{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-01-19", "page": 1, "text": "27\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - JANUARY 19, 2021--7:00 - P.M.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:04 p.m. Councilmember Spencer led the\nPledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Knox White, Spencer, Vella, and\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note: The meeting was\nconducted via Zoom]\nAbsent:\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\nNone.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(21-028) Proclamation in Recognition of Alameda Rotary's 100th Anniversary.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft read the proclamation.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(21-029) Erin Fraser, Alameda, discussed events of white supremacist terror; questioned why\nthe City of Alameda and Interim Police Chief have presumably done nothing; urged Council to\ntake action should the current Interim Police Chief not resign.\n(21-030) Jay Garfinke, Alameda, expressed concern about a lack of transparency with various\nad hoc committees; discussed a report from the Police Reform Committee; urged more be done\nto provide the public an opportunity to review ad hoc committees.\n(21-031) Jenice Anderson, Alameda, stated that correspondence has been sent inquiring\nwhether Alameda Police Department (APD) Officers supported the Capitol insurrection in-\nperson or online; expressed concern about the lack of response to e-mails; outlined the lack of\nresponse by APD to a report of an armed man during a Martin Luther King Jr. Day peaceful\nprotest.\n(21-032) Grover Wehman-Brown, Alameda, urged the City Manager take proactive steps to\ninvestigate Officer call-outs on January 6th and general Officer conduct on social media to see\nwhether support has been provided to the attempted coup; expressed concern about Officers\nbeing part of a wider trend of Police and military support and involvement; discussed social\nmedia; urged the City to take proactive steps; expressed concern about an armed man present\nduring a peaceful protest with no APD response or follow-up.\n(21-033) Laura Cutrona, Alameda, stated that she would like to understand what the City of\nAlameda is doing to investigate the ties between any City employees and the insurrectionist\ngroup of the failed coup from January 6th; discussed related activities occurring in Alameda and\na peaceful protest where an armed man was present; questioned the reason for delayed APD\nresponse.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJanuary 19, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-01-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-01-19", "page": 2, "text": "28\n(21-034) Alexia A-B, Alameda, discussed the armed man at the peaceful protest and the\nattempted coup on January 6th; questioned the City's response; stated Alamedans should care\nmore about the dichotomy of responses from APD.\n(21-035) Carly Stadum-Liang, Alameda, urged Council to request APD to investigate whether\nany Officers or staff members were present at the Capitol insurrection on January 6th or offered\nsupport; expressed concern about the unwillingness to conduct such investigation; stated APD\nfailed to respond to an armed man outside a peaceful protest.\n(21-036) Debra Lewis Mendoza, Alameda, expressed concern about a lack of leadership; noted\nthat she receives alerts when the tunnels are closed, but does not receive an alert about an\narmed person in her neighborhood; stated that she is waiting for leadership from Council and\nCity staff.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nThe following items were removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion: minutes\n[paragraph no. 21-037]; Police security camera system [paragraph no. 21-039]; Tentative Map\nTract 8534 resolution [paragraph no. 21-045]; lease amendment final passage [paragraph no.\n21-048]; and zoning amendment final passage [paragraph no. 21-049].\nCouncilmember Knox White moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Spencer: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy\nAshcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the\nparagraph number.]\nThe City Clerk noted a member of the public would like to comment on the bills [paragraph no.\n21-038]\n(21-037) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings Held on December 15,\n2021. Approved.\nCouncilmember Spencer noted that she would abstain.\nCouncilmember Knox White moved approval of the minutes.\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Spencer: Abstention; Vella: Aye; and Mayor\nEzzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Abstention: 1.\n(21-038) Bills for ratification.\nStated many of the bills relate to vehicles; questioned whether the expenses have not been\nmade for the APD armored vehicle: Erin Fraser, Alameda.\nThe City Manager stated Council may pull the matter and have it return on February 2nd; noted\nthat he cannot attest to specific repairs and vehicles; stated that he would prefer the matter\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJanuary 19, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-01-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-01-19", "page": 3, "text": "29\nreturn following confirmation.\nCouncilmember Knox White moved approval of reconsidering approval of the bills and having\nthe matter return on February 2, 2021.\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: No; Knox White: Aye; Spencer: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy\nAshcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.\n(21-039) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute a Purchase\nAgreement, or in the Alternative a Lease Agreement, for a New Security Camera System from\nICU Technologies for the Police Administration Building and Off-Site Property Storage Facilities\nin an Amount Not to Exceed $274,075.97.\nCouncilmember Knox White questioned why the matter is being brought for Council\nconsideration six weeks prior to hearing from the community on prioritizing APD funding and\nservices; stated an increase in the APD budget is recommended; expressed support for the\nmatter coming back as part of the budget; stated the system is 10-years old and is not a priority;\nthere have been issues of vandalism; however, the matter is not rising to increase public safety;\nexpressed support for hearing the policy process before spending funds on a video system.\nThe City Manager stated the matter came forward last August; the matter has been delated due\nto budget concerns.\nThe Police Captain stated the system is outdated; its primary function is to protect and provide\nsituational awareness to employees and citizens visiting the APD building; outlined a vandalism\nfrom November 2019; stated the footage obtained from the vandalism was of poor quality and\ntime consuming; there are challenges in off-site storage of property and evidence and a desire\nto add layers of security with additional cameras for current storage locations; noted the\nupcoming key-card access program for City buildings has the capability to work with camera\nfootage as an added layer of security.\nThe City Manager stated the matter is being brought forth outside of the budget since existing\nsystem, which is not functioning properly, would be replaced; the matter was held back due to\neconomic uncertainty from COVID-19; with a better economic outlook today, the matter is being\nbrought forth; noted there have been salary cost issues in a variety of departments.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired how far into the parking lot camera 2 would cover.\nThe Police Captain responded the camera captures the vehicle gate for patrol vehicles; stated\nthere is a way to angle the camera not to capture portions of the public serving lot; the camera\nwill help capture the storage facility within the City lot.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether the cameras are listed as garage bay 2 or garage bay 1.\nThe Police Captain responded in the negative; stated those cameras are focused on the doors\nand inside of building locations.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJanuary 19, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-01-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-01-19", "page": 4, "text": "30\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether the cameras referenced are mounted outside the motor\ncage.\nThe Police Captain responded in the affirmative; stated camera 2 is on the southeast corner\nwhich captures part of the public parking lot in between the Police Department and City Hall; the\ncamera is directed more toward the APD vehicle gate for patrol cars.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether there is a reason to capture the vehicle gate.\nThe Police Captain responded the need is a security concern; stated the gate is pressure\nactivated from the inside and remains open; should someone walk in behind an exiting vehicle,\nAPD staff can view the entrance.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether the vendor has provided ways or diagrams to angle the\ncameras and what public areas would be filmed, to which the Police Captain responded in the\nnegative.\nVice Mayor Vella stated potential recorded areas could include Councilmember and public\nparking due to incorrect mounting or mounting location changes.\nThe Police Captain stated it is not the intention to capture Councilmember and public parking\nspaces; APD staff will do everything possible to prevent incorrect filming and will primarily focus\non the Police Administrative Building (PAB).\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated there may be security concerns from people that work late at night.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired how long videos are maintained.\nThe Police Captain responded per State law, videos are maintained up to one year.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether the timing is in compliance with the City's data retention and\nprivacy policies, to which the Police Captain responded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired who would have access to the footage and whether the footage is\nsubject to a public record request.\nThe Police Captain responded access to the current system is limited; stated there are one to\ntwo people with access to the footage; the proposed system allows more access to employees;\nhowever, the accessibility can be limited; the custodian of records will perform purges and are\nthe only ones who can delete or purge information; an Officer who does not typically have\naccess will be able to live view the proposed system should a concern arise.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether the direction of cameras be changed once installed and the\nprocess for changing.\nThe Police Captain responded once the cameras are mounted they are intended to stay in\nplace; stated should the cameras need to move, a call must be made to the vendor for\nrepositioning.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJanuary 19, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-01-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-01-19", "page": 5, "text": "31\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether the City has another video surveillance service system for\nother City buildings.\nThe City Manager responded the City has limited surveillance systems; stated this is the only\nvendor being used; the key card system being implemented is with a separate vendor.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated the public parking garage has a video recording system; the\nsystem is not working well; when the time comes to replace the system, staff will likely look to\nthis vendor.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the vendor is providing surveillance at any other City\nbuildings, to which the Assistant City Manager responded not at this time.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired which other City buildings have video surveillance or other\ntechnology.\nThe Assistant City Manager responded in addition to the APD cameras, there is currently video\nsurveillance at the parking garage, the maintenance service center, and Alameda Point; stated\nthe Alameda Point surveillance is for a vacant building.\nCouncilmember Spencer inquired the reason the matter is not being included in the budget.\nThe Police Captain responded the project initially started November 2019 after a PAB\nvandalism; stated review of the footage made it clear that the system needed an upgrade; the\nprocess of reaching out to vendors began; COVID-19 hit causing a delay; the process was not\nplanned, was a discovered need, and wrapped up around the end of last August.\nCouncilmember Spencer inquired whether there was the single vandalism incident.\nThe Police Captain responded two recent vandalisms have occurred in the last three weeks\nincluding graffiti and a broken window; both incidents were captured using the current system\nwith poor, insufficient quality video.\nCouncilmember Spencer inquired when the matter would return to Council should it not be\napproved at this meeting.\nThe City Manager responded the matter would return at either the mid-year budget or at the\nnext two-year budget in the spring.\nCouncilmember Spencer inquired how soon the mid-year budget will be heard, to which the City\nManager responded February 16th\nExpressed support for not purchasing a new security camera; stated security footage does not\nhelp; urged Council to wait on the matter: Erin Fraser, Alameda.\nUrged Council not spend public dollars on surveillance of the community; stated security\ncameras do not prevent crime, they record crime; expressed support for a community debate for\nthe matter as part of the budget discussion; stated the proposal costs a lot of money during a\ntime when many are struggling: Grover Wehman-Brown, Alameda.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJanuary 19, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-01-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-01-19", "page": 6, "text": "32\nUrged Council to vote no on approving new security cameras for APD; stated that she questions\nother potential beneficial uses for funding; expressed concern about the pressing need for\nsecurity cameras in light of nearby protests: Alexia A-B, Alameda.\nStated the matter should be part of the regular budget process; the steering committees are\ncoming back with recommendations; should the current system be in working condition, the\nsystem can be kept in place for another month to allow the steering committee's report to be\nheard; questioned the items APD would consider cutting in order to fund the new system: Jenice\nAnderson, Alameda.\nStated that she does not support new security cameras for APD; the system upgrade seems like\na \"nice to have\" not a \"need to have\" item; questioned whether the cameras will be replaced\nentirely or whether the system is being added to; repairing vandalism costs less than the\nproposed system upgrade; the $275,000 should be used elsewhere; urged the decision be\ndeferred to the budget to have APD fund the system: Laura Cutrona, Alameda.\nUrged Council to respect the committees work, wait until the reports are turned in and see\nwhether the funding can be found through unbundling services: Melodye Montgomery,\nAlameda.\nUrged Council not approve the new security camera system; stated the new system costs\nnearly $275,000; many people are struggling due to COVID-19 and many are demanding a\ndivestment from policing with a reinvestment in the community; the funding must be spent\nwhere there is need; APD should pay for a new system out of its own budget: Isabel Sullivan,\nAlameda.\nExpressed concern about the matter being on the Consent Calendar; stated the matter was not\npart of an open bidding process; the vendor is a reseller of camera products; discussed other\nvendors providing similar services and products; stated that he would like to see competitive\nbids: Zac Bowling, Alameda.\nUrged a thorough review process as part of the annual budget; stated the City spends an\ninordinate amount on policing; urged Council to look at how funds are spent: Steve Perez,\nAlameda.\nStated the budget request should be denied; the request seems out of touch with reality;\nexpressed support for the funding being used on underfunded City services which improve and\nincrease community safety; expressed concern about the cameras being used to survey\nprotestors and for the matter being heard prior to the report back from the Police\nsubcommittees: Carly Stadum-Liang, Alameda.\nStated that she opposes granting additional City funding to APD; the funds would better support\nthe community; urged APD use department funds for technical needs; stated the City should not\ngrant any additional funding until any staff have been confirmed to not have been part of the\nviolent attack at the Capitol: Meredith Hoskin, Alameda.\nStated that he opposes giving almost $275,000 to APD; the matter timing is bad; expressed\nconcern about protestor identity recording; urged Council vote against the recommendation:\nVinny Camarillo, Alameda.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJanuary 19, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-01-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-01-19", "page": 7, "text": "33\nStated vandalism is cheap to fix, terrorism is not; discussed a local terrorist; urged a focus on\nlocating terrorists and not on vandalism: Morgan Bellinger, Alameda.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the timing is unfortunate for a number of reasons; there is a need to\nprotect buildings which house and store evidence; expressed support for considering\nreexamining the scope and funding in the future.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated reports and recommendations are prepared for serious reasons;\nstaff has recommended the matter be considered by Council; he is inclined to support staff's\nrecommendation; noted there appears to be more support for holding off for several weeks,\nwhich is understandable; noted issues raised regarding quality of the system and privacy; stated\nthe staff report indicates the system will be in compliance with the City's privacy, data collection\nand facial recognition policies; the need is present for the upgrade given the number of\nvandalism cases against the APD building; expressed support for the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Knox White moved approval of continuing the matter until the mid-year budget\ncycle and including direction that Council wait until after hearing from the community groups\nbefore making decisions on prioritizing funding; stated the matter has waited ten years and can\nwait months longer; this is not a major public safety issue.\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired the process for direction to staff.\nThe City Manager responded the matter could come in the mid-year or two year budget cycle,\nbut not be implemented until after the Police committees have reported and provided\nrecommendations to Council; noted that the matter will likely be brought with the two year\nbudget cycle to allow sufficient committee report timing.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she has heard recommendations for finding funding within the\nAPD fund budget; inquired whether the recommendation is included as part of the motion's\ndirection to staff.\nCouncilmember Knox White responded that is his preference; stated money spent from the\nGeneral Fund should not be in competition with parks or other unbundled services; expressed\nsupport for an understanding of how the matter will be prioritized for additional General Fund\nfunding; stated APD is funded by the General Fund.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated there is a separate portion of APD's budget which is not under the\nGeneral Fund.\nVice Mayor Vella expressed concern about the matter being a second APD request for\nsurveillance equipment which has not gone through an open bidding process; outlined the\nprocess for approving projects and purchases through open bidding; expressed support for an\nopen bid process being used relative to surveillance equipment; expressed concern about the\ndesired filming areas; stated that she is concerned about free speech issues related to\nsurveillance; expressed concern about access to surveillance footage and retention; stated that\nshe would like more information about filming of public parking areas; noted that the idea of\nfilming areas in light of a number of demonstrations is problematic; stated the request is\nextensive; system proposals tend to be piecemeal throughout the City and technology is\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJanuary 19, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-01-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-01-19", "page": 8, "text": "34\nacquired in segments as opposed to across the board; not having a coherent system is odd and\nshould be looked at; noted the current proposal is not something that she is prepared to support\nas-is; stated the expenditure is fairly high; expressed support for a discussion relative to the\ntwo-year budget and for hearing from the Police committees; questioned whether the matter has\nbeen presented to the Police committees; stated the scope of filming is extensive and beyond\nwhat she is comfortable with; a balance between privacy, overreach and safety concerns should\nbe achieved.\nCouncilmember Spencer expressed concern about the Police committees not returning to\nCouncil until March; stated that she has a problem with secret meetings happening behind\nclosed doors; the incidents of concern have been public and are issues of the public; the non-\npublic meetings skirt the Brown Act; the meetings should be public; expressed support for\nhearing from the Police committees sooner rather than later and for hearing from APD and the\npublic; noted there have been many speakers on matters related to Police; stated that she is\nconcerned about supporting the motion; Council will inevitably decide the direction to take on\npolicing matters; noted many people are installing Nest camera systems due to safety concerns;\nstated the quality of the system footage can be used.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification about whether public forums are occurring with the\nPolice reform process and subcommittees.\nThe City Manager stated reports from the committees will be released starting this week with a\nseries of surveys and public meetings; the first public meeting will be Friday; the committees will\nreport to the Transportation Commission and the Social Service Human Relations Board\n(SSHRB) for input and feedback.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the public access forum is this Friday, January 22nd at 6:30 p.m.;\na\nreport with surveys will be released Thursday, January 21st\nThe Assistant City Manager stated searching \"police reform and racial equity City of Alameda\"\nwill yield the webpage with Zoom participation information.\nThe City Manager stated the public survey will be released this week.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification about the lack of an open bidding process.\nThe Police Captain stated ICU Technologies is a General Services Administration (GSA)\napproved company which goes through a vetting process; the vendor will come in at or below\nthe lowest bid which would be received during a Request for Proposal (RFP) process.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested staff to address concerns which have been raised about the\nfacial recognition capabilities for surveillance cameras and first amendment rights.\nThe Police Captain stated it is not the intention to use facial recognition software technology;\nmembers of the public are not intended to be recorded on systems; the intention for the system\nis to help keep employees safe, provide situational awareness and help protect or investigate\nevidence and property if tampering occurs; the new system will allow live-streaming and better\nscreening.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJanuary 19, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-01-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-01-19", "page": 9, "text": "35\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested a friendly amendment to the motion to add direction to staff to\nreturn with a refined use policy for the equipment that will address concerns about facial\nrecognition.\nCouncilmember Knox White accepted the amendment; stated the City has a surveillance policy\nthat requires a report to accommodate such a request for purchase of equipment; noted the\nstaff report did not contain the policy; the required policy should accompany the staff report in\nthe future.\nVice Mayor Vella expressed concern about the vendor selection process.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the matter should be put out for an RFP.\nVice Mayor Vella responded there are potential issues with compliance in the existing policy\nshould the vendor not meet requirements previously set forth by Council.\nCouncilmember Knox White proposed direction be provided to staff to confirm with the\nrecommended vendor that the City's facial recognition ban and other related ordinances are\nunderstood for compliance; stated the GSA process has pros and cons; if an RFP is required,\nthe process will take an additional year and a half to return; expressed concern about a delay.\nCouncilmember Spencer inquired whether Council will hear from the Police subcommittees prior\nto the mid-year budget.\nThe City Manager responded Council will hear from the subcommittees prior to the current\nmatter being approved; stated the mid-year budget will come before Council mid-February; the\nregular budget will come before Council.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers\nDaysog: No; Knox White: Aye; Spencer: No; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes:\n3. Noes: 2.\n(*21-040) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Fourth Amendment to\nthe Agreement with Nute Engineering for Engineering Design Services for Cyclic Sewer\nRehabilitation Project, Phase 18, in an Amount Not to Exceed $411,500 for an Aggregate\nAmount Not to Exceed $1,556,321. Accepted.\n(*21-041) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Third Amendment to\nthe Agreement with NBS for Administrative Services for Special Financing Districts in an\nAmount Not to Exceed $80,319 for an Aggregate Amount Not to Exceed $146,158. Accepted.\n(*21-042) Recommendation to Expand the City's Sick Leave Benefit Authorizing Use of Parental\nLeave and Increasing the Sick Leave Cap for Protected Leave to Care for a Family Member to\n480 Hours. Accepted.\n(*21-043) Resolution No. 15735, \"Amending the City of Alameda's Employer/Employee\nRelations Resolution and Superseding the Following Resolutions: 7476, 7477, 7684 and\n14894.\" Adopted.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJanuary 19, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-01-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-01-19", "page": 10, "text": "36\n(*21-044) Resolution No. 15736, \"Amending the Alameda City Employees' Association (ACEA)\nSalary Schedule to Add the Classification of Police Records Specialist and Reclassifying the\nFour Intermediate Clerks in the Police Records Division to Police Records Specialist, Effective\nJanuary 19, 2021.' Adopted.\n(21-045) Resolution No. 15737, \"Approving Tentative Map Tract 8534 and Density Bonus\nApplication PLN19-0448 to Subdivide a 1.29-Acre Property into Twelve Lots Located at 2607 to\n2619 Santa Clara Avenue and 1514 to 1518 Broadway.' Adopted.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the matter involves a density bonus for a residential project;\ndiscussed previous tennis instruction provided at the project site; expressed concern about the\nproject taking advantage of the density bonus ordinance; stated the project is taking advantage\nin ways that do not meet the reasons for the density bonus ordinance; the idea behind the\ndensity bonus is that construction of affordable housing is so exorbitant and in order to\nencourage building affordable housing, State law allows developers to build additional units; the\nproject is not constructing very low income housing; instead, two of the existing units will be\ndesignated as very low income housing units; no costs are being borne by the developer; nine\nmarket rate units will be built; however, in order to qualify for the density bonus, the developer\nhad to trigger the requirement before receiving the density bonus; the project as characterized\ndoes not meet the density bonus; nine units can still be built should two very low income units\nbe of new construction.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft proposed Council receive a staff report.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director gave a brief presentation.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated State law requires a deed restriction for the two units for a\nminimum of 55 years; noted if an inclusionary ordinance requires longer than 55 years, the\nlonger term will be effected.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated the restriction rolls in Alameda\nserving in perpetuity; State law does not require the units to be new construction; density bonus\ncan be applied to a condominium conversion of an existing building.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted the provision provides an economical way to provide low income\nhousing.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated the approach provides two units\nimmediately into the affordable housing pool and identifies existing tenants who qualify,\nresulting in no displacement.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the units will apply towards the Regional Housing Needs\nAllocation (RHNA) requirement, to which the Planning, Building and Transportation Director\nresponded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Spencer requested clarification about design of the two existing units.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated both units are one bedroom; the\nentitlements are structured where the property developers and owners need to execute an\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJanuary 19, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-01-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-01-19", "page": 11, "text": "37\naffordable housing agreement with the City of Alameda prior to a final map or pulling building\npermits; all details have not been fully negotiated yet which is standard for the project's stage.\nIn response to Councilmember Spencer's inquiry regarding parking, the Planning, Building and\nTransportation Director stated the applicant is eligible to waive the parking requirements under\nthe density bonus; however, the applicant will maintain existing parking for all 22 units and\nprovide two parking spaces per unit for the nine new units.\nCouncilmember Spencer inquired whether the neighbors have filed complaints or concerns.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded a letter from an existing tenant\nconcerned about the loss of tennis courts was sent to the Planning Board; stated the new nine\nunits are being developed on land used by the former property owners; the Planning Board and\napplicant worked together to create a new common open space; the new space will be available\nto existing tenants as well.\nCouncilmember Spencer inquired whether the new units will have balconies or private outside\nspace, to which the Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded in the affirmative.\nStated that he likes the proposal better than earlier designs; the project is a great use of space\nand will help with the City's RHNA numbers: Zac Bowling, Alameda.\nStated that he would like clarification about whether the existing units are owned by a single\nparty; whether the developer does not have to buy or pay for the two affordable housing units;\nand whether the project will count as nine market rate and two affordable units for the RHNA\nnumbers: Jay Garfinkle, Alameda.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated the City will receive nine new units,\nplus two affordable units; the existing 22 units and 11 buildings are all located on one large\nparcel; the proposed tentative map creates 11 parcels for the existing buildings and a 12th\nparcel for the nine new units.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated that he understands the matter to be approving a tentative\nmap and density bonus application; neither of the approvals are tied to the approved\ndevelopment plan; Council cannot dictate the appearance of the project in approving the matter;\nthe matter is ministerial.\nCouncilmember Knox White moved approval of the density bonus and tentative map [adoption\nof related resolution].\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Spencer stated it appears there are already plans to add\nbalconies and outdoor areas for units; expressed support for the staff recommendation; stated\nprivate areas are important; expressed support for the parking and neighbors being supportive.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers\nDaysog: No; Knox White: Aye; Spencer: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes:\n4. Noes: 1.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJanuary 19, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-01-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-01-19", "page": 12, "text": "38\n(*21-046) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute an Agreement with\nLandscape Structures Inc. in an Amount Not to Exceed $285,862 for Construction of the\nBayport Park Playground Project. Accepted.; and\n(*21-046 / A) Resolution No. 15738, \"Amending the Fiscal Year 2020-21 Capital Budget for the\nPlayground Replacement Project (91621) by Appropriating an Additional $150,000: (1) a\nDonation from the Alameda Friends of the Parks Foundation in the Amount of $10,000, and (2)\nFund Balance of the Bayport Park Municipal Services District 03-1 in the Amount of $140,000.'\nAdopted.\n(*21-047) Resolution No. 15739, \"Amending Resolution No. 15728 Setting the 2021 Regular\nCity Council Meeting Dates.\" Adopted.\n(21-048) Ordinance No. 3295, \"Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Lease Amendments for\nRent Relief Programs to Rock Wall Winery and St. George Spirits through the Loan Conversion\nAssistance Program for Rent Relief in Response to the Covid-19 Pandemic.\" Finally passed.\nCouncilmember Knox White moved approval of the staff recommendation [final passage of the\nordinance].\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Spencer: Abstention; Vella: Aye; and Mayor\nEzzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Abstentions: 1.\n(21-049) Ordinance No. 3296, \"Amending the Zoning Map Designation for the Property at 2350\nFifth Street (APN 74-1356-23) from M-X, Mixed Use to R-4, Neighborhood Residential District to\nFacilitate Residential Use of the Property, as Recommended by the City Planning Board.'\nFinally passed.\nCouncilmember Knox White moved approval of the staff recommendation [final passage of the\nordinance].\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: No; Knox White: Aye; Spencer: No; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy\nAshcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.\n***\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft called a recess at 9:06 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:22 p.m.\n***\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(21-050) Recommendation to Rename Former Jackson Park to Chochenyo Park.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director, Raquel Williams, Jessica Santone, and Rachel Brock gave\na Power Point presentation.\nCouncilmember Spencer inquired how many meetings were publicly noticed.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director responded the matter has been discussed at a Recreation\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJanuary 19, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-01-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-01-19", "page": 13, "text": "39\nand Parks Commission meeting; stated Council voted to de-name Jackson Park in June and\nJuly; noted the Recreation and Parks Commission previously voted to recommend de-naming\nJackson Park.\nCouncilmember Spencer inquired how many subcommittee meetings were publicly noticed.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director responded the subcommittee is an ad hoc committee and is\nnot subject to meet under the Brown Act or Sunshine Ordinance.\nIn response to Councilmember Spencer's inquiry, the Recreation and Parks Director stated\nmeetings were held weekly from September to early January.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification for the role of the ad hoc committee and public\ninput; stated a survey and other opportunities for public input have been provided; the majority\nvotes of the public were a factor; however, it was not a determining factor in the choice of\nrecommended name.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director stated broad public outreach to solicit names was provided;\nthe committee took responses, vetted names, and provided a poll in November with a brief\nSurvey Monkey; the committee compiled all data; a number of different data points were used to\ncompile information.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted there has been some confusion related to public input.\nCouncilmember Knox White in stated the committee held two or three workshops beyond the\nRecreation and Parks Commission meeting which were publically available.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director stated the committee did hold a publically noticed\ncommunity forum in November.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether any of the presenters are from the [park] neighborhood.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director responded in the negative; stated the committee did have a\nmember from the neighborhood; however, the person is not presenting.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated there is an emphasis on addressing issues of past racism;\ninquired whether there have been any other frames considered for selecting names.\nMs. Santone responded the committees focus has been thinking about diversity, equity and\ninclusion; stated the committee considered the three points working together in addition to\ncarefully understanding Alameda's history; colonization is an ongoing process and is still alive\nand present for indigenous community members; the framing placed on the process was\nfocused on refuting the history of a violent and racist president with a more inclusive, equitable\nand diverse response to history.\nIn response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry, Ms. Santone stated the committee discussed\napplied criteria with considering other possible names of places, trees, and things specific to\nAlameda; the committee ultimately decided the additional considerations were not part of the\ndesired recommendation.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJanuary 19, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-01-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-01-19", "page": 14, "text": "40\nStated there is no other lens to look through except for the lens of equity; the meetings have\nbeen open and public; urged Council to vote yes and choose Chochenyo Park; stated this is an\nimportant step to provide equity: Melodye Montgomery, Alameda.\nStated that he was part of the proposal to rename Jackson Park three years prior; expressed\nsupport for the opportunity to honor indigenous people in taking a step to heal relationships; it is\nrelevant to educate the public about Andrew Jackson and to counter historical mythology; there\nis an opportunity for a new relationship with the Ohlone people; discussed a conversation with\nthe confederated villages of Lisjan; stated many survey respondents only selected one name;\nurged Council to choose Chochenyo Park: Rasheed Shabazz, Alameda.\nExpressed support for selecting Chochenyo Park; stated the committee has put time and effort\ninto the matter; triumphs over adversity are inspiring; discussed knowledge of native people in\nthe area and the available history; stated new knowledge is a benefit to all: Amanda Cooper,\nAlameda.\nExpressed support for the name Chochenyo Park; stated it is important to recognize the history\nof the land; the history of the Chochenyo people is almost invisible in Alameda public spaces,\nwhich should be remedied; the compromise of an Alameda-Chochenyo Park would be a\nmistake; the decision should not be a popularity contest; the name is an important opportunity to\ndo the right thing: Grace Rubenstein, Alameda.\nDiscussed the history of Alameda; stated there is disregard for the harm former President\nJackson caused; Andrew Jackson sought to exterminate tribes and the harm caused is not an\nabstract reach; the Lisjan Ohlone people are still here and unfortunately hold no land in the City;\nurged Council to rename the space to Chochenyo Park and to return the land to its original\nstewards; stated renaming the space is a first step, not a final step: Jenice Anderson, Alameda.\nDiscussed the Sunshine Ordinance and the definition of policy bodies; stated the Recreation\nand Parks Commission is a policy body which created a park renaming committee and such\ncommittee should be considered a policy body; a similar process has been used by City Council\nin appointing the Police reform committees; the process avoids the Sunshine Ordinance and\nBrown Act; urged Council take pause and reopen the renaming process: Mike Van Dine,\nAlameda.\nStated that she is a tribal member of the confederated villages of Lisjan and made brief\ncomments in their language; urged Council move forward with renaming former Jackson Park to\nChochenyo Park; stated the matter holds dear to her heart; discussed the importance of the\nland: Cheyenne Zepeda, Alameda.\nStated the future of the Bay Area resides in stories being passed on to children; the stories need\nto be courageous, truthful and reflect the reality of the world; removing community places which\nhonor those who perpetrated violence, such as Andrew Jackson, and honoring the living,\npresent people of the land is a critical first step; it is not enough to remove racist symbols from\npublic spaces, the next step is to rename the park to Chochenyo Park and begin to repair the\nrelationship with the confederated villages of Lisjan: Nadya Tannous, Alameda.\nStated renaming Jackson Park to Chochenyo Park honors the indigenous people who lived here\neven before Andrew Jackson; revitalizing the ancestral history of the land is needed; the Lisjan\nOhlone people have lived on this land even though it has been taken; renaming the park is the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJanuary 19, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-01-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-01-19", "page": 15, "text": "41\nleast the City can do; discussed a statement for the name Alameda Park; stated Chochenyo\nPark has nothing to do with politics and is a non-political name; the name honors the land and\nits indigenous people; urged Council to vote in favor of renaming Jackson Park to Chochenyo\nPark: Vinny Camarillo, Alameda.\nUrged Council to vote yes and honor the request of the Lisjan Ohlone leaders in approving the\nrenaming; stated Council should consider an ongoing relationship to repair the harm\ncolonization has done: Grover Wehman-Brown, Alameda.\nDiscussed her experience as a mom living on stolen land; urged Council to approve renaming\nthe park; questioned the ways which people will look back at this moment in history; stated\nnames communicate values; urged Council to use its power to do the right thing and rename the\npark to Chochenyo Park: Claire Valderama-Wallace Alameda.\nStated renaming the park is appreciated; that she is grateful for helpful allies bringing language\nand culture back to light; expressed support for using the park for cultural and medicinal uses:\nDeja Gould, Alameda, Tribal member of the Confederated Villages of Lisjan, Chochenyo and\nLanguage Keeper for the Tribe.\nExpressed concern about the lack of transparency in the process; stated the criteria was sent\nwithout public scrutiny; the public did not participate in setting up the criteria; City staff are\nfrequently slow in following instructions of the Council; however, de-naming Jackson park\noccurred quickly; expressed support for the name Chochenyo Park; expressed concern about\nthe naming process; urged Council to establish ways of responding to the attacks and cancel\nculture: Jay Garfinkle, Alameda.\nUrged Council take pause on confirming a name and reopen the process; stated Alameda Park\nwas the number one choice of a poll submitted in December; discussed poll processes and the\nRecreation and Parks Commission meeting; stated the process appears exclusive in rejecting\nthe name Alameda Park; urged Council consider the importance of including Alameda Park in\nthe final name consideration: Carmen Reid, Alameda.\nExpressed support for renaming the park Chochenyo Park; stated residents were able to submit\nover 150 names; the City's collaborated with Rhythmix Cultural Works on a beautiful art\ninstallation; discussed the de-naming process; stated the City has crafted a thoughtful process;\nthe name brings vitality and beauty to the City: Jennifer Rakowski, Alameda.\nDiscussed her experience as an attorney for her tribe; urged Council to vote and change the\nname of the park; stated that she would like her children to feel welcome everywhere on the\nIsland; the matter is not erasing history; expressed support for honoring the original inhabitants\nof the land; urged Council vote for option one: Jessica Laughlin, Alameda.\nExpressed support for the name Chochenyo Park for original ground walked upon by\nChochenyo speaking people: Toni Grimm, Alameda.\nExpressed support for naming the park Chochenyo Park; stated that she felt well informed of\nthe renaming process as a member of the neighborhood; discussed timely responses to e-\nmails; stated the matter has been discussed previously at Council and Recreation and Parks\nCommission meetings, which allowed public comment; expressed support for the frames used\nby the committee in renaming the park: Meredith Hoskin, Alameda.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJanuary 19, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-01-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-01-19", "page": 16, "text": "42\nExpressed support for renaming the park Chochenyo Park; detailed accounts of the process\nleading to renaming the park; stated there is a bias and political issue; renaming the park is the\nfirst step; the land should be returned: Alexia A-B, Alameda.\nStated the Council has the opportunity to shed light on the Lisjan Ohlone people; discussed her\nexperience with racism in Alameda; stated an Ohlone named park is the least the City can\nprovide; stated the Lisjan Ohlone people are still present and thriving: Victoria Montano, Yaqui\nNashika.\nExpressed support for all public speakers and the naming process; discussed voting standards;\nurged Council to listen to volunteers, educators, and voices not normally heard instead of a\nSurvey Money link and to make naming Chochenyo Park the first of many steps in restoring\nland to rightful original stewards: Morgan Bellinger, Alameda.\nUrged Council rename the park Chochenyo Park; stated it is imperative to support the\nunanimous recommendation of a diverse, community-led committee; history must be faced in\nremoving racist symbols from public spaces; renaming the park helps pave way for anti-racism\nand supports healing and justice; tyranny of the process distracts from the history and why the\nopportunity to change the narrative exists; expressed support for a memorial in Chochenyo Park\nto acknowledge oppressed communities in Alameda's history; urged Alameda to develop a\nrelationship with the Ohlone Lisjan and returning the land: Laura Cutrona, Alameda.\nUrged Council rename the former Jackson Park to Chochenyo Park; stated the name is a\nbeautiful and necessary repudiation of the white supremacy which has marred the history of\nAlameda; urged Council to reject the process qualms: Laura Gamble, Alameda.\nExpressed support for renaming the park Chochenyo Park; stated renaming the park is a\nrejection of Andrew Jackson and an opportunity for education about the history and presence of\nthe original people of the land; urged the City to work with the confederated villages of Lisjan\nand the Sogorea Te land trust to return stolen land to the Lisjan Ohlone people: Isabel Sullivan,\nAlameda.\nStated inclusion is not just about honoring the majority of people, it is including people who have\ngotten smaller over the years; the City should continue renaming things until wrongs are righted;\nurged Council vote for Chochenyo Park: Katherine Castro, Alameda.\nExpressed support for renaming the park to Chochenyo Park; stated the Country has a long and\nshameful history in its treatment of indigenous people; the step to rename the park in honor of\nthe people indigenous to these lands is a rational choice: James Bergquist, Alameda.\nVice Mayor Vella moved approval of the recommendation to rename the park Chochenyo Park.\nCouncilmember Knox White seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Vice Mayor Vella expressed support for those who volunteered their time to\nwork on the matter; stated there has been opportunity for community input; the matter has gone\nto the Recreation and Parks Commission and is before Council now after a number of\ncommunity events; it is disingenuous to say there has not been a public process; expressed\nconcern about a level of gas lighting; stated renaming the park Chochenyo is perpetuation by\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJanuary 19, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-01-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-01-19", "page": 17, "text": "43\nappreciation; the matter is about appreciating diverse history and perpetuating that history;\nlanguage is intrinsic to the expression of culture and is the means by which culture, its traditions\nand shared values are conveyed and preserved; the matter is important due to the limited view\nof history and the world taught in schools; this is an opportunity to correct conversations meant\nto separate rather than unify; the opportunity is important as a public space where community\ncan gather; expressed support for the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Knox White noted the Rename Jackson Park Committee met last week;\nencouraged everyone to listen to the meeting discussion; stated the discussion has been\nforwarded to staff members; the only direction previously provided from Council was\nconsideration of Black, Indigenous, People of Color (BIPOC) community members and equity;\nCouncil did not direct a committee be formed; noted the last Recreation and Parks Commission\nmeeting and the current Council meeting are Brown Act meetings; the meetings are publicly\nattended; people are interested in naming the park Alameda Park; outlined a podcast discussion\nof the passive park; stated there have been instances of white, wealthy neighborhoods who\nhave tried to show people how they should be living versus accepting cultures; there is an\nongoing discussion related to Alameda Park where the community called the location Alameda\nPark for some time; expressed concern about going back to a name that did not willingly give up\nland being as problematic as sticking with the name Jackson Park; noted the committee has\nperformed due diligence in selecting the name Chochenyo Park; expressed concern about the\npotential of name appropriation; requested a friendly amendment to the motion to direct staff to\nreturn with an agenda item as part of the two-year budget for the City to pay the Shuumi Land\nTax; stated the amendment will honor the work being done as a long overdue first step.\nVice Mayor Vella accepted the friendly amendment to the motion.\nCouncilmember Spencer expressed concern about the process; stated the meetings were not\ninfrequent; the matter is important and public meetings should have been held; viewable\nmeetings are not the same as meetings which allow public participation; there is a lot of good\nwork that can happen; outlined her heritage as Mexican-American; stated the criteria showed\nuse of the word Alameda meaning grove of trees as not acceptable; there are no parks in\nAlameda with Spanish names; outlined the naming of Bayport Park; stated the criteria is meant\nto be inclusive, yet excludes Spanish names, which is a problem; outlined her experience living\nin Los Angeles; stated that she has been subjected to racism; expressed concern about a\ncriteria which excludes Spanish words; stated that she wonders at what point will a Spanish\nnamed park be allowed; Spanish people are people of color, have historically been left behind in\nthe Country and suffer the same low-income, poverty struggles; expressed support for\nconsideration of Spanish names being included; stated that she sees excluding Spanish words\nas institutional racism; expressed support for a criteria which includes Spanish names.\nMs. Williams stated that she validates Councilmember Spencer's heritage and that there is\nunderrepresentation as part of the BIPOC community; the choice of not selecting Alameda had\nnothing to do with the word being Spanish and had nothing to do with discriminating against\nSpanish people; the reason Alameda was not chosen due to the historical context of the\nAlameda Hotel and Alameda Park housing subdivision which were exclusionary of people of\ncolor; the intent was to put forth new energy and representation for the park in having a new\ncultural and diverse name; new parks are being built and other parks need to be renamed;\nexpressed support for Spanish names being appropriate for parks; stated there are many\nexclusionary things for members of the BIPOC community; Alameda Park has the roots of\ncolonization and an exclusionary subdivision; the committees intentions were not to discriminate\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJanuary 19, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-01-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-01-19", "page": 18, "text": "44\nor hurt, but to create a park that is inclusionary in moving forward from a president who was\nracist; expressed support in working with the committee to have a Spanish named park into\nAlameda; stated the large Hispanic population in Alameda is underrepresented.\n***\n(21-051) Councilmember Knox White moved approval of considering remaining items up to\n11:59 p.m. with City Manager Communications after the current item.\nCouncilmember Daysog requested an amendment to the motion to consider the Council\nReferrals.\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which failed by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: No; Knox White: Aye; Spencer: No; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy\nAshcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.\nCouncilmember Spencer moved approval of continuing the remaining items up to 11:59 p.m.\nwithout moving City Manager Communications.\nCouncilmember Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: No; Knox White: Aye; Spencer: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy\nAshcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.\nCouncilmember Spencer expressed support for Ms. Williams' comments and efforts; stated that\nshe hopes Ms. Williams has a bigger role in helping with the problem moving forward.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the initial discussion of de-naming Jackson Park also included\ndiscussion for renaming; noted that he supported casting the net broadly in relation to looking at\nnew park names; expressed concern about coming up short in casting the net broadly; stated it\nis clear that the potential names for the park were limited due to the framing criteria; the framing\nof righting historic wrongs is a valid way to evaluate names; the ad hoc committee, Recreation\nand Parks Commission and Council should have encouraged multiple ways of framing criteria;\noutlined possible name framing criteria; stated individuals could have been considered; Al\nDeWitt would have been a good choice to consider; outlined Al DeWitt's accomplishments;\nstated Al Dewitt is just one person who could have been evaluated if the criteria of individuals\nbeen used in addition to righting historic wrongs; there has been a missed opportunity;\nexpressed support for the name Chochenyo Park; stated that he will not support the naming\nsince net was not cast broadly in terms of criteria.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated people were listed in the name selection; outlined individuals\nlisted; stated the process was followed; noted the breakdown has been dismissive of the\nproblem.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Chochenyo Park is a lovely name; expressed support for the\ncommittee's work; stated 2020 was a time of reckoning and many incidents converged allowing\nthe City to look deeper at the Nation's and local history including treatment and marginalization\nof people; there have been many gaps in history; stated the process for naming was well\nundertaken.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJanuary 19, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-01-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-01-19", "page": 19, "text": "45\nDaysog: No; Knox White: Aye; Spencer: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes:\n4. Noes: 1.\n(21-052) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Article\nXV (Rent Control, Limitations on Evictions and Relocation Payments to Certain Displaced\nTenants) to Adopt and Incorporate Provisions Concerning Capital Improvement Plans (CIP) for\nRental Units in the City of Alameda. Introduced.\nThe Chief Assistant City Attorney gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Spencer stated opposition has been posed by the Alameda Realtors Group;\ncomments received note concern about the amount to cover major improvements being too\nhigh; requested clarification for such opposition.\nThe Chief Assistant City Attorney stated the $25,000 is a staff-driven number; the improvements\nought to be substantial and most improvements listed in the ordinance are likely to cost\n$25,000; should Council not feel comfortable with the amount, the amount can be reduced.\nCouncilmember Spencer inquired whether outreach was conducted to find a comfortable\namount.\nThe Chief Assistant City Attorney responded staff met with the group in August and the amount\nwas discussed; stated the amount was initially higher and had subsequently been reduced;\nshould a new roof cost $15,000 it is possible subsequent capital improvements can also be\nmade to meet the $25,000 threshold.\nCouncilmember Knox White inquired whether anything prohibits delaying implementation of the\npass-through given the COVID-19 crisis, to which the Chief Assistant City Attorney responded in\nthe affirmative.\nCouncilmember Knox White requested clarification of routine maintenance and large capital\nprojects.\nThe Chief Assistant City Attorney responded the need for new roofs occurs every four to five\nyears and the improvements last 15 to 20 years; stated the amortization period for the capital\nimprovements is 15 years, which is reasonable; staff looked at items generically and felt that the\npass-through would not be high enough to encourage landlords to make improvements now as\nneeded.\nCouncilmember Spencer stated Oakland has a CIP modeled after Santa Monica which contains\na list of approved improvements that can be amortized over different periods; inquired why\nAlameda is not using the same.\nThe Chief Assistant City Attorney responded the Santa Monica ordinance is not the same kind\nof CIP plan being recommended; stated the Santa Monica ordinance is part of the fair return\nprocess; the amortized cost becomes an operating expense against the revenue which a\nlandlord then uses to determine whether or not there is a fair return; the process is different and\nis more beneficial in encouraging landlords to make improvements rather than a fair return\nprocess which can be seen as discouraging landlords from undertaking repairs; the\nrecommendation process can be performed administratively through the program administrator;\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJanuary 19, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-01-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-01-19", "page": 20, "text": "46\na fair return process requires petitions, hearings and will cause difficulty especially for landlords\nwith fewer units.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired the reason for moving away from the net operating income (NOI) to\nthe new structure.\nThe Chief Assistant City Attorney responded staff is not moving away from NOI; stated at\npresent it is a standalone item; should a person go through the CIP process, they will add the\namount not as a pass through but added to the tenants' rent as a rent increase; the annual\ngeneral adjustments will be based on a higher number than the current recommendation; the\nrecommendation is not moving away from a fair return process; staff can return with a fair return\nprocess of Council desires; the policy is being fine-tuned.\nUrged Council take a look at the concept of pass-through and the effects on rent increases;\nstated pass-through has the potential to destroy the protection of the rent cap; discussed\nOrdinance 3250; questioned the good being done in establishing a rent cap and adding pass-\nthroughs; pass-throughs go against the intention of the rent cap ordinance; the proposal brings\na heavy burden and will lead to displacement; guaranteeing a fair rate of return will not\ndiscourage a landlords from making property improvements: Toni Grimm, Alameda.\nStated Council should not implement a new CIP and pass-through during the local emergency\nperiod; Council has passed an urgency ordinance for the same period to protect renters against\nthe economic hardship of rent increases and displacement; should Council choose to proceed,\nARC requests the changes not begin until after the time period renters are given to pay back\nrent due to COVID-19; guaranteeing landlords fair return should not discourage landlords from\nthe process: Catherine Pauling, Alameda Renters Coalition (ARC).\nCouncilmember Knox White moved approval of the staff recommendation with the following\nadjustment: while people can apply for the Capital Improvement Program, no pass-through\npayments will be allowed to start until January 1, 2022.\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated Council should be working closely with small\nmom and pop landlords in understanding the correct amount; the $25,000 threshold is a number\ngenerated in City Hall; City Hall is not the right place to generate the amount; Council does not\nhave the experience to evaluate amounts; noted that he will not support the motion.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is comfortable with the motion; expressed concern about\nthe condition of the rental housing stock; stated it is reasonable to delay any implementation\nuntil January 2022; she is satisfied with staff's analysis.\nVice Mayor Vella expressed concern about implementation being earlier than the 12 months\nbeyond the period of the State of Emergency; requested a friendly amendment to the motion to\nnot implement until 12 month from the end of the declaration of the State of Emergency.\nCouncilmember Knox White accepted the friendly amendment to the motion.\nVice Mayor Vella stated ordinances can be amended; there are problems with the pass-through\nand duration of time; expressed support for the matter moving forward.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJanuary 19, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-01-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-01-19", "page": 21, "text": "47\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers\nDaysog: No; Knox White: Aye; Spencer: No; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes:\n3. Noes: 2.\n(21-053) Adoption of Resolution Requiring a Project Stabilization Agreement for Certain\nConstruction Projects. Not adopted.\nThe Assistant City Manager made brief comments.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed concern about a policy requiring adoption by applicants, owners\nand developers yet only focusing on the concerns of the building and construction industry and\nfor staff not consulting beyond the building trades construction group; stated housing needs to\nbe built; an effective Project Labor Agreement (PLA) needs to be more than just an agreement\nnot to strike; the agreement must also address the concerns of all parties to the agreement;\nexpressed support for additional language being added to the proposed recommendation;\nstated that she has submitted proposed language; outlined the project from which the proposed\nlanguage stems; stated the major items that she would like included are the inclusion of the\nrequirement to negotiate with women, minority and small owned business enterprises and\nmanagement rights; it is important to recognize the perspective of the owners and developers;\noutlined discussions with Andreas Cluver of the Alameda County Building Trades Council.\nCouncilmember Spencer stated the same resolution was previously attached to a Council\nReferral; noted the matter is not being brought forth by the City Manager; requested clarification\non the matter's origins; inquired the reason for having a staff member bring the matter forth.\nThe City Manager responded the City Council has had PLA's as part of development\nagreements; stated there have been instances of concern for developers; noted a process had\nbeen requested in December 2019 for those looking at City land with the expectation of\nnegotiating a PLA.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted the inquiry from Councilmember Spencer relates to how the matter\nchanged from a Council referral to a staff brought matter.\nThe City Manager stated the matter has been discussed with the labor council and has been\nlooked at by staff since 2019; the matter had been scheduled to be presented in the fall and was\nheld for consideration by the new Council; the matter did not change from Council referral to\nstaff bringing the matter.\nCouncilmember Spencer noted the Executive Summary of the staff report references the\nBuilding and Trade Council of Alameda County; inquired the reasoning behind using one trade.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Building and Trade Council of Alameda County is the umbrella\norganization over all trades, with the exception of the carpenters, which are separate.\nVice Mayor Vella stated carpenters are also an affiliate of the Building and Trade Council of\nAlameda County.\nIn response to Councilmember Spencer's inquiry, the City Manager stated staff's perspective is\nthat the Building and Trade Council of Alameda County would be the representative of the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJanuary 19, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-01-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-01-19", "page": 22, "text": "48\ntrades within Alameda County.\nCouncilmember Spencer stated there are women and minority-owned businesses which are not\npart of the trades; inquired how the women and minority-owned businesses fit in.\nThe City Manager responded there is flexibility in the matter for Council; stated should Council\nnot believe there can be an agreement with a specific development, the policy has latitude for\nthe option not to require a PLA by a vote of three Councilmembers; staff has provided\nprovisions regarding minority-owned businesses, which is strengthened by the Mayor's\nproposal; staff can negotiate, but do not negotiate at the same level for all trades; collective\nnegotiation is attempted; however, in certain circumstances, other businesses can be involved.\nCouncilmember Spencer stated that she is trying to figure out why the proposal is in the City's\nbest interest; inquired the reason for staff bringing the matter forward versus a Councilmember.\nThe City Manager responded due to the history of PLA's in connection with City developments;\nstated staff has worked to create a playing field where developers would know the expectations\nfor negotiations; the matter provides Council discretion on specific projects; Council may waive\nthe requirement for specific projects if deemed necessary.\nIn response to Councilmember Spencer's inquiry, the Assistant City Manager stated the limit is\n$5 million in construction or $7.5 million for a non-profit entity that is improving leased City-\nowned property; the threshold has been set high allowing for a substantial amount of work;\nthere is also a limit of up to a minimum seven year lease term to ensure significant invest is\nmade prior to the requirement being triggered.\nCouncilmember Spencer inquired whether the City currently has tenants which fall under the\nproposed category and whether the proposed matter is relevant.\nThe Assistant City Manager responded there are four parts to the recommendation; stated one\nis related to improving City-owned properties or leases; however, there are also affordable\nhousing projects, which would trigger the threshold fairly quickly under the Measure 1A bond;\nnoted the County has a requirement that labor be involved when bond money goes towards\naffordable housing projects; the requirement will be triggered with or without this resolution; the\nresolution clarifies the expectation for Alameda; other projects can trigger the requirement as\nwell; Alameda Point and Site A are examples of projects which trigger the requirement; outlined\nprevious projects requiring a PSA/PLA.\nCouncilmember Spencer inquired whether the requirement has been on a project-by-project\nbasis, to which the Assistant City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the\nrecommendation adds clarity to the process and sets expectations.\nCouncilmember Spencer inquired whether other cities in the area have the same requirement.\nThe Assistant City Manager responded other entities have tackled the requirement in a more\ncomprehensive manner; stated Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) has a similar policy in place.\nThe City Manager stated BART has a more global policy; other cities have a more individual\nproject-by-project basis.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJanuary 19, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-01-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-01-19", "page": 23, "text": "49\nUrged Council to vote against the proposed PSA; stated PSAs traditionally discourage many\nlocal construction firms from bidding; various polls of contractors have shown that PSAs can\ndeter bidding; discussed an East Bay Municipal Utilities District (EBMUD) survey; stated there\nshould be no limitations on who can and cannot bid; discussed examples of restrictions in\nConcord; outlined PLAs increasing costs; stated should Council adopt a PSA, it should include\nlocal workers and companies that build quality projects: Joe Lubas, Alameda County Taxpayers\nAssociation.\nStated that he is proud the City has a history of supporting working families; outlined his\nexperience working with the Teamsters Union and the Economic Recovery Task Force; stated\nthe recommendation is a well thought out and negotiated agreement which will help accomplish\ngoals; the recommendation gives opportunity to use resources, put Alamedans to work, promote\nlocal businesses and deliver projects on-time; urged Council adopt the resolution: Doug Bloch,\nAlameda, Teamsters Union, Economic Recovery Task Force.\nStated that he does not understand the language stabilization legislation or agreements or why\ngovernment makes deals which create safe harbors by tipping the balance in favor of unions;\noutlined donations made by the Building Trades organization; stated that he does not see the\nCity gaining anything; outlined projects requiring PSAs; stated that it would be more responsible\nfor the City to not enter into protective kinds of agreements which strongly favor labor unions:\nJay Garfinkle, Alameda.\nExpressed support for the matter; stated the policy is innovative; the policy is not just for\nworking class people; the policy is a win for developers, levels the playing field and allows\ndevelopers to know what is expected; the policy ensures the continuation of a skilled and\ntrained workforce; language is included which ensures local workforce on projects; the language\nproposed by Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft can be included under Proposition 209; Council has the\nability to reverse the policy on any given project; the Alameda County Building Trades Council is\nopen to the proposed amendments: Andreas Cluver, Alameda County Building Trades Council.\nStated young minority veterans will not be able to work under the proposed conditions; the\nexclusion is due to not being part of the Union Apprenticeship Program; the Associated Builders\nand Contractors would like the opportunity to work on projects in the community; questioned\ndata collection from the current PLA; stated that she would like to know the status of the current\nPLA: Nicole Goehring, Associated Builders and Contractors.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the meeting end time has occurred.\n***\n(21-054) Vice Mayor Vella moved approval of extending the meeting an additional 15 minutes to\nallow for completion of public comment and deliberation.\nCouncilmember Knox White seconded the motion, which failed by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: No; Knox White: Aye; Spencer: No; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy\nAshcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.\nCouncilmember Spencer moved approval of allowing public comment to be completed and\nconcluding the meeting.\nCouncilmember Knox White seconded the motion.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJanuary 19, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-01-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-01-19", "page": 24, "text": "50\nUnder discussion, the City Attorney stated if the matter is being continued, it must be date and\ntime certain.\nCouncilmember Knox White requested a friendly amendment to the motion to continue the\nmatter to the February 2nd meeting at 6:59 p.m.\nCouncilmember Spencer accepted the friendly amendment.\nOn the call for the question, the motion failed by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers\nDaysog: No; Knox White: Aye; Spencer: Aye; Vella: No; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes:\n3. Noes: 2.\nVice Mayor Vella moved approval of continuing the matter to February 2nd at 6:59 p.m.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Councilmember Vella would consider hearing the last\npublic comment and allowing public comment to close.\nVice Mayor Vella responded in the negative; stated that she does not know if there are others\nwishing to speak; the matter has been held until the end and she does not want to close public\ncomment.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired the procedure should Council fail to continue the matter.\nThe City Attorney responded if Council does not continue the matter with no action taken, staff\nwill have to bring the matter back.\nVice Mayor Vella stated that she is fine with allowing the last public comment complete,\nprovided that public comment is not closed when the matter is continued.\nCouncilmember Knox White requested clarification that public speakers would not be allowed to\nspeak a second time, to which Vice Mayor Vella responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Knox White seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed concern about lengthy agendas.\nOn the call for the question, the motion failed by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers\nDaysog: No; Knox White: Aye; Spencer: No; Vella: No; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3.\nNoes: 2.\nVice Mayor Vella stated that she would reconsider the previous motion by Councilmember\nSpencer; that Council has filibustered and is infringing upon public comment.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the previous motion to reconsider continues the matter to February\n2nd [at 6:59 p.m.] and allows public comment to be completed and closed.\nCouncilmember Spencer inquired whether there are no more speakers, to which the City Clerk\nresponded in the affirmative.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJanuary 19, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-01-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-01-19", "page": 25, "text": "51\nCouncilmember Spencer stated the reconsidered motion is appropriate.\nCouncilmember Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: No; Knox White: Aye; Spencer: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy\nAshcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.\n***\nStated that she does not understand why she would be unable to speak at the continued\nmeeting; outlined PLAs in Alameda County not being inclusive; stated that she would like an\nupdate on the current Public Works PLA: Nicole Goehring, Associated Builders and Contractors.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated public comment has closed for the matter; noted speakers are not\nallowed to speak twice on matters.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\nNot heard.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNot heard.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\n(21-055) Consider Establishing a New Methodology by which the Number of Housing Units are\nCalculated for Parcels Zoned C-2-PD (Central Business District with Planned Development\nOverlay). (Councilmember Daysog) Not heard.\n(21-056) Consider Directing Staff to Provide a Police Department Staffing and Crime Update.\n(Councilmember Spencer). Not heard.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\nNot heard.\nADJOURNMENT\n(21-057) There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 12:10\na.m. in memory of those lost to COVID-19.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJanuary 19, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-01-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-01-19", "page": 26, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -JANUARY 19, 2020- 5:45 P.M.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 5:58 p.m.\nRoll Call -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Knox White, Spencer, Vella and\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note: The meeting was held via\nZoom.]\nAbsent:\nNone.\nThe meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(21-023) Conference with Legal Counsel Existing Litigation (Pursuant to Government\nCode \u00a7 54956.9); Case Name: City of Alameda V. Union Pacific (Sweeney); Court:\nSuperior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda; Case Number:\nRG18921261. Not heard.\n(21-024) Conference with Legal Counsel Existing Litigation (Pursuant to Government\nCode \u00a7 54956.9); Case Name: Friends of Crab Cove V. Vella et al.; Court: Superior\nCourt of the State of California, County of Alameda; Case Number: RG18933140;\nCourt: First District Court of Appeal; Case Numbers: A159140 and A159608.\n(21-025) Withdrawn - Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Pursuant to\nGovernment Code \u00a7 54956.8); Property: Encinal Terminals, Located at 1521 Buena\nVista Avenue (APN 072-0382-001,-002 and 72-0383-03), Alameda, CA; City\nNegotiators: Gerry Beaudin, Assistant City Manager, Andrew Thomas, Planning,\nBuilding and Transportation Director, and Nanette Mocanu, Assistant Community\nDevelopment Director; Negotiating Parties: City of Alameda and North Waterfront Cove,\nLLC; Under Negotiation: Price and Terms. Not heard.\n(21-026) Conference with Legal Counsel Existing Litigation Requests for the City to\nParticipate as Amicus in Pending Litigations (Pursuant to Government Code \u00a7 54956.9);\nCase Name: Apartment Association of Los Angeles County, Inc. V. City of Los Angeles\net al; Court: The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; Case Number: 20-\n56251.\n(21-027) Conference with Legal Counsel Existing Litigation (Pursuant to Government\nCode \u00a7 54956.9); Case Name: Abdul Nevarez and Priscilla Nevarez V. City of Alameda;\nCourt: United States District Court, Northern District of California; Case Number: 20-cv-\n8302\nFollowing the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and the City Clerk\nannounced that regarding the Union Pacific, the matter was not heard; regarding\nFriends of Crab Cove, staff provided information and Council provided direction by the\nfollowing roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Spencer: Aye;\nVella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 5; this litigation involves legal\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJanuary 19, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-01-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-01-19", "page": 27, "text": "challenges filed against the City relating to the City's rezoning of a parcel west of McKay\nAvenue to facilitate the development of a wellness center for unhoused persons and\nseniors; the City previously prevailed at the trial court and the plaintiffs had appealed\nthe trial court decision to the court of appeal; the parties have reached a resolution\nwhere by the plaintiffs would dismiss this litigation in exchange for the City not seeking\nfurther fees and costs against the plaintiffs; the Council has authorized the City Attorney\nto resolve this litigation and execute documents, including settlement agreements,\nconsistent with the above and accept the dismissal on behalf of the City and the City\nemployees/council members in their official capacity; regarding Real Property, the\nmatter was withdrawn and not heard; regarding the Amicus, staff provided information\nand Council provided direction by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog:\nNo; Knox White: Aye; Spencer: No; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 3;\nNoes: 2; the City has been asked to join numerous other local jurisdictions by authoring\nand/or signing on to amicus briefs to be filed in the above case to support the Los\nAngeles City's existing moratorium ordinance prohibiting evictions for COVID-related\nunpaid rent for twelve months after the expiration of the local emergency; this\nmoratorium ordinance is similar to Alameda's existing law providing similar protections;\nthe eviction moratorium at issue falls squarely within the City's police power to promote\npublic health, safety, and welfare during a pandemic; the moratorium has done so by\nenabling residents to shelter in place and socially distance; additionally, consistent with\nthe District Court's holdings, the moratorium does not substantially impart a landlord's\ncontractual rights with tenants; plaintiff's expansive and incorrect reading of the\nContracts Clause of the U.S. Constitution could unduly erode local control and limit\nstate and local governmental authority to enact regulatory measures to safeguard the\nwelfare of their residents during a crisis; the Council has authorized the City Attorney to\nauthor and/or sign amicus briefs in support of Los Angeles City in this matter, in any trial\nor appellate court of competent jurisdiction; regarding Nevarez, staff provided\ninformation and Council provided direction by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Spencer: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor\nEzzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 5I this litigation involves claims of ADA violations by the\nPlaintiffs at the Corica Park Golf Course. The City has tendered the litigation to\nGreenway given their operation and management of the Golf Course. The City Council\nhas authorized the City Attorney to waive certain conflicts to permit attorneys, including\nGerry Ramiza and Greg Akar, at the law firm of Burke Williams & Sorensen to handle\nthe defense of this litigation.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 6:24\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\nJanuary 19, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-01-19.pdf"}