be a residential portion of the\ncommunity and a jobs oriented component to the community; developers with an open-\nminded view of things are being brought in; expressed support for the RFQ including\nsocial justice.\nCouncilmember Oddie expressed concern about the SLA; stated there is more of a\ndownside to there being an exemption which may be overruled versus complying with\nthe law; expressed support for the infrastructure design, structured as some type of loan\nas well as demolishing the commissary building; questioned whether site preparation\ncan occur after the commissary is demolished; inquired whether the decision should be\nmade.\nThe City Manager responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Oddie expressed support for a solid staff recommendation; stated that\nCouncil depends on staff's recommendation and expertise; stated that he is looking\nforward to the hearing.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMarch 3, 2020\n7", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-03-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-03-03", "page": 11, "text": "Councilmember Vella expressed concern about the SLA and potential legal challenges;\nstated that she would like to have had legislative clarity before the item; expressed\nsupport for demolishing the commissary building; stated that she would like to see site\npreparation; expressed support for a funding loan through the Base Reuse fund and for\nthe RFQ.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is anxious to see the project move forward; the\nneed for housing cannot be overstated; the reason that she is not as concerned about\nthe SLA relates to the statistic of the Midway project, which includes 558 units of\nwhich48% are very low to low income households; many places in the State are\nproviding 100% affordable housing; the percentage is high for the project; the typical\npercentage is 25% affordable housing; expressed concern about lost time; stated these\nare uncertain times due to the Coronavirus pandemic which impacts many aspects;\nexpressed support for moving forward with deliberate speed; questioned whether\nCouncil would support being more aggressive; stated two other developers not selected\nhave expressed interest in the project; inquired whether, , a an option should be\nconsidered to issue an RFQ only to interested parties; stated APC would like to be\ninvolved in the process; questioned whether the interview panel can include APC.\nThe Community Development Director responded staff welcomes APC participation;\nstated APC was previously involved in the interview process and their input was\nincluded as part of the calculation criteria.\nCouncilmember Vella stated that she would like clarity on whether or not the process\nproposed is possible.\nThe City Attorney responded if the question is whether staff's proposed exemption of\nthe SLA requires the City to do an RFP, the answer is no; stated Council may recall\nthere was a previously published staff report which indicated an RFP is required; the\nprevious staff report had been based on a different exemption; the City Attorney's office\nbelieves the current exemption is more sound to rely on; an RFP is not explicitly\nrequired under the SLA.\nThe Community Development Director stated the staff recommendation continues to be:\ngo out to RFQ for 4 weeks and encourage those that previously responded to update\nand submit once more; doing so will ensure a thorough outreach.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated a new developer might be discovered; an uncertain\neconomic future could be on the horizon; chances of putting together a viable package\nmight be reduced; expressed support for a discussion of the proposal.\nCouncilmember Vella expressed concern about another delay; stated there is no reason\nto believe the other developers that submitted for the previous round do not have\ninterest; interest has been conveyed; questioned why another RFP is being issued;\nstated some proposers could provide more detail; expressed concern about taking up\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nMarch 3, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-03-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-03-03", "page": 12, "text": "more time if there will be little response; expressed support for moving forward, with the\nclarification from the City Attorney that no RFP is necessary.\nThe City Manager stated that he recommends giving some time for responses based on\nprevious respondent's inability to provide sufficient economics; new respondents could\nlearn from the previous experience.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is proposing to ask for updated responses.\nCouncilmember Vella stated that she is requesting amended responses based on\nupdated information.\nCouncilmember Oddie questioned whether the proposal is to limit the responses to the\nthree previous respondents; inquired about the deadline for updated responses.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft responded a four-week window is preferred.\nCouncilmember Oddie expressed support for an open RFQ process; stated if the time-\nframe is the same, there might be others wanting to respond.\nVice Mayor Knox White stated the process feels loose; others have expressed interest;\nshould only three respond, only a little time will be lost; staff should make a\nrecommendation by a specific date; it is beneficial to put the RFQ out and see if others\nrespond, based on timing.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she has heard members of the Council lament the loss\nof five months' time; time is of the essence; requested clarification about unsolicited\nRFQ responses.\nThe City Attorney stated the Council has wide ranging latitude; Council could direct staff\nto provide various items, so long as all parties are provided a fair process, opportunity,\nand reasonable time to respond.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the report lists both RFQ and RFP terms; there is a\ndifference; RFP's typically contain visuals; questioned whether an RFQ is being done.\nThe Community Development Director responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he understands APC's desire to be involved in the\nprocess; noted APC are potential material beneficiaries of the process; ACP's\ninvolvement should be welcomed; the process is transparent and fair; expressed\nsupport for entities that do good work for the City of Alameda; stated that he previously\nanalyzed the work from APP related to Site A; that he has no qualms about Catellus\nexpressing interest or moving forward; that he is unsure about Brookfield.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMarch 3, 2020\n9", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-03-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-03-03", "page": 13, "text": "Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that Council is not being asked to select a developer.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated there is desire from Council for select entities to respond\nas opposed to a broadly open RFQ process; some entities seem to be known;\nexpressed support for continuing the previously issued RFQ.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether other developers are showing interest.\nThe City Manager responded only three developers have shown interest.\nThe Community Development Director stated staff has reconfirmed two of the four\nfinalists are still interested, Brookfield and Catellus; Cypress Equity Investments (CEI)\nhas provided an unsolicited proposal; several inquiries have been received from\npotentially interested developers.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the developers previously applied.\nThe Community Development Director responded as far as she knows, they have not\napplied; stated there are times when brokers act on behalf of development companies;\ninquiries have not been vetted.\nCouncilmember Vella expressed concern about the lack of solid responses and for\nhoping the new RFQ will provide more information than previous; stated time is of the\nessence; expressed support for the item returning sooner than the first week in June;\nexpressed concern about CEI not submitting early on; stated the updated RFQ\nexemplifies what Council is looking for; if competition is desired between firms, updates\nmust occur.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would be hard pressed to omit a firm that has\nspecifically come forward shown interest, and shared financials.\nThe Community Development Director stated CEI was originally part of the Jamestown\nteam; Jamestown moved forward with APP, and CEI had a lesser role; CEI's submitted\nproposal included additional items.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he agrees with Vice Mayor Knox White's request for a\ndate certain; noted the option is to open the RFQ up to others and start over or take the\nthree previous respondents and request an updated RFQ; questioned whether the\nprocess is biased.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he is satisfied knowing that CEI has previously\napplied in some capacity; this will not be the City's first time using a closed RFP/RFQ\nprocess; provided an example of the Bayport property development.\nCouncilmember Vella moved approval of the directing staff to ask for an update from the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nMarch 3, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-03-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-03-03", "page": 14, "text": "three developers that previously submitted responses with the matter coming back in\nMay.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the request is realistic; stated the staff report\nnotes staff will return to Council by the end of the first quarter of 2020.\nThe Community Development Director stated the return date is a holdover from a\nprevious staff report; it is the second quarter instead; responded staff can strive to\nreturn in May; stated there are constraints with the internal routing process for staff\nreports; the urgency is understood.\nThe City Manager stated discussed timing to meet the second meeting in May; stated\nthe schedule will cause the Community Development Director to re-orient priorities,\nwhich is possible; stated that he has been directed to stick to deadlines; the request is a\ntight expectation.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated there has been a delay in getting to this point; much of the\nheavy lifting has already been done; a subcommittee has been worked to develop the\nRFQ; staff is not starting from square one; Council's number one priority is housing; the\nproject is an integral part of moving forward with Alameda Point development;\nexpressed support for moving with deliberate speed.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the motion keeps the rest as\nproposed in the staff report, to which Councilmember Vella responded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor Knox White inquired whether the item is coming back May 19th, to which the\nCommunity Development Director responded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor Knox White stated if the date cannot be committed to, there is no point in\nnot moving forward with the RFQ.\nThe City Manager stated priorities will be re-oriented in the Community Development\nDepartment to make the May 19th deadline.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(20-134) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding\nProvisions to Section 4-32 (Firearms and Weapons) of Article V (Firearms and\nExplosives) of Chapter IV (Offenses and Public Safety), Requiring Safe Storage of\nFirearms and Enhancing Enforcement Provisions. Introduced; and\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMarch 3, 2020\n11", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-03-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-03-03", "page": 15, "text": "(20-134 A) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding\nProvisions to Section 4-36 (License Requirements for Firearms and Munitions Dealers)\nof Article V (Firearms and Explosives) of Chapter IV (Offenses and Public Safety),\nRequiring Firearms Dealers to Provide Video Surveillance and Enhancing Enforcement\nProvisions. Introduced.\nThe Deputy City Attorney gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether Big 5 responded to the way in which weapons\nare displayed in a designated area, to which the Deputy City Attorney responded in the\nnegative.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the sales surveillance ordinance indicates that video\nsurveillance will also be directed toward the parking lot of Big 5; inquired whether those\npurchasing non-weapon items would be video surveilled.\nThe Deputy City Attorney responded it is possible; stated the ordinance is not specific\nas to what extent the parking lot will be surveilled; the current language requires input\nfrom the Police Chief; it is possible that passerby's around the parking lot area may also\nbe captured; Council may provide direction on the provision.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how the requirement of videotaping inside the store with\nfacial features recorded works with another City policy related to facial recognition\ntechnology.\nThe Deputy City Attorney responded that he is unsure about the extent of the previous\ndecision regarding general facial recognition; stated the current policy can be narrowly\napplied to only be at the premise of a firearms and not elsewhere; should Council feel\nuncomfortable, general videotaping of the premises can be allowed without focus on\nfacial features during the transaction; facial recognition is helpful to resolve and deter in\nthe event straw purchases are made.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Big 5 in Alameda has a history of facilitating\nstraw purchases.\nThe Deputy City Attorney responded not that he is aware of; stated it is difficult to track\nwithout additional data.\nVice Mayor Knox White stated that a letter has been received from Safe Alameda with\nrequests; inquired whether staff had a chance to review the proposed changes.\nThe Deputy City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated Safe Alameda sent\nseveral proposals; the preamble can be discussed if desired, but there are substantiate\nchanges which include changing the word \"residence\" to \"premises\" in Section 4-32.3;\nnoted the change would also cover commercial premises; stated Safe Alameda also\nproposes firearms be unloaded when stored; staff believes the term \"premises\" is a\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nMarch 3, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-03-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-03-03", "page": 16, "text": "broadening of the ordinance as currently constructed; the change may open the\nordinance to further challenge; staff also believes keeping the firearm unloaded while\nstored may significantly open the City to challenge due to the Heller case which allows\nfirearms to be used for self-defense; an argument can be made that if a firearm is made\nto be locked and stored away, but also unloaded, there may be a hindrance to the\nSecond Amendment right; Safe Alameda also has proposed to remove criminal\npenalties and to only have civil penalties; noted the current text of the ordinance\nproposes the maximum civil penalties where the fines cannot be any higher; Safe\nAlameda's other comment proposes a minimum camera requirement for motion\ndetection during off-business hours so that video surveillance could be on for the\nentirety of the day at the discretion of the firearms dealer; images should be stored on\npremises for longer than one year as well as offsite backup of images; Safe Alameda\nalso proposes, during any period of inoperability of the video surveillance system, that\nthe licensee not conduct any sales or transfers; these proposals are stronger than other\nvideo surveillances that have withstood previous challenges; the proposals are possible;\nnoted that he cannot comment on the feasibility for firearms dealers.\nThe City Attorney stated staff has looked into the proposal related to premises; the\ncurrent proposal precludes people from having arms about within their residence that\nare not either worn or safely stored, which is consistent with regulations elsewhere;\nCouncil may want to further regulate and include garages; Council may determine arms\ncannot be stored in places people do not live in, which causes more risk; language is\navailable should Council desire changes.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how enforcement of provisions is envisioned.\nThe City Attorney responded enforcement of the safe storage ordinance will not be\nconducted by Police Officers inspecting homes; stated enforcement will be conducted\nby self-reporting; there is no overall regulatory scheme; enforcement will only occur\nwhen something occurs and is reported to Police with information being volunteered.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the City would have discretion to either criminally\nprosecute or not prosecute should a teenager gain possession of a gun and used it to\ntragically commit suicide, to which the Deputy City Attorney responded in the\naffirmative.\nSubmitted information; stated more information is needed; suggested moving forward\nwith things that will make a difference; urged Council to take deep breath and conduct\ninformation gathering sessions; noted attempts to contact the Police Department: Dave\nTruslow.\nThe Police Chief noted that he received an e-mail from Mr. Truslow and provided an\nextensive reply three hours later.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMarch 3, 2020\n13", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-03-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-03-03", "page": 17, "text": "Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft questioned whether the Police Chief has any additional comments\nrelated to the proposed ordinances.\nThe Police Chief responded that he agrees with the City Attorney that the enforcement\nportion will not be conducted by the Police Department; stated the fourth amendment\nprohibits entering homes without permission; should an event occur with a gun that has\nnot been safely stored.\nStated ordinances like these save lives; suggested amendments, including elimination\nof criminal penalties, expansion to all premises, and regulating the location of firearms\nwithin stores: Krystal LoPilato, Safe Alameda and Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense.\nUrged the City to support State and federal regulations; urged support of the\nordinances; suggested adoption of ordinances regarding liability insurance and store\nlocations: Jono Soglin, Safe Alameda.\nUrged support of the ordinance with amendments: Kelley Cope, Safe Alameda.\nExpressed concern over infringing upon the Second Amendment; questioned ordinance\nlanguage about trigger locks and lockboxes: Rodney Spooner, Alameda.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired who is organizing the April 25th safety fair; stated two\nCouncilmembers will be out of town that day; the topic is of interest to the entire\nCouncil.\nThe Deputy City Attorney responded that the City Attorney's office has not been\ninvolved in organizing the event.\nThe Police Chief stated the April 25th date is not set in stone; the Police Department has\nconducted several meetings discussing the concept of a community safety event; the\nevent is in preliminary stages.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council calendars should be consulted to assist.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated a Town Hall was previously held; there are daily incidents\nof accidental child deaths and guns being used in suicides; active shooter drills and\nbulletproof backpacks are the new norm; the District Attorney (DA) has been invited to\nshare information; the DA's office put out a report which includes areas for cities to\nfocus on and safe storage was the number one area; outlined the DA's report statistics;\nexpressed support for exploring ways to cut off bad people getting guns that were\npurchased legally; stated efforts will help ensure that every sale conducted in Alameda\nis done legally; expressed support for Councilmember Daysog's comments related to\nlegal purchases; stated there are many products that youths should not be exposed to;\nthose items are placed in separate spaces; he is sympathetic to the fact that many\nthings are only made aware after the fact; noted incidents involving license plate\nreaders are similar in after the fact knowledge; Council is not trying to criminalize the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n14\nMarch 3, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-03-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-03-03", "page": 18, "text": "legal possession of firearms; Council is trying to prevent legal firearms from getting into\nthe hands of people who should not have them; noted Council has put a ban on facial\nrecognition software; stated the Police still have the opportunity to review surveillance\nvideos and cross-reference drivers licenses conducting a manual compare; expressed\nsupport for all-premises; stated if one kid can be saved by keeping a gun locked it is\nworth it; kids can find everything, including guns; common sense rules should be\nimplemented; expressed support for no criminal penalties; stated extra liability should\nbe considered; those who are negligent in leaving guns or allowing them to be stolen\nwithout reporting causes problems; many guns have been stolen that should not have\nbeen stolen; expressed support for the item and incorporating some of the suggestions\nfrom Safe Alameda.\nThe City Attorney stated the recommendation is to not reach commercial spaces at this\ntime; language is ready to include all premises if desired; there is a reasonable middle\nground to take; noted that Section 4-32.3 could be changed to indicate that no person\nshall keep a firearm within any residence or upon any residential premises unless the\nfirearm is stored in a locked container or disabled with a trigger lock.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the firearm must be stored in a locked container\nor with a trigger lock.\nThe City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated the firearm must be inside the\nresidence in either case.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft discussed stolen guns statistics; inquired whether liability would be\npresent should the owner of a firearm report the firearm as stolen to the Police within 24\nhours.\nThe City Attorney responded the safe harbor provision as proposed would absolve the\nowner of liability.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the rationale behind the provision is the quicker\nthe firearm is reported the quicker the firearm is found; stated stolen firearms are stolen\nfor ulterior motives.\nThe City Attorney responded the provision will encourage reporting; Police Officers can\nbe made aware as quickly as possible so that an opportunity could be found; the\nprovision is a balance.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired who reviews surveillance videos.\nThe Police Chief responded there will be a designee within the investigations division;\nstated straw purchases can be legitimate at the time of sale; straw purchases indicate a\nseller knowingly purchasing and selling a firearm to a person that is not eligible to own a\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMarch 3, 2020\n15", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-03-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-03-03", "page": 19, "text": "firearm; Police would have video of a person making a legal firearm purchase; the straw\npurchase would be proven through investigation away from camera capture.\nCouncilmember Vella inquired whether the City currently provides storage units in\nprivate vehicles for police officers.\nThe Police Chief responded in the negative; stated a restrictive policy is in place about\nhow Officers store guns while on or off duty.\nCouncilmember Vella discussed an acquaintance arrested on gun charges; stated that\nthe acquaintance stored firearms for someone else in storage units; noted the current\nordinance language does not cover said instance; inquired whether storage units have\nbeen considered as part of the safe storage policy; whether the City could prohibit guns\nbeing stored in a storage facility, or if there is a way to regulate storage in storage units;\nstated storage units are often used to store firearms in an unlocked manner.\nThe City Attorney responded should the Council be interested in regulating gun storage\nbeyond residential premises, the recommendation will continue to require safe storage\ninstead of prohibiting storage altogether; prohibiting storage altogether is more legally\nchallenging.\nCouncilmember Vella expressed support for passing the ordinance as-written and\nhaving staff look at the commercial storage aspect and return to Council at a later date;\nstated that she is learning many things as a new mom; she now considers whether\nother children's families keep weapons in their home and if they are safely stored; many\nsad cases involve children playing with firearms that have not been safely stored;\nexpressed support for Council preventing those instances; stated Council should take\nthis step; the ordinance will not solve all cases, but it is a step in the right direction;\nnoted a statistic from the DA report; stated stolen guns can be used in crimes; there are\ncases of teenagers stealing guns from parents or parents of friends; stated straw\npurchases are an issue; many times a youth has stolen a weapon from another\nhousehold; requiring safe storage means that people are aware of where they are\nstoring their firearms; one cannot be had without the other; if safe storage is not\nrequired, weapons are not being kept track of and it is difficult to know when an item is\nstolen and needs to be reported; the City has held at least two forums on the topic; the\narea of law is evolving; that she anticipates additional laws to come; expressed support\nthat any policy to be able to be enforced and to follow up on enforcement; stated that\nshe does not want empty promises made to the community.\nVice Mayor Knox White stated staff is working with Big 5 on the concept provided by\nCouncilmember Daysog; questioned why the information was not in the staff report;\nexpressed support for the proposed language provided; stated that he would like to\nensure people have access to legal firearms for personal safety reasons; keeping\nfirearms in the residence makes sense for greater awareness versus somewhere not\noften visited such as a shed; should there be desire to move forward with criminal\npenalties, there should be annual reporting; expressed support if administrative\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n16\nMarch 3, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-03-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-03-03", "page": 20, "text": "penalties if desired by Council; stated adding commercial language adds complications;\nexpressed support for trying to find out the meaning; stated that he cannot support\nchanging residences to premises at this time; stated more thought is needed to make\nthe change.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated new areas are being entered into; mothers and fathers\nof Alameda children want Council to make this happen; most people are sympathetic or\nempathetic to national news; staff has put together common sense first steps to help\nstem gun violence; expressed gratitude toward those committed to the issue; stated that\nhe would have liked to see language related to how guns are stored and displayed at\nretail establishments, especially when the retail establishment also sells other sporting\ngoods; there are ways in which Alameda can further regulate sales; noted\nCouncilmember Oddie's point relates to regulation of other items within Municipal Code\nSection 30-9; stated guns represent brute force and are not similar to other athletic\ngear; firearms should be regulated in how they are displayed and sold; these are great\nfirst steps.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is in agreement with other Councilmembers; noted\nher children's pediatrician suggested asking if there are guns in houses; discussed\nremoval of her husband's service revolver; stated that there is desire to keep kids safe;\nexpressed concern over children coming into contact with unlocked weapons;\nexpressed support for removing the language related to camera surveillance being\ndirected at the parking lot; requested staff return with possible options about where\nguns are sold in a retail store; stated it is an overreach to videotape people in a parking\nlot, who could be present for many different reasons.\nCouncilmember Vella expressed support for taking out the language related to video\nsurveillance of parking lots.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired the benefit of parking lot surveillance; stated that\nsurveillance could be limited to the back area of a firearm retail location.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the parking lot area shows outside; it is the same lot where\npeople visit Bed Bath and Beyond and other areas.\nThe Deputy City Attorney stated the surveillance would provide additional footage of\nany transfers outside the store.\nCouncilmember Oddie questioned whether it is a solution in search of a problem;\ninquired whether firearms are passed outside of storefronts.\nThe Police Chief responded in the affirmative; stated there are currently multiple\nsecurity cameras at the mall already.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMarch 3, 2020\n17", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-03-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-03-03", "page": 21, "text": "Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is referring to the sales surveillance ordinance; as\nan elected official for Alameda, she does not want to assume people are conducing\nillegal gun transfers.\nCouncilmember Vella expressed concern about not mandating that the surveillance be\nmaintained for a certain amount of time; stated the language reads that the footage is to\nbe made available on request without a subpoena.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired what other cities require for surveillance; stated the\nexpectation of no privacy would apply to sporting goods stores.\nThe Deputy City Attorney responded the requirement does mirror other surrounding\ncities, including San Francisco, Emeryville, Campbell and Pleasant Hill.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether the provision may be added at a later time, to\nwhich the Deputy City Attorney responded in the affirmative.\nIn response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, Councilmember Oddie stated that he\nwould like to see Councilmember Daysog's proposal implemented and limit the amount\nof surveillance to a small contained area.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Councilmember Oddie is providing direction to\nstaff, to which Councilmember Oddie responded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor Knox White moved introduction of the ordinances, with the following\namendments: removal of criminal penalties, revised residential language limiting just to\nresidence and removal of parking lot video surveillance, with direction for something to\ncome back with Councilmember Daysog's plan [regarding the location of guns within\nstores] and direct staff to look into commercial storage.\nThe City Attorney requested clarification related to criminal penalties; stated both\nordinances list criminal penalties which cover an entire chapter; noted criminal penalties\ncover exiting law, unlawful brandishing or discharge of a firearm; inquired whether his\nunderstanding of the motion is not to eliminate criminal penalties for those, but just for\nsafe storage, to which Vice Mayor Knox White responded in the affirmative.\nThe City Attorney stated the other ordinance covers similar provisions, such as those\nwho refuse to obtain a permit as required.\nVice Mayor Knox White stated that he is only concerned about home safe storage.\nThe City Attorney stated the recommendation is to provide safe harbor for\nadministrative penalties; currently, safe harbor is drafted so that there is no criminal\nprosecution if stolen firearms are reported within 24 hours; should criminal penalties be\nremoved, the provision should be replaced with civil and administrative penalties to\ncontinue to encourage reporting.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n18\nMarch 3, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-03-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-03-03", "page": 22, "text": "Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5.\n***\n(20-135) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft called a recess at 9: 39 p.m. and reconvened the meeting\nat 9:50 p.m.\n***\n(20-136) Resolution No. 15634, \"Amending the Fiscal Year (FY) 2019-20 Budget Based\non Mid-Year Changes.\" Adopted;\n(20-136 A) Resolution No. 15635, \"Approving Workforce Changes for FY 2019-20.\"\nAdopted; and\n(20-136 B) Resolution No. 15636, \"Amending the Salary Schedules for: the\nManagement and Confidential Employees Association (MCEA) to Add the Classification\nof Sustainability and Resilience Manager; the Alameda Police Officers Association\n(APOA) Non-Sworn to Add the Classifications of Lead Parking Technician and Parking\nTechnician; the Part-Time Salary Schedule to Add the Classifications of Law Fellow,\nStaff Counsel, and Special Counsel for the City Attorney's Office; and the Alameda City\nEmployees Association (ACEA) to Adjust the Salary Range for Senior Combination\nBuilding Inspector.' Adopted.\nThe Finance Director and the Human Resources Director gave a Power Point\npresentation.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether the figures for new positions only includes\nwages, or total compensation including benefits.\nThe Human Resources Director responded the figure is total compensation.\nThe City Attorney stated the City Attorney's office is not seeking to add positions; the\nCity Attorney's office is seeking to add three classifications; the classifications will allow\nthe part-time schedule to include attorney positions if and when they are necessary;\nthere is no current intent to seek additional part-time attorneys.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether the $21 million figure under the Public Agency\nRetirement System (PARS) presentation slide reflects the numbers below, to which the\nFinance Director responded in the affirmative.\nIn response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry, the Finance Director stated the figure is\nadditional discretionary payments made directly to Public Employees' Retirement\nSystem (PERS); the policy has previously been presented and a determined dollar\namount is available; the payment presented is split 75/25% with 75% paid as a direct\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMarch 3, 2020\n19", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-03-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-03-03", "page": 23, "text": "down payment to PERS for unfunded liabilities, additional discretionary payments, and\n25% paid to the 115 Trust.\nIn response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry, the Finance Director stated the payment\nis a stabilization cash flow security.\nExpressed support for the Sustainability and Resilience Manager position; discussed\nclimate issues underpinning every City action: Christy Cannon, Community Action for a\nSustainable Alameda (CASA).\nStated funding a climate position is very important to bridge silos between departments:\nRuth Abbe, CASA.\nExpressed support for the Resilience Manager position; discussed qualifications: Ingrid\nBallmann, CASA.\nIn response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry, the Finance Director stated the only\nnumber being requested to appropriate are not associated with the numbers listed on\nSlide 12; Slide 13 shows actual cash deposited with PERS and PARS as of January;\nmoney has not yet been sent to the agencies.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether the $37 million set aside since inception will be\nincreased by $7.4 million, which some other number could change.\nThe Finance Director responded in the affirmative; stated the appropriation before\nCouncil is $7.3 million; noted a contribution is not likely to occur until the mid-cycle\nrevisions to the policy; stated a potentially additional $5.3 million is estimated, but the\nactual number is yet to be known.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the City's payments are based on the PERS\nprojected return on investments; stated the stock market has been difficult for the last\ncouple weeks due to the impacts of Coronavirus; inquired the expected calculated\npayments.\nThe City Manager stated staff has met with a financial consultant who is reviewing the\nCity's policy and will report before study sessions; there will be more time in May to\nrespond specifically; there is a 20-year discount rate to address increases and\ndownturns; there is a lot of volatility now; the consultant will be able to answer more\nquestions regarding the impact of future liability.\nThe Finance Director stated PERS valuations are always 2 years behind; should PERS\nhappen to finish the fiscal year with a negative return or something lower than 7%, the\nCity will not realize an additional liability until 2 years from now; the liability can be\nplanned for; the City Manager is looking into a variety of ways to mitigate any future or\nexisting unfunded liabilities.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n20\nMarch 3, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-03-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-03-03", "page": 24, "text": "The City Manager stated some of the scenarios to be brought forth from the consultant\nare recession as well as unfunded liabilities up to 7% to see impacts of both.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he appreciates looking at the Other Post-\nEmployment Benefits (OPEB) liabilities; the cumulative amount set aside as a result of\nthe policy is astounding; noted that he understands the need to pay down unfunded\nliabilities; stated that there are other service needs that current residents are\ndemanding; it is imperative to review the OPEB policy currently in place; the numbers\npresented on Slide 15 show a negative balance of $3 million; outlined Slide 15 figures;\nexpressed concern over stocking away reserve money; stated that he believes many\nreserves are phantom reserves due, in part, to not having fully staffed departments; the\nreserve is a function of not fully staffed departments.\nCouncilmember Vella stated there are baby changing stations coming into parks, which\nis a big expenditure; inquired which bargaining unit the Building Inspector Compaction\nposition is in, to which the Human Resources Director responded Alameda City\nEmployees Association (ACEA).\nIn response to Councilmember Vella's inquiry, the Human Resources Director stated\nstaff previously worked on adding classifications to the unit and missed that the true 5%\nhad not been completed between classifications; it is an internal compaction issue\nneeding to be fixed and allowing people to promote.\nCouncilmember Vella inquired whether the position is currently vacant, to which the\nHuman Resources Director responded the position is currently filled.\nIn response to Councilmember Vella's inquiry, the Human Resources Director stated\nthe adjustment has been made within the last year.\nCouncilmember Vella inquired what work was included in the Finance Department wear\nand tear cost of $175,000; stated the space also included other office space; inquired\nwhether the cost includes the City Attorney's office.\nThe City Manager responded there is a variety of things to look at within City Hall;\nstated a space planner is needed first; then, key improvements will be decided; the use\nof the money has changed, but the amount is still to be used for improvements within\nCity Hall.\nCouncilmember Vella inquired whether the amount will be used solely toward the\nFinance Department.\nThe City Manager responded the amount could be used for other departments; stated\nthe funding may have to be increased in the mid-cycle.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMarch 3, 2020\n21", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-03-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-03-03", "page": 25, "text": "Councilmember Vella stated the City Attorney's office is fairly compacted; expressed\nsupport for the City Prosecutor having a secure office space to conduct necessary calls\nand meetings; inquired whether the funding includes the City Prosecutor space.\nThe City Manager responded staff is looking into office space.\nThe Finance Director stated a new employee starts Monday and staff is trying to figure\nout office space.\nCouncilmember Vella stated there is no fiscal impact to the PERS longevity requirement\nfor Police Department; inquired whether the City gives a 5% differential for any Police\nOfficer coming in that has a degree.\nThe Human Resources Director responded in the affirmative; stated the number is not\nsignificant, therefore, not a huge impact; members with a degree would not have to wait\nas long.\nCouncilmember Vella inquired whether there are officers without a degree, to which the\nHuman Resources Director responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Vella inquired whether a degree is listed as part of the job\nspecifications, to which the Human Resources Director responded not for Police Officer\ncurrently.\nIn response to Councilmember Vella's inquiry, the Human Resources Director stated\nthe language does state that both the Bachelor's and Master's degree need to have\nsome relationship to the work performed; the degree is valued and looked at.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the $111,500 cost to repair Woodstock Park\ncould be recovered by either insurance or subrogation action.\nThe Finance Director responded the City has an insurance deductible; stated the cost\ndid not reach the insurance level.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the self-insured provision prevents the City from\nseeking reimbursement from the responsible party.\nThe City Attorney responded that he understands there was an arson at the park; stated\nthat he does not know if an arrest was made; he does not know the prosecutorial status\nof the case.\nThe Finance Director stated that the attempt can be made; however, it can be difficult\nbased on how much a person has.\nVice Mayor Knox White stated the arsonist was a 13 year-old child; staff should be\ncareful about having an aggressive approach.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n22\nMarch 3, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-03-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-03-03", "page": 26, "text": "Councilmember Oddie moved adoption of the resolutions.\nVice Mayor Knox White seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Vice Mayor Knox White stated the staff report is very thorough;\nexpressed support for the sustainability and resiliency position.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he supports the item; the presentation is ringing\nalarm bells to be wary about spending.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(20-137) Recommendation to Approve the Park and Recreation Facilities Project\nPriorities.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director gave a brief presentation.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the court date established is in February 2021.\nThe City Attorney responded these types of cases suffer from everything else in the\ncourt system taking extended periods of time.\nIn\nresponse to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the City Attorney responded everything is\na lower priority to criminal cases.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether an eminent domain case would be heard before\na criminal judge.\nThe City Attorney responded in the negative; stated the court system distributes judges,\njudges have to staff criminal courts first before civil courts.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director continued the presentation.\n***\n(20-138) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated a motion is needed to consider the two referrals\n[paragraph nos. 20-140 and 20-141 after 11:00 p.m.\nCouncilmember Oddie moved approval of considering the items.\nCouncilmember Vella seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Vice Mayor Knox White inquired whether a timeline could imposed.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMarch 3, 2020\n23", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-03-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-03-03", "page": 27, "text": "Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft suggested the motion be revised to include the meeting end by\n11:30 p.m.\nCouncilmember Oddie agreed to the time, which could be revisited.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director continued the presentation.\nExpressed support for DePave Park being the top priority; discussed environmental\nbenefits of the park; expressed support for additional staff: Dawn Lemoine,\nExpressed support for proceeding with DePave Park; requested the project be\nprioritized; expressed support for additional staff: Ruth Abbe, CASA.\nUrged moving forward with the planning process for DePave Park: Richard Bangert,\nAlameda.\nStated human use will increase as Alameda Point is developed, which will impact birds\nin the area; discussed warming and acidification of the ocean; urged approval of the list\nand starting to look for a consultant and additional staffing: Marjorie Powell, Golden\nGate Audubon Society.\nVice Mayor Knox White stated the staff report provided a lot of information; the staff\nreport states there are many priorities, with no staffing; that he would not support the\nnew sustainability and resiliency position to act as an adjunct Recreation and Parks\nDepartment position; noted that he has been a strong voice for DePave Park;\nexpressed concern about DePave park not being in plans; stated 11 resiliency projects\nare unfunded in the Climate Action Resiliency Plan (CARP); urged being careful about\njumping a park to the head of a line after holistic planning around parks and climate;\nstated staff has identified funding to help plan DePave Park, which will be available later\nthis year and is not available to fund any other unfunded needs the City has for\nresiliency; should Council provide direction, a recommendation should be made based\non the City's resources; discussed a meeting held with traffic and safety; stated that he\ncannot support a vote to approve a position for Recreation and Parks specifically\nbecause he has not seen all asks; expressed support for the presented priorities; stated\nthe staff report has laid out finishing items that have been started; work should start\nwhere items do not conflict and interfere; Proposition AA is the funding source;\nexpressed support for funds that become available later this year to write grants for\nconsultants to do planning to expand City resources.\nCouncilmember Vella stated that she defers a little from Vice Mayor Knox White; stated\nthere is different direction for DePave Park; DePave Park was discussed prior to\nNovember 2019; other water-based parks are coming up through developer projects;\nexpressed support for focusing on DePave Park, including plans and discovering\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n24\nMarch 3, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-03-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-03-03", "page": 28, "text": "funding pathways; staff has a limited amount of time to work on items; there are nice\nparks throughout Alameda; expressed concern about DePave Park not being given\npriority; expressed support for moving DePave Park up on the list and having staff\nprovide next steps; noted former Councilmember Matarrese discussed DePave Park\nsignage; stated there is a lot of potential and nothing is being done; West Alameda has\nJean Sweeney Park and the Cross Alameda Trail, but DePave should not be forgotten;\nDePave Park could be a key part of the CARP.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the map presented is helpful; stated the map shows\nprojects throughout Alameda; expressed support for staff's recommendation; stated that\nhe would like to hear Councilmember's thoughts on prioritization; expressed support for\nDePave Park; stated this is a different type of park and can be an example that shows\nother cities how to plan for parks with regard to climate change.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated Council has the chance to be the most climate friendly\nCouncil; discussed various climate actions; stated DePave Park can be state-of-the-art;\nthe Recreation and Parks Commission has reviewed the item.\nCouncilmember Oddie moved approval of the staff recommended priorities, with\ndirection to staff to hire a consultant to develop the Master Plan, ballpark the cost and\nreturn to Council by the end of July.\nCouncilmember Vella seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she respects the Recreation and\nParks Commission; everything Council has discussed is true and correct; DePave Park\nis not part of the CARP; expressed support for the staff recommendation; stated the\nfunding streams will be different and allow for moving forward on two tracks.\nVice Mayor Knox White stated his comments were aligned with the staff report and the\nrecommendation of the Recreation and Parks Commission; the motion got into advising\nstaff to hire an engineer by the end of July; hiring an engineer has not been agendized;\nit is not clear where the funding for an engineer is coming from.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested the motion be restated.\nThe City Clerk stated the motion is to move approval of accepting the staff\nrecommended priorities, with direction to staff to hire a consultant that would return back\nby July.\nVice Mayor Knox White inquired the funding source for the consultant; stated funds\nhave not been budgeted.\nCouncilmember Oddie responded that he will allow staff to make the determination;\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMarch 3, 2020\n25", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-03-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-03-03", "page": 29, "text": "questioned funding for other projects; stated the cost of the project is unknown; the\nproject could be cost prohibitive.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the direction to hire a consultant could be postponed until\nthe mid-cycle budget.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he would like staff to draft an RFP requiring minor\nmodifications; the cost of a consultant may be within the approval of the City Manager.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed concern for taking items outside of the budget process.\nCouncilmember Oddie expressed concern for the delay in DePave Park development.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether the July timeline included the consultant\ncompleting work or being selected\nCouncilmember Oddie responded selected; stated the consultant will issue and RFP,\nrespondents will return with proposals and a selection will be made by Council.\nThe City Manager requested clarification on RFP timing and budget.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director stated that she does not know the budget for a\nconsultant; the consultant cost for the pool master plan was roughly $68,000; the project\ncould have a similar cost; she is unclear on the requested timeframe; City staff typically\nissues the RFP; funding is identified prior to issuing an RFP; the RFP process will\nrequire the correct kind of consultant; an RFP responded are due in about a month; an\ninterview panel is selected and a contract must be drafted; the process is roughly three\nmonths long.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether September would be a reasonable time to\nreturn with bids and a budget request.\nThe City Manager stated that the Recreation and Parks Director can include the request\nin the mid-cycle budget for consideration.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he would like the RFP issued.\nCouncilmember Vella expressed concern about delaying DePave Park.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated direction to staff can include the consultant cost in the mid-\ncycle budget for consideration; noted that the timeline for the project is tight.\nCouncilmember Oddie expressed support for an RFP deadline.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Recreation and Parks Director will deliver once direction\nis provided.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n26\nMarch 3, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-03-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-03-03", "page": 30, "text": "Councilmember Oddie stated that there are many projects for the Recreation and Parks\nDirector; expressed support for a date being included in the budget request.\nCouncilmember Vella expressed support for the item to return in a timely manner.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated should the item be included in the budget, the project can\nreturn in the Fall.\nCouncilmember Vella stated direction should include background work as well.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated background work is needed in order to include an item in\nthe mid-cycle budget.\nVice Mayor Knox White stated that he is unclear about the RFP; there will be engineers\nand consultants hired at some point.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Council is beyond the scope of item.\nThe City Attorney responded Council can give direction related to timing; Council should\navoid budgeting or deciding to budget for an engineer; Council can present a deadline\nfor a project milestone.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed concern about date certain provisions.\nThe City Attorney stated Council may provide prioritization.\nVice Mayor Knox White stated that he would like the motion clarified; stated that Council\ncannot make a decision based on funding; he would like to know what is not being\ndone; questioned whether a proposal with funding and a timeline can be provided for\nmoving the project to the next phase.\nThe City Manager stated that Council can request a consultant come back as a priority\nbased on funding.\nCouncilmember Daysog expressed support for prioritizing DePave Park; stated there is\nlong-standing community support; the item has been prioritized; the RFP should be\nissued efficiently; expressed support for moving forward.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director stated that she is happy to bring back a plan on\nDePave Park and include the steps needed, funding, and timeline to Council in June or\nJuly; more funding sources for the aquatic center might be known at that time; decisions\ncan be made related to staffing for projects; an update can be provided based on\nstaffing and potential delays related to budget approvals; other projects will be delayed\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMarch 3, 2020\n27", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-03-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-03-03", "page": 31, "text": "should focus shift to DePave Park; that she can research an RFP process of this type;\nthere is no funding attached to issuing an RFP.\nCouncilmember Oddie expressed support.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\n(20-139) The City Manager made an announcement regarding the Coronavirus and the\nCross Alameda Trail event.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\n(20-140) Consider Directing Staff to Provide Health Insurance to Part-Time Employees\nWorking Over 20 Hours per Week in Time for Fiscal Year 2020-21. (Councilmember\nOddie) Not heard.\n(20-141) Consider Providing Direction to Staff on Handling Late Rent Payments.\n(Councilmember Oddie) Not heard.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(20-142) Councilmember Vella discussed the Lead Abatement meeting last week, a\nGirl's Inc. event, and the Cross Alameda Trail event.\n(20-143) Councilmember Oddie requested the meeting be adjourned in memory of\nFrank Munoz.\n(20-144) Councilmember Daysog announced Nick Cabral's birthday.\n(20-145) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft made an announcement regarding the Cross Alameda\nTrail event; discussed the League of California Cities meeting discussion on housing;\nand an Alameda Healthcare District Board meeting and discussion addressing\nCoronavirus.\nADJOURNMENT\n(20-146) There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting\nwith a moment of silence in memory of Frank Munoz at 11:44 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n28\nMarch 3, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-03-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-03-03", "page": 32, "text": "Lara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMarch 3, 2020\n29", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-03-03.pdf"}