{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-12-01", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- -DECEMBER 1, 2020- 5:00 P.M.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 5:02 p.m.\nRoll Call - Present:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Knox White, Oddie, Vella and\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note: The meeting was held via\nWebEx.]\nAbsent:\nNone.\nConsent Calendar:\nCouncilmember Oddie moved approval of the Consent Calendar.\nVice Mayor Knox White seconded, which carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor\nEzzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk\npreceding the paragraph number.]\n(*20-728) Recommendation to Approve Eric J. Levitt, City Manager, Lisa N. Maxwell,\nAssistant City Attorney, and Debbie Potter, Special Projects Analyst, as Real Property\nNegotiators for Site A at Alameda Point. Accepted.\nThe meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(20-729) Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Pursuant to Government Code\nSection 54956.8); Property: Site A at Alameda Point; Persons Negotiating: Eric J. Levitt,\nCity Manager; Debbie Potter, Special Projects Analyst, Michelle Giles, Redevelopment\nProject Manager, and Lisa Nelson Maxwell, Assistant City Attorney; Negotiating Parties:\nCity of Alameda and Alameda Point Partners; Under Negotiation: Price and Terms\n(20-730) Conference with Legal Counsel Existing Litigation (Government Code Section\n54956.9); Case Name: DeFigueroa, lleana V City of Alameda, et al.; Court: Superior\nCourt of California, County of Alameda; Case Number: RG1890266\n(20-731) Conference with Legal Counsel Workers' Compensation Claim (Pursuant to\nGovernment Code \u00a7 54956.95); Claimant: Employee - Fire Department Claim Nos.:\nALAX-005105; ALAX-005551; and ALBA-005460; Agency Claimed Against: City of\nAlameda\n(20-732) Conference with Legal Counsel Existing Litigation (Government Code Section\n54956.9); Case Name: City of Alameda V. Union Pacific (Sweeney); Court: Superior\nCourt of California, County of Alameda; Case Number: RG18921261\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nDecember 01, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-12-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-12-01", "page": 2, "text": "(20-733) Public Employee Performance Evaluation (Pursuant to Government Code \u00a7\n54957); Positions Evaluated: City Clerk - Lara Weisiger\nFollowing the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and the City Clerk\nannounced that regarding the Real Property, staff provided information and Council\nprovided direction with no vote taken; regarding DeFigueroa, staff provided information\nwith no vote taken; regarding Workers' Compensation, staff provided information by the\nfollowing roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye;\nVella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 5: these three workers' compensation\nclaims were filed by a Firefighter who first joined the City on February 26, 2001 ;\napplicant filed a claim for a knee injury suffered on February 22, 2017 after stepping\ndown from a fire engine; applicant also filed a claim for a cumulative injury to the knee\nas of January 1, 2017; in addition, applicant suffered cumulative trauma to the heart as\nof February 18, 2020; applicant is already retired from service with the City; the Council\nauthorized the City Attorney to settle the pending workers' compensation claims in an\namount not to exceed $125,000; regarding Union Pacific, staff provided information and\nCouncil provided direction by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: No;\nKnox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 4. Noes:\n1; regarding Performance Evaluation, the City Council conducted the performance\nevaluation for the City Clerk.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 7:02\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\nDecember 01, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-12-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-12-01", "page": 3, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND\nSUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE\nCOMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (SACIC)\nTUESDAY--DECEMBER 1, 2020- 6:59 P.M.\nMayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:18\np.m.\nand\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Oddie led the Pledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers/Commissioners\nDaysog,\nKnox\nWhite, Oddie, Vella and Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft -\n5. [Note: The meeting was held via Zoom.]\nAbsent:\nNone.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nVice Mayor/Commissioner Knox White moved approval of the Consent Calendar.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by the\nfollowing roll call vote: Councilmembers/Commissioners Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye;\nOddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. [Items so\nenacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]\n(*20-734 CC/20-027 SACIC) Recommendation to Accept the Fourth Quarter Financial\nReport for the Period Ending June 30, 2020. Accepted.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at\n7:20 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\n1\nto the Community Improvement Commission\nDecember 1, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-12-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-12-01", "page": 4, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - DECEMBER 1, 2020- 7:00 P.M.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:20 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Knox White, Oddie, Vella, and\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note: The meeting was held via\nZoom.]\nAbsent:\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\n(20-735) The City Clerk announced the Council Referral Project Stabilization Agreement\n[paragraph no. 20-761 matter will not be heard and will be on the January 19, 2021 Council\nmeeting as a Regular Agenda item.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\nNone.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(20-736) Erin Fraser, Alameda, discussed Council budget directions related to the Alameda\nPolice Department (APD) ballistic armored tactical transport response vehicle; stated funds\nhave been used to maintain the vehicle; a report is being prepared to outline the risks and\nbenefits of selling the armored vehicle; discussed correspondence submitted to\nCouncilmembers; urged Council to sell the vehicle.\n(20-737) Ruth Abbe, Alameda, expressed gratitude for Councilmember Oddie's\naccomplishments.\n(20-738) Toni Grimm, Alameda Renters Coalition, urged Council extend the City's emergency\nmoratorium on rent increases until the end of local emergency period; stated the COVID-19\npandemic has not subsided and there is need to extend the moratorium.\n(20-739) Jenice Anderson, Alameda, discussed the APD armored vehicle; expressed concern\nabout lack of plans to sell the vehicle and maintenance costs; urged the rent increases be\nfrozen during the pandemic.\n(20-740) Seth Marbin, Alameda, discussed the APD armored vehicle; urged the\nrecommendations from the Police and Racial Equity Steering Committee be made public and\nthat rent increases be frozen during the pandemic.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft announced the rent relief program [paragraph no. 20-748], the amendment\nto the Memorandum of Understanding [paragraph no. 20-752], and the third amendment to\nDevelopment Agreement [paragraph no. 20-755] have been removed from the Consent\nCalendar for discussion.\nCouncilmember Oddie moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nDecember 1, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-12-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-12-01", "page": 5, "text": "Vice Mayor Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy\nAshcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the\nparagraph number.]\n(*20-741) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings Held on November 4, 2020.\nApproved.\n(*20-742) Ratified bills in the amount of $6,176,212.11.\n(*20-743) Recommendation to Accept and File Various Community Facilities Districts (CFD)\nReports for Fiscal Year (FY) Ending June 30, 2020, including: CFD No. 03-1 (Bayport Municipal\nServices District); CFD No. 13-1 (Alameda Landing Public Improvements); CFD No. 13-2\n(Alameda Landing Municipal Services District); CFD District No. 14-1 (Marina Cove II); and CFD\nNo. 17-1 (Alameda Point Public Services District). Accepted.\n(*20-744) Recommendation to Accept the Development Impact Fee (DIF) and Fleet Industrial\nSupply Center (FISC)/Catellus Traffic Fee Report. Accepted.\n(*20-745) Recommendation to Accept the 2013 Local Library Bond Measure Annual Report.\nAccepted.\n(*20-746) Recommendation to Accept the Police and Fire Construction Impact Fee Annual\nReport. Accepted.\n(*20-747) Recommendation to Accept the Annual Review of the Affordable Housing Ordinance\nand the City's Affordable Housing Unit Fee Consistent with Section 27-1 of the Alameda\nMunicipal Code; Accept the Annual Affordable Housing Unit Fee Fund Activity Report; and Find\nthat: 1) Unit/Fee Requirements Set Forth in Local Law Remain Reasonably Related to the\nImpacts of Development, and 2) the Affordable Housing Units, Programs and Activities\nRequired by Local Law Remains Needed to Support the Production of Affordable Housing in the\nCity. Accepted.\n(20-748) Recommendation to Modify Rent Relief Programs Offered at Alameda Point in\nResponse to the Covid-19 Pandemic to Allow Loan Conversion Applicants to be Eligible for the\nNewly Approved Assistance for Non-Profits and Spirits Alley Businesses and to Allow\nRecipients of Business Assistance Grants to be Eligible for the Alameda Point Programs with\nthe Obligation to Repay the Business Assistance Grant.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether the moratorium on rent increases could be applied to\nthe matter; stated there should be a discussion to agendize the matter prior to December 31,\n2020 should it be deemed appropriate.\nThe City Attorney responded the direction provided by Councilmember Oddie is too unrelated to\nthe matter being discussed; stated staff has received comments.\nCouncilmember Oddie moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nDecember 1, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-12-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-12-01", "page": 6, "text": "Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy\nAshcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.\n(*20-749) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute Two Use Agreements\nwith the Alameda Soccer Club for the Alameda Point Soccer Fields on Lexington Street for a\nTerm of Ten Years with an Option to Extend the Term for Ten More Years and the Hornet\nSoccer Field for a Term of Five Years, Subject to the City's Right to Terminate the Agreement at\nIts Discretion; and Adoption of Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into Use\nAgreements with the Alameda Soccer Club for the Alameda Point Field and the Hornet Field at\nEnterprise Park. Accepted.\n(*20-750) Resolution No. 15724, \"Authorizing Fiscal Year-End Budget Amendments to Facilitate\nClosing Fiscal Year (FY) 2019-20.\" Adopted; and\n(*20-750A) Resolution No. 15725, \"Amending the FY 2020-21 Budget.' Adopted.\n(*20-751) Resolution No. 15726, \"Amending the Fiscal Year (FY) 2020-21 Operating and\nCapital Budgets Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic.\" Adopted.\n(20-752) Resolution No. 15727, \"Approving an Amendment to the Memorandum of\nUnderstanding between the City of Alameda and the International Association of Firefighters,\nLocal 689, Extending the Term through December 19, 2023.\" Adopted.\nThe Human Resources Director gave a brief presentation.\nDiscussed economic variables of the labor contract; urged Council to wait; stated it is not the\ntime to negotiate with International Association of Firefighters (IAFF): Kevin Kearney, City\nAuditor.\nExpressed concern about the matter; urged Council not to grant the extension; stated the\ncumulative raises for IAFF since 2014 have been 20.7%; discussed fiscal health, Grand Jury\nreport findings and campaign contributions from IAFF; urged Councilmembers Vella and Oddie\nto recuse themselves from the matter: Former Mayor Trish Spencer, Alameda.\nExpressed concern about budget impacts from the IAFF contract; stated the financial impacts of\nthe contract should be provided from the City Auditor and City Treasurer; expressed concern\nabout Council's participation in drafting the memorandum and campaign contributions from\nIAFF; urged Councilmembers Vella and Oddie to recuse themselves and for the matter to be\npostponed until 2021: Jay Garfinkle, Alameda.\nUrged Councilmembers Vella and Oddie recuse themselves from the matter: Carmen Reid,\nAlameda.\nCouncilmember Vella requested the City Attorney to address conflicts of interest; stated there\nare reporting requirements for campaign contributions; inquired the requirements for\nCouncilmember recusal based on campaign contributions.\nThe City Attorney responded there is no State or local law requirement which mandates\nCouncilmember recusal due to campaign contributions; stated Councilmembers may voluntarily\nchoose to recuse on matters.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nDecember 1, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-12-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-12-01", "page": 7, "text": "Councilmember Vella requested clarification of Council's role in drafting the staff report.\nThe City Manager stated no Councilmember was involved in drafting the staff report; noted that\nhe received direction from Council in Closed Session; stated the matter is a two-year extension;\nIAFF is scheduled to receive a 2% increase based on the salary survey in January 2021; should\nthe matter be approved by Council, the 2% will become 0% causing a $174,000 savings for the\nfiscal year and a $348,000 savings for the calendar year; the 2% increase will move to 2022;\noutlined agreement increases and averages; stated IAFF pays an additional 2 to 4% into their\npension, which would continue for the two-year extension; should Council not approve the\nmatter, the City would need to renegotiate in one year.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether the 2 to 4% is on top of an 11% employee contribution,\nto which the City Manager responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether the contribution of 4% for other post-employment\nbenefits (OPEB) would continue for another two years under the agreement.\nThe Human Resources Director responded in the affirmative; stated IAFF employees pay an\nadditional 6% to CalPERS and up to an additional 4% to the City's OPEB liability; IAFF\nemployees pay into the OPEB liability between 2 and 4%.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether the Balance Revenue Index (BRI), which created a\nfloor and ceiling for increases based on the City's financial performance, has been taken out the\ntwo-year extension, to which the Human Resources Director responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether IAFF is foregoing a 2% increase and receiving 0%, to\nwhich the Human Resources Director responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired the increase for other Firefighter units.\nThe Human Resources Director responded other Fire units will receive a 2% increase; stated\nPolice Officers will receive 4.5% and miscellaneous employees will receive 2%.\nCouncilmember Oddie questioned the general opposition to Firefighter salary increases; stated\nFirefighters have a First Amendment right to provide campaign contributions; discussed other\npotential future recusals for Councilmembers.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification on the difference in percentage increase in pay for\npublic safety members.\nThe Human Resources Director stated the negotiated agreement with public safety units is\nbased on a salary survey; agreements identify which agencies are surveyed and the language\nindicated an increase between 2 to 5%; noted the Police were 4.5% below market and will\nreceive the increase; stated Fire was above market and would have received 2% to help\nequalize salaries.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the Council should extend a voting opportunity to the incoming\nCouncilmember; the matter is a topic for Alameda's budget; expressed support for including the\nincoming Councilmember in the discussion; stated there are good things within the extension\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nDecember 1, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-12-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-12-01", "page": 8, "text": "agreement including omission of the BRI formula and a 0% increase for the coming year.\nCouncilmember Vella stated that she has inherited many contracts voted on by previous\nCouncilmembers; expressed concern about the timing aspect since a scheduled increase is due\nto IAFF in the next month under the existing contract; stated it is important to know whether or\nnot the 2% increase will be paid; causing delay solely to allow a new Councilmember to vote on\nthe matter may not be the more prudent approach due to the existing increase; expressed\nsupport for moving the matter forward as planned; stated a delay would cause timing issues.\nCouncilmember Daysog moved approval of postponing the matter until the January 5, 2021\nRegular Council Meeting.\nThe motion failed for lack of a second.\nVice Mayor Knox White stated the matter did not occur randomly and is not being rushed\nthrough; the matter has been discussed previously and is the culmination of long conversations\nand negotiations; expressed concern about changing course after good faith negotiations have\noccurred.\nVice Mayor Knox White moved approval of the staff recommendation and associated resolution.\nCouncilmember Oddie seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: No; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy\nAshcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.\n(*20-753) Resolution No. 15728, \"Setting the 2021 Regular City Council Meeting Dates.'\nAdopted.\n(*20-754) Resolution No. 15729, \" Adoption of Resolution to Amend the Fiscal Year (FY) 2020-\n21 Budget in the Commercial Revitalization Fund to Provide $100,000 in Matching Funds for the\nAlameda County CARES Grant Program.' Adopted.\n(20-755) Ordinance No. 3291, \"Approving a Third Amendment to Development Agreement By\nand Among the City of Alameda, TL Partners I, LP, and Alta Buena Vista Owner, LLC\nGoverning the Del Monte Warehouse Project Located at the Northea.st Corner of the\nIntersection of Sherman Street and Buena Vista Avenue to Extend the Completion Deadline for\nthe Clement Extension Improvements by One Year and Authorizing the City Manager, or\nDesignee, to Grant an Additional One Year Extension without Further Action by the City Council\nor Planning Board. Finally passed.\nThe City Manager recused himself from the matter.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he will be voting no on the matter to remain consistent.\nVice Mayor Knox White moved approval of final passage of the ordinance.\nCouncilmember Oddie seconded the motion, carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: No; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy\nAshcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nDecember 1, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-12-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-12-01", "page": 9, "text": "REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(20-756) Verbal Status Update by the Police Reform and Racial Equity Steering Committee and\nCity Staff.\nThe City Manager gave a brief presentation.\nAlphonso \"Al\" Mance, Cheryl Taylor and Jolene Wright of the Steering Committee gave a\npresentation.\nThe Police Chief made brief comments.\nCouncilmember Oddie expressed gratitude for the work put into the presentations and for\nmoving in a positive direction.\nThe City Manager noted the community and Steering Committee have put a lot of time and work\ninto the matter so far; expressed support for Police Department staff providing as much\ninformation as possible to the Steering Committee; stated the environment has been very\ncooperative and respectful.\nCouncilmember Vella expressed gratitude for the time spent by the Steering Committee; stated\nthat she has learned much as a Councilmember; noted the format has been awkward and\nintense, but much information has been provided; expressed support for the forthcoming\nrecommendations.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification about the next steps in the public process; noted\nthe discussions between Alameda Police Department (APD) staff and Steering Community\nmembers have been thoughtful with hard-driving questions.\nThe City Manager stated staff is tentatively planning on having reports brought to Council in\nFebruary 2021; Council will be able to provide direction based on the recommendations given;\nstaff will be meeting this week to discuss the public input and engagement process; discussions\nmay continue based on the February meeting.\nMs. Wright stated the Steering Committee has discussed more proactive public engagements,\nincluding surveys and outreach to community based organizations, social service providers,\nother relevant commissions and posting more virtual community forums in order to provide more\norganic feedback; noted the biggest setback the Steering Committee experiences is the low\nlevel of access to technology for those in communities that are most affected; stated the\nSteering Committee is working to reach people.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated staff would like to remain conscious of the holidays; public\nengagement and input is desired; however, the timing should not be limited especially\nthroughout the holidays; the majority of the public engagement process will occur in January\nafter the recommendations are provided in December.\nVice Mayor Knox White expressed gratitude towards the Steering Committee; noted Council is\nawaiting input from the Steering Committee; inquired whether the Steering Committee has\ndiscussed the scope and time for the process and whether there are items to discuss in the\nfuture.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nDecember 1, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-12-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-12-01", "page": 10, "text": "Mr. Mance responded the Steering Committee has been working quickly in order to time the\ndiscussion around the budget process; stated the education process has taken time due to\nbeing community-led; the assignment provided will be completed within the first half of 2021 and\nrecommendations will be provided to Council by March or April; the project will be ongoing;\nexpressed support for a smaller Committee to continue post-recommendations.\nVice Mayor Knox White inquired whether the Steering Committees has looked at identifying a\npolicy document or statement which will define the role of policing and law enforcement in\nAlameda.\nMr. Mance responded the Steering Committee has not come up with a specific policy statement\nyet; stated the unbundling Subcommittee has made recommendations with regard to areas for\nPolice focus; many of the recommendations provided will further clarify the areas; creating a\npolicy could be a useful tool going forward.\nMs. Wright noted policy is something which can be centered at the public discussions to gain\ninput from the community.\nMr. Mance stated a definition of what policing is will provide a helpful determination.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she welcomes any input put forth by the Steering Committee\nand subcommittees; expressed support for the Committees working with Police to the extent\npossible.\nVice Mayor Knox White stated the task is herculean; expressed support for the efforts put forth.\nCouncilmember Daysog expressed support for the Steering Committee and subcommittees;\nstated the matter is time consuming; he is looking forward to the findings and recommendations;\nthere are many things which can improve the Police force; the matter is both national and local;\nexpressed support for the Steering Committee framing their findings and recommendations as\nlow and high priorities.\nDiscussed YouTube meetings and public participation; stated that he is unclear on public\nparticipation in subcommittee meetings; urged Council to provide more information: Jay\nGarfinkle, Alameda.\nStated that she would like to know where the agendas for the subcommittee meetings are in\norder to follow along; noted other Boards and Commissions have publicly noticed meetings:\nFormer Mayor Trish Herrera Spencer, Alameda.\nExpressed support for the Steering Committee; noted there are many experts and experienced\npersonnel on the committees: Erin Fraser, Alameda.\nCouncilmember Vella stated the YouTube link is posted and meetings have been noticed via\nsocial media as well as other locations; noted YouTube allows meetings to be viewed live;\nstated agendas are not provided similar to other Boards and Commissions based on the type of\ncommittee; however, many meetings have been publically noticed.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated people may view the YouTube meetings via the City's website and\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nDecember 1, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-12-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-12-01", "page": 11, "text": "YouTube at: https://www.youtube.com/cityofalameda.\n***\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft recessed the meeting at 8:55 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:12\np.m.\n(20-757) Recommendation to Review and Comment on Association of Bay Area Government's\n(ABAG) Housing Methodology Committee's Proposed Methodology for Distributing the Regional\nHousing Needs Allocation (RHNA) among Bay Area Cities and Counties, and Staff's Proposed\nProcess/Meeting Schedule to Update the City's General Plan Housing Element for 2023 to\n2031.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director and Randy Rentschler, ABAG, gave\na\nPowerPoint presentation.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether there is possibility for any city to alter the RHNA\nnumbers downward in the event of changes to unemployment and jobs allocations.\nMr. Rentschler responded it is doubtful that the Sacramento administration will change the\nRHNA numbers; stated RHNA laws have been significantly strengthened over the years; the\nBay Area has produced seven times more jobs than housing in the last 10 years; noted the\nState is far behind in housing and a different housing number is unlikely.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated California is under-housed and has a lot of catching up to do.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether cities are credited with finding some, but not all, of the\npercentage of the total housing allocation and whether a penalty is applied if there are\nshortcomings.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded ABAG does not create the\nhousing numbers and cannot reduce the RHNA; stated the results are pass/fail for housing\nnumbers; if a city fails to comply with State law, it will not have a certified Housing Element\ntherefore invalidating the General Plan; without a valid General Plan, cities face many\nconsequences.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated some of the consequences include loss of funding.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated an invalid General Plan means losing\nout on grants for open space, transportation, and affordable housing; noted invalid General\nPlans provide no basis for local land-use decision making causing vulnerability to lawsuits;\nshould legal challenges occur, the State and Courts can take over the local decision-making\nauthority from the City.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether development occurred while the City had previously\nbeen out of compliance.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded development can continue to\noccur; stated there may be challenges to the City's decision-making process and authority.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nDecember 1, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-12-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-12-01", "page": 12, "text": "Stated the election results are clear; the community should seek to ensure the allocations given\nfor new housing focus on unique impacts on Alameda; discussed safety and earthquakes: Rob\nHalford, Alameda.\nUrged Council look for a way to reduce the numbers; stated other cities are proactively pursuing\na reduction; Alameda should do the same; discussed Alameda having unique geography; urged\nCouncil consider the safety of residents: Carmen Reid, Alameda.\nExpressed concern about the actions of Council and the Planning Department and for\nenvironmental and equity issues; urged Council to address the matter in a collaborative way\nwith citizens; stated Council should not have placed Measure Z on the ballot: Dolores Kelleher,\nAlameda.\nStated the units shown as needed is not correct; California's population is stagnant and will\nlikely decrease over time; discussed natural hazards and safety elements being ignored and\nfaults within the ABAG methodology should natural hazards not be considered: Jay Garfinkle,\nAlameda.\nQuestion whether job production has increased or decreased in Alameda and whether the\ndefinition of second units includes Accessible Dwelling Units (ADU's); discussed other Charter\ncities challenging the State's authority and what Alameda's response will be; inquired the\nreasons other cities are challenging the RHNA numbers: Former Mayor Trish Herrera Spencer,\nAlameda.\nExpressed concern about traffic; discussed the impacts on public service agencies; outlined\nArticle 13 Section 35 of the California Constitution: Kathleen Sullivan, Alameda.\nStated the housing numbers are possible; urged embracing Article 8A; discussed goals and\nequity, environmental and economic goals: Drew Dara-Abrams, Alameda.\nExpressed support for comparing lower income and above moderate income; stated the City is\non-track to exceed higher income housing; however, is failing to meet the lower income\nhousing; urged Council to provide input on how the City is working to change the intended\nplanning process: Ashley Lorden, Alameda.\nExpressed support for the efforts in putting Measure Z on the ballot; read an excerpt of his\nthesis; discussed land use rulings and revisions: Rasheed Shabazz, Alameda.\nCouncilmember Vella stated the numbers are allocated to the region; inquired the result should\nthe City happen to go with the alternative methodology; noted there will be a decrease in the\nnumber of units in Alameda; questioned where the remaining units would end up.\nMr. Rentschler responded the alternative methodology shifts housing further into Santa Clara\nCounty and Southern San Mateo County; noted the formula is job heavy.\nCouncilmember Vella inquired whether some of the units could end up in Oakland, to which Mr.\nRentschler responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Vella inquired whether the units stay within the region.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nDecember 1, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-12-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-12-01", "page": 13, "text": "to various types of industry growth.\nMr. Rentschler responded in the affirmative; stated the RHNA process is imperfect; questions\nbehind housing are difficult to solve and are being placed upon local government; there is an\nattempt to capture complexities within processes; however, there will never be perfection.\nCouncilmember Vella stated the methodology takes many considerations into account; inquired\nwhether there is a focus on looking at job growth relative to the demand for housing.\nMr. Rentschler responded in the affirmative; stated this round in particular has focused on\nseeking more housing where the job growth has occurred; there have been impacts on the\ntransportation systems; the issue remains that people live further from their job location; climate\nobjectives are met by having people live closer to where they work.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the goal is to have opportunities to live near good schools, libraries\nand parks; outlined discussions related to the impacts of equity components on communities;\nstated RHNA is not a popular component; however the housing crisis would continue to worsen\nwithout it.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether Alameda is the only City making the argument of being\nunique.\nMr. Rentschler responded all cities are unique and also the same; stated Alameda has\nrestrictive access; outlined difficult access points for surrounding cities and counties; noted\nAlameda County has a good bus service; stated hazards have been discussed at great lengths\nand the main focus has been wildfires; climate change has also been discussed at length.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated every city has often felt a uniqueness\nand argued constraints; it will be very difficult for Alameda to make a convincing argument to\nlower the housing allocation.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nDecember 1, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-12-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-12-01", "page": 14, "text": "Councilmember Oddie stated there is a zero-sum game in reducing Alameda's housing\nallocation; inquired how often the allocations are appealed by other cities and the likelihood of\nany changes to the allocation.\nMr. Rentschler responded many communities have appealed their allocation and mixed\nsuccesses have occurred; stated that he can provide the details to Councilmembers.\nIn response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry, the Planning, Building and Transportation\nDirector responded the laws have changed since the last Housing Element; outlined\nundeveloped land projects; stated staff has provided information and support letters for\ndevelopment of problematic sites; if the California Department of Housing and Community\nDevelopment (HCD) rejects the support letters, the units must be relocated; the constraints on\nparticular development sites have created delays for years.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated Article 26 prohibits multi-family housing and limits density to 21\nunits per acre; noted the State can override the prohibitions with a density bonus; stated a multi-\nfamily overlay may not comply with the City Charter; requested clarification about what meeting\nthe RHNA allocation would look like under the current provisions.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated the State requires cities to show how\nthey will provide for all income levels; cities have a couple options: 1) provide a study to show\nevidence of affordability for all income groups, 2) find an alternate way to subsidize the\naffordable housing units, and 3) provide a multi-family option; the City has used option 3 for the\nlast two housing rounds; noted State Law makes the assumption that if a cities' zoning shows\nmulti-family and high-density housing is permitted, the plan will be accepted due to facilitating\nmore affordable housing; should a multi-family housing option not be chosen by the City, the\nonly other options will either not be successful or will be very expensive.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he will be interested in seeing the outcome; expressed\nsupport for seeing the practical implications of the City's constraints; outlined the lack of\nsuccess in challenges to the State; stated that he respects the will of the voters; outlined\nSection 7.5(1) of the Constitution of the State of California; stated just because something is\nvoted on by the people, does not necessarily make it right; the fight for housing equity and\njustice is not over.\nVice Mayor Knox White inquired whether the housing crisis and need for housing will remain if\nthe economy crashes and whether there is no State requirement for a city to provide a 30-unit\nper acre multi-family housing overlay.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded in the affirmative; stated the\noverlay is one option that could be used at the City's discretion to illustrate accommodation of\nlower income categories.\nVice Mayor Knox White inquired whether the City can exercise Option 2 and fund the affordable\nhousing without being in violation of the City Charter.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded in the affirmative; stated the\nCharter states no multi-family housing and no residential densities over 21 units per acre; noted\nthe State will pass cities allowing multi-family and 30 units per acre.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nDecember 1, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-12-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-12-01", "page": 15, "text": "Vice Mayor Knox White stated the City can meet the Housing Element without violating the City\nCharter; questioned whether the City can effectively spot-zone; stated wide swaths of the Island\nwill need to be zoned in order to use the multi-family overlay of 30 units per acre.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated the City needs a Housing Element\nthat HCD approves; the City must work with the business associations to identify businesses\nthat are willing to build housing above establishments; it is to the City's benefit to rezone\ncorridors; noted the City must report to the State annually, which means the City is constantly\ntracking progress.\nVice Mayor Knox White inquired once a multi-family (MF) MF overlay of 30 units is placed, is it a\nviolation of the Charter.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded shopping centers are a great\nexample and are useful in discussing overhead units; outlined units per acre limitations; stated\nthe City has the land to get to 4,900 units; the question is which land is best to use and how\ndense to build.\nVice Mayor Knox White stated there are two issues: 1) the RHNA housing allocation and 2)\nways to certify the Housing Element; there is no allocation for the City to challenge at this time;\nCouncil has expressed support for the methodology, not necessarily the allocation number;\nexpressed support for making a defensible argument that honors the equity issues; Council\nshould be looking at ways to accommodate 3,200 units should the City build on every possible,\navailable piece of land; in order to honor the Charter, Council must look at being open to\nconsidering paths for appealing the allocation numbers and asking for reconsideration; the City\nhas not used the overlay to accommodate a huge number of units; expressed support for using\na method which does not rely on the multi-family housing overlay and instead relies on the\ngood-faith arguments to prioritize building affordable housing; expressed support for Council to\nlook into funding affordable housing projects; stated Council should remain open to\nconversations with the community; he is doubtful that he will be quick to act on any Charter\nviolations which will help meet the RHNA allocation.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated voters were faced with a choice in Measure Z; a yes vote on\nMeasure Z indicated an abandonment of the status quo in regulating residential development of\nAlameda; a no vote on Measure Z meant keeping the status quo on residential development;\nvoters indicated overwhelmingly for maintaining the status quo; Article 26 is at the heart of\nAlameda's residential growth control tool; noted there are two work-arounds which allow, in\nlimited circumstances, the types of multi-family housing not allowed by Article 26; stated the\nworkarounds are the density bonus law and the multi-family housing overlay; the City has\nallowed development in strategic areas and built multi-family housing using the density bonus\nand multi-family housing overlay laws; Council has supported these housing developments\nsince 2012; Council should continue to fight to keep housing numbers as low as possible,\nbefitting for an Island; the City should build respecting the status quo of Article 26 growth control\nwith a limited, targeted and strategic use of the density bonus and multi-family housing overlay\nlaws; Council should fulfil the will of the voters and work closely with voters to address concerns\nraised by citizens involved in the No on Measure Z campaign; noted the Housing Element might\nbe put to a vote of the people should concerns not be addressed; outlined areas which should\nnot be subject to MF overlay; stated MF overlay will be looked at in a strategic manner.\n***\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nDecember 1, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-12-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-12-01", "page": 16, "text": "(20-758) Councilmember Vella moved approval of continuing the meeting until 11:55 p.m.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy\nAshcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.\nCouncilmember Vella stated that she respectfully disagrees in part about the mandate of the\nvoters; there were many measures on the ballot and people tend to vote no when unsure or\noverwhelmed; stated that the vote results do not reconcile with her receiving the highest amount\nof votes and being pro housing; there is a lot of confusion around what was being voted on\nbased on communications received; there is a misunderstanding of RHNA allocations, Charter\nallowances, how density has been obtained, funding for affordable housing and various project\napproval processes; it is clear that informational sessions and meetings are needed; expressed\nsupport for discussing funding for affordable housing, including necessary bonds for 100%\naffordable housing projects; stated that she does not intend to violate the Charter; questioned\nwhere the City is left should the Charter be followed and what it will mean to lose parks and\ncommercial space; stated it is disingenuous to question job creation without housing density;\nmatters should not be discussed in silos, but as a collective; Alameda is not unique because it is\nan Island; other cities have bridge access and limitations; safety, transit and the environment\nare being looked at; Council must acknowledge that the population has grown, demand for\nhousing is here, and planning via the ballot box has yielded the current hole Alameda is in;\nCouncil must look at the unintended consequences; expressed concern for extreme Not In My\nBackyard (NIMBY) values; stated the units are not leaving the region and subsequent impacts\nwill occur.\nCouncilmember Oddie expressed concern over restating the theme of the election; stated a no\nvote did not indicate maintaining the status quo; outlined the ballot arguments for Measure Z;\nstated the Charter outlines exceptions for housing and Council may proceed at its own risk;\noutlined Section 3-10 of the City Charter; noted Council could not pass an ordinance which\ncomes up with exceptions.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the election has yielded mixed results; Measure Z was a confusing\nmeasure; there is an opportunity to provide more community education and outreach in order to\ncollaborate effectively; noted seeing actual plans utilizing historic buildings is much less\nintimidating; Council must work to bring the community along to allow a better understanding of\nwhere Alameda fits in the housing crisis and what is possible to help alleviate it; there is time for\npublic forums; the forums should be as wide-spread as possible; the matter is important;\nCouncil needs to both be compliant with State Law as well as help house people; the two\npropositions are not mutually exclusive; efforts will be continued.\n(20-759) Introduction of Ordinance Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Lease\nAmendments for Rent Relief Program with Alameda Point Beverage Group, Auctions By the\nBay, Building 43 & Associates, Faction Brewing, Group Delphi, Proximo Spirits, Saildrone and\nUSS Hornet Air & Space Museum via the Non-Profit Spirits Alley Program for Rent Relief in\nResponse to the Covid-19 Pandemic. Introduced.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director gave a brief presentation.\nThe City Manager noted the Pinball Museum and Wonky Kitchen will be provided at the next\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n13\nDecember 1, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-12-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-12-01", "page": 17, "text": "Council meetings.\nCouncilmember Vella inquired the total amount being requested.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director responded the total for non-profits/Spirits Alley\nis $114,132 out of the $400,000 set aside by Council; stated $460,266 out of the $1.5 million is\nset aside for loan conversion.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for adding a clause to the agreement stating: \"should\nrecipients of funds be found to be in violation of an order issued by the County Public Health\nOfficer or Code Compliance Officer, Police Officer or a member of City staff, then the recipient\nshould forfeit any benefits received under this program;\" stated there have been instances\nof\nleniency; however, due to COVID-19, there is no room for leniency for any risky events or public\nexposure which will prolong the pandemic.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether the violation provision will be set going forward, to\nwhich Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired how the provision is permissible.\nThe City Attorney responded Council may make the requirement prior to a tenant signing the\nlease amendment; stated businesses will sign as part of the lease amendment; the City is not\ngranting an entitlement and is negotiating a contract, which can include the provision of revoking\ngrace from Council for relief should the violation occur.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated the provision had not been included in the published original lease\namendment language.\nThe City Attorney stated the Council regularly makes modifications to ordinances and items\nwhich are fairly well agenized; the change is provisional and is allowable within the Council\nprocess.\nCouncilmember Vella moved approval of the staff recommendation and accompanying\nordinance, with the inclusion of the amendment language provided by Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft:\n\"should recipients of funds be found to be in violation of an order issued by the County Public\nHealth Officer or Code Compliance Officer, Police Officer or a member of City staff, then the\nrecipient should forfeit any benefits received under this program.\"\nCouncilmember Oddie seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Vice Mayor Knox White stated that he supports the intent of the provision;\ninquired if the actual language is being inserted to the amendment.\nThe City Attorney responded staff will draft language consistent with Council's direction; stated\nthe direction is fairly narrowly tailored; provided sample language: \"if the lessee is found to be in\nviolation of Health, Code or Law Enforcement Officer orders, then this amendment shall be in no\nfurther force effect. ;\" staff will provide the final language for second reading.\nVice Mayor Knox White stated that very few Code Enforcement violations have been found so\nfar; expressed concern about loans being pulled for small infractions; noted there is a level of\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n14\nDecember 1, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-12-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2020-12-01", "page": 18, "text": "violation severity which should be relayed and clarified.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers\nDaysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Oddie: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes:\n5.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\n(20-760) The City Manager announced COVID-19 testing information is available on the City's\nwebsite; stated there will be a flu clinic sponsored by Alameda County held at Mastick Senior\nCenter; announced APD has received a traffic data and safety grant; stated the Posey Tube will\nhave an overnight closure between December 7th and 9th.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\n(20-761) Consider Adoption of Resolution \"Requiring a Project Stabilization Agreement for\nCertain Construction Projects, Including Construction Associated with Certain Leases, which\nInclude: City-Owned Property, City Funding at a Set Threshold, Approval of Certain\nAgreements, or Other City Subsidies or Credits at Set Thresholds\" or Consider Directing Staff to\nPlace the Resolution on a December 15, 2020 Special Meeting Prior to the 7:00 p.m. Regular\nMeeting. Not heard. (Councilmembers Oddie and Vella).\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(20-762) Vice Mayor Knox White stated that he attended the Rename Jackson Park public\nmeeting at Rythmix and the community Renaming Committee meeting.\n(20-763) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft announced attending the League of California Cities League\nLeaders workshop.\n(20-764) Stopwaste October 2020 Topic Brief: Re: Source. (Councilmember Oddie)\nCouncilmember Oddie announced that his alternate will be attending the meeting; noted an\nAlameda business will receive an award at the meeting; outlined the resource.stopwaste.org\nonline tool available for use.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 11:28 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n15\nDecember 1, 2020", "path": "CityCouncil/2020-12-01.pdf"}