{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-05-07", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL\nWEDNESDAY--MAY 7, 2020--6:00 P.M.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 6:10 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmember Daysog, Knox White, Oddie, and\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 4. [Note: The meeting was con-\nducted via Zoom.]\nAbsent:\nCouncilmember Vella - 1.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nThe City Clerk read the following comment into the record :\n(20-302) Rosalinda Fortuna, Alameda, urged Council to recognize that mom and pop\nhousing providers are also small businesses ; discussed rent control laws.\nAGENDA ITEM\n(20-303) Recommendation to Consider Providing Direction to City Staff to Draft Charter\nAmendment Related to Article 26 (Measure A) to Resolve Conflicts between Article 26\nand the City of Alameda General Plan and Alameda Municipal Code.\nCouncilmember Oddie moved approval of objecting to the consideration of the question.\nIn response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry, the City Clerk stated Rosenberg's Rules\nof Orders states that when members of a body do not want an item on the agenda to be\nconsidered and such a motion is in order, it is not debateable and requires two-thirds vote\nto pass.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which FAILED by the following roll call\nvote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: No; Oddie: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ash-\ncraft: No. Ayes: 2. Noes: 2. [Absent: Councilmember Vella - 1.]\n(20-304) Councilmember Oddie moved approval of not having presenter's time count\nagainst their nine minutes.\nVice Mayor Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft:\nAye. Ayes: 4. Absent: Vella - 1.\n***\nVice Mayor Knox White thanked Councilmember Daysog for serving on the\nsubcommittee; stated Article 26, colloquially known as Measure A, has been a\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nMay 7, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-05-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-05-07", "page": 2, "text": "cornerstone political discussion; there have been many public workshops and lots of\npublic comment; there is broad support for the idea for pursuing changes to Article 26;\nMeasure A reduces Alameda's ability to produce affordable, sustainable, climate-friendly\nhousing and has impacts on lower-traffic development; the State is requiring the City to\nbuild more housing, which is restricted by Article 26; he would like to look at becoming\npart of the solution, instead of pretending that there is no problem and waiting for the\nState to take away the Council's right to approve housing; one key issue has been the\nlack of trust in elected officials to do it; Option 4 has some components that allow Alameda\nto be more in compliance with State law; he has yet to hear that anybody is looking to\ndevelop in all the cherished neighborhoods, but, at the same time, there are problems\nwith economic development on Park Street and Webster Street with properties that seek\nto be redeveloped but have a hard time meeting the existing code and finding a project\nthat is financially feasible; the subcommittee has broadly different views and brought forth\nsome different options, including: 1) not doing anything, 2) removing Article 26, which\nwould give future Council's flexibility, 3) removing just the multi-family prohibition which\nwould allow multi-family on sites that maintain the right density, and 4) amending Measure\nA to make it clear that it will meet State law.\nCouncilmember Daysog thanked Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft for appointing the subcommittee;\nstated his voting history recognizes that he supports Measure A as it is, which has been\nhis position all along; Councilmembers represent their truth as much as possible, but\nthere are different truths; Measure A has served Alameda well; voted in 1973 and 1991\nMeasure A is a blunt instrument that has kept quality of life in Alameda; there are a series\nof options, but the options desire to change or remove Measure A; Alameda has, in fact,\ndeveloped multi-family housing, which Measure A purportedly precludes, as a result of\nsome imaginative approaches employed by staff and City Council in 2010; the Boatworks\nproject Council voted on a few months ago specifically implicated Measure A; the burden\nof proof of altering or removing Measure A has to come from those who want to change\nit; the amount of multi-family housing being developed in Alameda seems to be moving\nalong in a fashion that allows the City to meet the State obligations with regard to planning\nfor the number of residential units in general, within the context of Measure A; he still\nneeds to hear why Measure A needs to be changed altogether; one reason was impacts\non the socio-economic mix, but since Measure A was put in place in 1973, Alameda\ncontinues to be economically and ethnically diverse; most of the communications from all\nperspectives is to hold off on the conversation tonight; he sees the virtue in the public's\ndesire to hold off on the issue.\nStated he supports for the conversation and removal of Measure A; urged the housing\nsupply be increased: Jeff Thomas, Alameda.\nStated Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS) is open to possible changes\nto Measure A, but the current ad hoc evaluation is premature; the discussion of Measure\nA needs to consider the full range of possible development rule changes: Christopher\nBuckley, AAPS.\nThe following public comments were read into the record:\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nMay 7, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-05-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-05-07", "page": 3, "text": "Stated the Alameda Citizens Task Force (ACT) strongly objects to Council moving for-\nward to consider amending the Charter during the current Shelter in Place Order and the\nconvening of the meeting with no more than the scant 7 day notice required by law; re-\nquested that repeal of Article 26 not be placed on the November ballot: Paul Foreman,\nACT.\nStated any modification to Measure A at this time is premature and unreasonably limited\nin its scope; when the City is reviewing its overall development goals and objectives later\nthis year would be a more appropriate time; urged Council to postpone consideration of\nmodifications to Measure A: Steve Aced, Alameda.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nMay 7, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-05-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-05-07", "page": 4, "text": "Urged Council to reschedule discussion of changes to Measure A so that concerned citi-\nzens can address City Council in person: Elizabeth Tuckwell, Alameda.\nStated that he supports Option 2 to put a measure on the ballot to repeal Article 26, with\nadditional provisions written into the Code to protect historic resources; Article 26 limits\nAlameda's ability to provide the community a fair share of housing; he does not want to\nsee wholesale demolition of historic buildings, but cannot walk by people living in tents\nand just disregard it: Kevis Brownson, Alameda.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated her top three priorities when she became Mayor were: 1)\nhousing affordability, availability, and homelessness, 2) traffic and transportation, and 3)\nthe impact of climate change, especially sea-level rise; she speaks from different\nperspectives: as Mayor, as a long-time Alameda resident, and as the Vice Chair of a\nStatewide policy committee of the League of California Cities on Housing, Community\nand Economic Development; there is a housing crisis in the State because homes have\nnot been built to keep up with the burgeoning workers coming to the State; as a result,\npeople are living farther from their jobs and commuting, which clog the freeways and\npollutes the air; some of the people slip through the cracks into homelessness; she\ndisagrees with speakers who stated the issue can wait until the 2022 election; the most\neffective way to address homelessness is not to allow it to happen in the first place; she\nis proud of the work Council has done to enact progressive renter protections; there is\nmore demand than supply; having a Charter measure which states no multi-family can be\nbuilt is an impediment; it is not an easy topic; if COVID 19 is being brought into the\nconversation, remember the crisis impacts some people much more harshly than others\nincluding Alameda's small business owners, their employees and renters; Council has\nthe time now; a decision to amend the Charter will not be made tonight; tonight's\ndiscussion is about whether voters should have the opportunity to vote on this in\nNovember 2020; she understands there may be fear of political consequences, but there\nis a higher purpose for Council service; thanked the Planning Board and Council for the\nwork put into the issue; stated Council can address the issues in real-time despite what\nis going on; at the end of the day, she would like to do the most good for the majority of\nthe people.\nVice Mayor Knox White concurred with Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's comments; stated the\nhousing issue and the limitations the Charter are important to the City; with the national\nelection in November, there is opportunity to ask the community how they would like to\nproceed on the issue; if Council does not allow the opportunity, all the comments from the\npast are words not met with the action that is clearly needed; removing Article 26 entirely\nis the most effective and best way; officials are elected to make decisions, but he\nunderstands there is lack of trust, which is the reason for Options 4a and 4b; the fact that\nCouncil is trying to find work-arounds means that the General Plan is inconsistent with\nthe Charter; he is hoping Council can move forward.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated he will talk straight and does not want to come across as\ndisingenuous; he owns the moniker as the Councilmember who favors slow and moderate\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nMay 7, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-05-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-05-07", "page": 5, "text": "growth; he fears overbuilding in an Island with so few ingresses and egresses; even\nthough traffic and transportation measures have been implemented, everyone knows how\ndifficult it is to leave the Island every morning; it creates a reduction in the quality of life;\nAlameda is still building and doing so within the context of Measure A and meeting State\nresponsibilities; it is true the housing crisis is acute like no other times; during the need to\nmeet the moment of the housing obligation and responsibilities, he wants to make sure\nto say that the City of Alameda has always been the leader providing for homeless\npopulations; no other city, including closed Base cities, have come close to what Alameda\nhas done for the homelessness issue, including setting aside housing on the former Naval\nAir Station in 1996 and the recent Crab Cove project; despite the housing crisis, Alameda\nhas risen to the occasion; he understands that more can be done with the removal of\nMeasure A, but he wants to balance the amount of housing relative to the limited\ninfrastructure on the Island.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she wants to address some of Councilmember Daysog's\ncomments; she concurs with his statement about Alameda Point Collaborative (APC)\nbeing a good example of the City providing for the homeless; APC's model of having\nfamilies stay in homes for a few months until they can transfer to their own homes has\nproven not to be a workable model; it is a great facility and a good model, but there has\nnot been the turn-over hoped for because there are fewer and fewer affordable housing\nopportunities in the Bay Area; the voters were supportive of the Crab Cove wellness\ncenter; the voters could make the right choice and she would like to allow them to vote\non this issue; she respects Councilmember Daysog's position; questioned whether it is\nCouncil's place to decide whether Alameda voters, in 2020, can have the opportunity to\nweigh in one way or another; stated she is trying to reconcile what makes the voters back\nin 1973 more capable and able to determine Alameda's future now in 2020; they could\nnot have anticipated some of the things that this Council has come to see.\nCouncilmember Oddie thanked his colleagues for bringing the issue forward; stated that\nhe concurs with Councilmember Daysog that Measure A has not prevented multi-family\nunits with the multi-family overlay and the State housing density bonus; between those\ntwo zoning rules, Alameda has neutered the first part of Measure A; there are members\nof the community that have different values and different experiences who are concerned\nabout Council having tonight's hearing during a pandemic; if Council is going to ask the\nvoters to amend the Charter, the first thing that needs to be gained is trust that the Council\nis actually putting something on that is in the best interest for the future of the City; it is\nimportant for the Council to be respectful of people's feelings, opinions, and perceptions;\nhe appreciates and accepts ACT and AAPS wanting to modify Measure A as it is written\nand sees it as a basis to move forward; Council needs to balance the needs of housing\nand respect the fears and concerns of the preservationist community, otherwise Council\nis will not be trusted; there is a path forward that does both, which he does not see in the\nfive options; he would like to discuss other options at a future date, but at this point would\nnot support giving direction to pursue any of the five options.\n***\n(20-305) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of allow Councilmembers an additional\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nMay 7, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-05-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-05-07", "page": 6, "text": "three minutes.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which FAILED by the following roll call\nvote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Abstain; and Mayor Ezzy\nAshcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3. Abstentions: Oddie - 1. [Absent: Councilmember Vella - 1.]\nCouncilmember Daysog stated he would yield his remaining four minutes.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated he would support one or two minutes, but three minutes is\na lot.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of allowing Councilmembers an additional two\nminutes.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft:\nAye. Ayes: 4. [Absent: Councilmember Vella - 1.]\n***\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Councilmember Oddie found the suggestions from\nKevis Brownson to be along the lines of what he would support.\nCouncilmember Oddie responded Mr. Brownson gave a broad overview; stated he thinks\nthere is a way to balance the housing needs and increase the housing supply that was\nnot listed; no one wants the Victorian homes on Central Avenue knocked down; another\nmeeting where he could bring the issue forward with other options and more people\nattending needs to be done; the issue is 50 years ingrained in Alameda history and\ndeserves more than a special meeting held during a pandemic.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like to see the topic continue to be discussed;\nshe would also like to see some agreement that it is important enough to move forward;\nAlameda has not built nearly enough multi-family housing; stated there will not be\nmeetings with 200 people even after City Hall opens back up, as there will be forms of\nsocial distancing; there needs to be a way to move forward and fashion a compromise;\nCouncil needs to be part of the solution, not part of the problem; action speaks louder\nthan words.\nVice Mayor Knox White stated the point of this meeting is to give direction on how to move\nforward; if there is no support for putting the issue on the ballot, there is no point to having\nanother meeting in June; he heard Councilmember Oddie say that, with some appropriate\nprotections, there is a solution he could support; requested Councilmember Oddie to\nprovide those options to the subcommittee or staff and have it come back in June for\nfurther discussion.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated he would be happy to provide his options in writing; felt the\nframing of Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's last comments were unfair; he would still like to do\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nMay 7, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-05-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-05-07", "page": 7, "text": "something, but it has to be done right; he does not see any of the options as doing it right.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated in terms of moving forward, he would be interested in\nknowing more about the concept that Mr. Buckley raised; Mr. Buckley's professionalism,\ninsights and expertise is valuable; if Mr. Buckley says there is possibly a way forward, he\nwould like to know more; he does not think doing so could occur in context of the\nNovember election; the difference between 1973 and now, which is the process; in 1973,\na lot of people mobilized the community on behalf of Measure A; tonight, instead of having\na bottom up change, it is a top down process; fundamentally Council is undoing the work;\nif people want to change measure A, gather the signatures, it is the process.\nVice Mayor Knox White stated instead of continuing the current subcommittee of\nCouncilmember Daysog and himself, he recommends a subcommittee of Mayor Ezzy\nAshcraft and Councilmember Oddie come back in June with language that would meet\nCouncilmember Oddie's concerns; there are many paths and he has provided several\noptions.\nVice Mayor Knox White moved approval of creating a different subcommittee [of Mayor\nEzzy Ashcraft and Councilmember Oddie] to come back in June with proposed language.\n(20-306) Vice Mayor Knox White moved approval of adding two more minutes to Mayor\nEzzy Ashcraft's time.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft:\nAye. Ayes: 4. [Absent: Councilmember Vella - 1.]\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he appreciates Vice Mayor Knox White's\nrecommendation for him and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft to form the subcommittee; he is okay\nwith it if Councilmember Daysog is okay with it; he has worked well with Mayor Ezzy\nAshcraft and feels the subcommittee could look at some options.\nIn response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft, Councilmember Daysog stated if the purpose of a\nsubcommittee meeting is to follow-up on specific issues raised this evening, including\nChristopher Buckley's ideas, in an effort to then put something on the November ballot,\nhe would not support it because Council will still be in the same place in June as it is now;\nif the subcommittee will meet to look at a range of issues and whether or not putting\nsomething on the ballot will be a separate issue, then he supports going forward.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated everything is on the table and would still has to come to\nCouncil; a full, robust discussion is the best way to go.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he is thinking of a multi-step process, which does not\nhave to, but may include something going on the ballot this year.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nMay 7, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-05-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-05-07", "page": 8, "text": "Councilmember Daysog stated that he would support the subcommittee as long as\nCouncil is not definitively saying that whatever happens in June is going to be put on the\nballot; if Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft and Councilmember Oddie would like to flesh out some of\nthe concepts discussed tonight, he supports that.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated she believes that is the intent of Vice Mayor Knox White's\nmotion.\nVice Mayor Knox White concurred with Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft.\nVice Mayor Knox White restated his motion that Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft and Councilmember\nOddie form a subcommittee and work together to identify alternatives that would address\nthe issues of trust Councilmember Oddie mentioned in his comments and come back by\nthe end of June with some proposed language and options, which could include all the\nexisting options or could be limited, and includes concerns raised by Councilmember\nDaysog.\nCouncilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft:\nAye. Ayes: 4. Absent: Vella - 1.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 7:39 p.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\n8\nMay 7, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-05-07.pdf"}