{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-02-02", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND\nSUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE\nCOMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (SACIC)\nTUESDAY--FEBRUARY 2, 2021 - -6:58 P.M.\nMayor/Chair\nEzzy\nAshcraft\nconvened\nthe\nmeeting\nat\n7:00\np.m.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Daysog led the Pledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers/Commissioners Daysog,\nHerrera\nSpencer, Knox White, Vella and Mayor/Chair Ezzy\nAshcraft - 5. [Note: The meeting was held via Zoom.]\nAbsent:\nNone.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Daysog requested the Financial Report [paragraph no.\n21-058 CC/21-03 SACIC be removed from the Consent Calendar.\nVice Mayor/Commissioner Vella moved approval of the remainder of the Consent\nCalendar.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Herrera Spencer seconded the motion, which carried by\nthe following roll call vote: Councilmembers/Commissioners Daysog: Aye; Herrera\nSpencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes:\n5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph\nnumber.]\n(*21-059 CC/21-04 SACIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and Successor\nAgency to the Community Improvement Commission Meeting Held on January 5, 2021.\nApproved.\n(21-060 CC/21-05 SACIC) Recommendation to Accept the First Quarter Financial\nReport for the Period Ending September 30, 2020.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Daysog stated the staff report should have called out a\nsingle withdrawal of $21.1 million; withdrawals of that magnitude need to be identified in\nthe staff report; the withdrawal comes from the reserves as a contribution toward the\nOther Post-Employment Benefit (OPEB) liability; the report includes good contextual\nanalysis with comparisons of first quarter revenues and previous revenues; there is\ngood representation of revenues; however, the expenditures needed more context;\nprevious expenditures show comparisons to previous years, but do not show the\ncomparison relative to amounts generally set aside for first quarter expenditures; there\nis a discrepancy due to Police department understaffing; expressed support for\nincluding more context and for calling out large expenditures.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and Successor Agency\n1\nto the Community Improvement Commission\nFebruary 2, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-02-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-02-02", "page": 2, "text": "Councilmember/Commissioner Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Herrera Spencer seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, the City Manager stated the mid-year budget will come before\nCouncil at the next meeting allowing a closer review of expenditures; there will be an\nestimate for the $21 million based on previous calculation formulas approved by\nCouncil.\nThe Finance Director stated staff has taken Council input into consideration and will\ninclude information as a follow-up; more information will be included in the mid-year\nbudget presentation.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers/Commissioners Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White:\nAye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at\n7:10 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger, City Clerk\nSecretary, SACIC\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and Successor Agency\nto the Community Improvement Commission\n2\nFebruary 2, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-02-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-02-02", "page": 3, "text": "MINUTES OF THE CONTINUED JANAURY 19, 2021 CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY--FEBRUARY - - 2, 2021 - - 6:59 P.M.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:10 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Knox\nWhite, Vella and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note: The\nmeeting was held via Zoom.]\nAbsent:\nNone.\nCONTINUED AGENDA ITEM\n(21-061) Resolution No. 15740, \"Requiring a Project Stabilization Agreement for Certain\nConstruction Projects.\" Adopted.\nThe Assistant City Manager gave a Power Point presentation highlighting Mayor Ezzy\nAshcraft's proposed changes.\nCouncilmember Daysog expressed concern about the matter not being open to all\nvoices and perspectives; stated there must be representation from different people;\nexpressed support for the changes made by Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft; stated if there is a\ndesire to accept changes, Council should do so at a future, formally noticed meeting to\nallow input from all trades; the Mayor's amendments can be used as a starting point.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for a more specific proposal\nbreakdown; expressed concern about the matter initially being brought as a Council\nReferral, then being brought by staff; stated Council never made a decision on the\nReferral; stated the language included in the staff report references anecdotal data;\nthere is more than anecdotal data related to increased construction costs; it is important\nthat the community be allowed to vet the matter; that she has a problem with staff\nbringing forth the matter; expressed concern about increased costs creating difficulties\nin building housing; stated that she is reluctant to support the matter; developers should\nbe able to look at projects and decide the best type of housing builds for the betterment\nof the community.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the modifications to the language were taken from a\nprevious agreement in San Francisco's Mission Bay development; noted Catellus and\nthe Building Trades Council of San Francisco were involved with the agreement; stated\nthe project was successful; the agreement has been vetted by different sides;\nexpressed support for moving projects along and ensuring a skilled workforce is\npresent; outlined the opportunity for apprenticeship programs; stated Council may\nchoose to have the matter return with additional wordsmithing.\nVice Mayor Vella stated that she pulled her Council Referral due to staff's concurrent\nwork on the matter; it is a misstatement to categorize the matter as an initial Council\nContinued January 19, 2021 Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nFebruary 2, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-02-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-02-02", "page": 4, "text": "Referral; staff brought forth the matter based on direction provided over a period of time\nrelative to a number of projects; concerns had continued to arise related to public land\nproject goals; expressed support for the inclusion of a local hire provision; outlined local\nhire provisions in the City of Hayward; stated the provisions help Alamedans; there is a\nneed to reinvest in apprenticeship opportunities which can be achieved through local\nhire provisions; the cost of development has increased; however, tariffs are causing\nimpacts, such as for the Water Emergency Transit Authority (WETA) ferry float; the cost\nof land and remediation have impacts; good projects cost money; expressed concern\nfor substandard projects being associated with building affordable housing; inquired\nhow many projects in the works, outside of those with Development Agreements (DA),\nare in the middle of an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement (ENA) phase.\nThe City Manager responded there is currently one ENA; stated the West Midway\nproject is currently negotiating a PSA.\nVice Mayor Vella expressed concern about one project already negotiating an\nagreement; stated that she would like to clarify the PSA will not add an additional\nrequirements; expressed support for the exclusion of Disposition Development\nAgreements (DDAs) and DAs; stated that she would like to strike the ENA provision with\nthe clarification that the proposasI adds nothing to projects with a DDA or DA being\nnegotiated.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the development and builder community currently working\nwith the City requested the change; the Building Trades Council approved the provision;\nthe matter had previously been heavily weighted toward the Trades; the provision is\nintended to show an understanding; the provision would not apply to many projects;\nexpressed concern for taking away the provision.\nVice Mayor Vella expressed concern about the process becoming muddied; stated\nthose in the middle of negotiations could argue against having a PSA; working toward\nlabor peace as best as possible is a goal, especially at Alameda Point; expressed\nconcern for a carve-out in policy; stated that she is hesitant; inquired whether\ndevelopers will not be required to have a PSA; expressed concern for a PSA not being\nrequired for the West Midway project.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated there is currently an agreement being negotiated and the\nBuilding Trades representative accepted the change.\nThe City Attorney stated Council retains discretion to approve matters through ENAs on\na project-by-project basis; Council has previously given direction that labor peace is one\nof the goals for the West Midway Project.\nVice Mayor Vella requested clarification about the direction provided by Council\nregarding the ENA.\nContinued January 19, 2021 Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nFebruary 2, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-02-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-02-02", "page": 5, "text": "The City Manager stated the City Attorney is correct; the Interim Community\nDevelopment Director is double-checking the requirement; developers would not be\nable to use the proposed amendment to assert an ENA is no longer valid.\nVice Mayor Vella expressed concern about spot zoning; stated that she does not\nbelieve it to be the intent; however, the direction needs to be clear and not dismantle a\nprevious expectation; expressed support for the matter moving forward.\nCouncilmember Knox White expressed gratitude for the work put into the matter; stated\nthe proposed agreement sets the expectation for negotiations and gives the power to\nCouncil to decide whether or not projects should have a PSA; noted that his expectation\nis West Midway will have a Project Labor Agreement (PLA) come back to Council;\nstated any policy adopted at this meeting exempts [previous negotiations] from the\npolicy and the prior agreement and understanding will move forward.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated staff needs to create a substantial effort in reaching out\nto smaller mom and pop contractors during the 18 month period the matter has been\nworked on; Council should take the time to gather input on the matter proposed and\nhold a formal meeting.\nVice Mayor Vella moved adoption of the resolution with the revisions proposed by\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft with the clarification raised about the expectation relative to the\nWest Midway project to ensure a labor agreement returns to Council.\nCouncilmember Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call\nvote: Councilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye;\nand Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at\n7:40 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger, City Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nContinued January 19, 2021 Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nFebruary 2, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-02-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-02-02", "page": 6, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - FEBRUARY 2, 2021--7:00 - P.M.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:40 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Knox\nWhite, Vella, and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note:\nThe meeting was conducted via Zoom]\nAbsent:\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\n(21-062) Councilmember Daysog stated that he would like to hear the housing unit\ncalculation Council Referral [paragraph no. 21-076 first due to being put off for two\nCouncil meetings.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she will work to move the meeting along in a timely\nmanner.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(21-063) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft did a reading for the Season for Nonviolence: Believing.\n(21-064) Proclamation Declaring February 2021 as Black History Month.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft read the proclamation.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer noted that she is voting no on the resolution\nimplementing policy for the Alameda Point rent abatement [paragraph no. 21-070].\nCouncilmember Knox White requested final passage of the rent ordinance [paragraph\nno.\n21-071 be removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Council would want to hear the item after the\nregular agenda items.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for hearing the matter now.\nVice Mayor Vella stated that she is fine with hearing the one matter.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nFebruary 2, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-02-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-02-02", "page": 7, "text": "Councilmember Knox White stated that he hopes the matter will be short.\nVice Mayor Vella moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer seconded the motion, which carried by the following\nroll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye;\nVella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are\nindicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]\n(*21-065) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings Held on January 5,\n2021. Approved.\n(*21-066) Ratified bills in the amount of $7,073,054.05 and $4,963,056.55.\n(*21-067) Recommendation to Accept the Work of Redgwick Construction Company for\nthe Chuck Corica Golf Course Parking Lot Improvements, No. P.W. 02-20-12.\nAccepted.\n(*21-068) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Fifth\nAmendment to the Agreement with Cultivate, LLC to Increase Compensation by\n$73,500, for a Total Aggregate Compensation Not to Exceed $294,000, to Continue\nProviding Technical Planning Support to the City of Alameda General Plan Update\nthrough Plan Adoption. Accepted.\n(*21-069) Resolution No. 15741, \"Consideration to Alter the Rate and Method of\nApportionment of Special Taxes for Community Facilities District (CFD) No. 17-1\n(Alameda Point Public Services District) and Set a Public Hearing for February 16,\n2021.\" Adopted.\n(21-070) Resolution No. 15742, \"Establishing the City of Alameda's Policy Regarding\nthe Implementation of the COVID-19 Enforcement Provisions of Its Alameda Point Rent\nAbatement Lease Amendments.\" Adopted.\nNote: Councilmember Herrera Spencer voted no on this item, so it passed by the\nfollowing vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, Knox White, Vella and Mayor Ezzy\nAshcraft - 4. Noes: Councilmember Herrera Spencer - 1.\n(21-071) Final Passage of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by\nAmending Article XV (Rent Control, Limitations on Evictions and Relocation Payments\nto Certain Displaced Tenants) to Adopt and Incorporate Provisions Concerning Capital\nImprovement Plans (CIP) for Rental Units in the City of Alameda. Not adopted.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated that he became aware that the 5% cap is allowed to\nbe added every two years if a Capital Improvement Project (CIP) is approved; over the\ncourse of a 15 year period, seven 5% pass through increases could occur; expressed\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nFebruary 2, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-02-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-02-02", "page": 8, "text": "support for sending the matter back to staff with direction to set a maximum 5% cap on\nall approved CIP proposals; stated the 5% cap is cumulative; landlords will continue to\nhave the same rights in relation to fair rate of return appeals; expressed support for a\nclear appeals process for tenants in the off-chance a plan is approved; a minimum of\n50% of tenants could appeal and have a plan reviewed by a Hearing Officer to ensure\nthe work being completed is not cosmetic, is needed maintenance and meets the intent\nof the pass through.\nVice Mayor Vella stated that she would like clarification of where the City stands and\nwhat the process would be if Council does not approve the matter at this meeting.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed concern about the delay; stated the intent is to ensure\nrental properties are habitable and in good condition; noted the rental housing stock in\nAlameda is older.\nSpecial Counsel stated the ordinance provides a limitation preventing a landlord from\nrequesting a CIP more often than once every 24 months and has a 5% cap if a CIP is\napproved, which is only applied to the maximum allowable rent; staff can redraft the\nordinance to allow an overall maximum 5% cap for CIP projects; there might be\ncomplications in drafting; there may be situations where the pass through will go away\ndue to some tenants moving out and remaining tenants are under the existing pass\nthrough with the 5% cap; stated a draft regulation has an appeal process to accompany\nthe ordinance; a tenant will have the right to appeal the CIP process on multiple fronts.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated that his understanding is staff can have the matter\nreturn to Council within 45 days; expressed support for processing the matter once\nproperly, rather than having to amend it.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether the CIP would not be an allowable pass through until\n12 months after the State of Emergency; inquired whether a provision needs to be\npassed separately or whether the delay is part of the action Council is taking.\nSpecial Counsel responded the provision has been incorporated into the ordinance.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether the provision will remain if Council does not approve\nthe ordinance at this meeting.\nSpecial Counsel responded the pass through process is more of a rent increase; stated\ndue to Council's rent freeze being in place during the declaration of local emergency, a\nlandlord would not be able to increase the rent through a CIP.\nVice Mayor Vella stated if the matter returns, she would like to provide options on the\noverall goal of finding a way to reasonably address things and not create a loophole to\nrent control; expressed support for looking at varying options for limiting the CIP\namount, including a total cap on the CIP or a period of years; questioned whether the\nintent is to have a 5% total cap.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nFebruary 2, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-02-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-02-02", "page": 9, "text": "Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like to see the language being discussed;\ninquired whether there is a draft document available.\nSpecial Counsel responded staff has not drafted the language being proposed by\nCouncilmember Knox White; stated the changes are substantive; the matter is\nanticipated to come back.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the changes appear substantive and the ramifications\non mom and pop landlords is unclear; he would like to notify stakeholders to obtain\ninput; expressed support for knowing the ramifications on capping CIP programs;\nquestioned what happens when a CIP translates into something greater than 5%;\noutlined various potential perspectives and questions from mom and pop and middle\nsized landlords; stated the input from landlords is needed; expressed support for staff\nnotifying and gathering input through a process.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated a stakeholders forum was held with representatives from\nthe landlord and tenant communities; no agreement will get full agreement on\neverything; however, the agreement will be better if it has input from stakeholders; the\nSan Francisco ordinance has a distinction for landlords with six units or less; smaller\nlandlords are entitled to get 100% of the value back; however, larger landlords are\nentitled to a smaller percentage; the work is performed first; then, the landlord can file\nfor amortization over time with a cap.\nSpecial Counsel stated the San Francisco ordinance allows larger landlords to recover\n70% of the amortization; concern was expressed by landlord groups; there is no longer\na distinction between smaller and larger landlords; staff can look at the cap percentage\nfor San Francisco and set up another stakeholder meeting prior to returning to Council.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she was no proposing the San Francisco model;\nhowever, she could not see the justification for a landlord with seven units not being\nable to amortize all qualifying improvements; the regulation is complicated and should\nbe streamlined.\nCouncilmember Knox White moved approval of sending the matter back to staff with\ndirection to return with a couple of options for a cumulative cap and pass through after\nstakeholder engagement and analysis within the next two months.\nIn response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, Councilmember Knox White stated a CIP\nplan can be implemented at 5% today and, two years from now, another CIP plan can\nbe implemented with a second 5%; every two years a CIP plan can be implemented at\n5%, which allows for a total of five to seven 5% pass throughs; landlords can extend\nfurther to capture additional costs over-time; new tenants allow for resets and higher\nrent.\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nFebruary 2, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-02-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-02-02", "page": 10, "text": "Councilmembers Daysog: Abstention; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella:\nAye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 1. Abstention: 1.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(21-072) Recommendation to Review, Comment, and Provide Direction on the City's\nGeneral Plan 2021 to 2031 Housing Element Update Process and Schedule and\nAuthorize Staff to Request Updated Guidance from the State of California regarding\nCompliance with Applicable Housing Law.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director gave a Power Point presentation.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer requested clarification on the total number of Alameda\nPoint's affordable housing units.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated the Navy cap is 1,425 market\nrate units; for every 3 market rate units, one affordable housing unit is built, which\nchanges the cap to around 1,800 units total; market rate and affordable units are being\nbuilt today at Alameda Point; staff believes by the end of 2022, roughly 450 units will be\nbuilt at Site A leaving roughly 1,350 units; everything possible must be done to ensure\n1,400 units are built during the next 10 years.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the amount is more than originally\nthought.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded staff originally thought\nthe cap was at 1,425 total units; stated staff plans to recommend amending or removing\nthe local cap of 1,425 units.\nCouncilmember Knox White inquired whether the City can get to 5,400 units at 30 units\nper acre and whether certain locations will have 90 to 120 units per acre instead.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded multi-family overlay is\nbeing proposed on Park Street; staff does not believe many units can be generated on\nPark Street due to limited space; 30 units per acre will not get the City to 5,400 units;\noutlined smaller, upcoming, approved projects which have not moved forward due to\nlow density; stated a higher density will likely be needed in some areas for projects to\nbe financially viable; some two story mixed use projects have 80 units per acre; the\nnumbers do not relate to height; once the multi-family overlay is crafted, the amount of\nunits will be higher than 30 units per acre in many cases.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated that he assumes multi-family overlays will be over\nlarge swaths of residential areas; inquired how the calculation plays into the plan.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded part of the process on\nzoning areas for future development works through \"realistic capacity;\" stated a\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nFebruary 2, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-02-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-02-02", "page": 11, "text": "proposal is made presenting the realistic capacity of \"x\" amount of units per acre;\noutlined the anticipated need for Park Street areas; stated staff must demonstrate the\nrealistic capacity to the State Department of Housing and Community Development\n(HCD).\nPaul McDougall, HCD, stated there are a variety of factors in different sites: suitability,\nany known constraints, zoning, and capacities; there are times when non-residential\nzones are intended for other uses outside of residential; non-vacant sites need to\ndemonstrate potential for redevelopment; an analysis of market conditions, public\ntransit, regulatory framework and the extent of the existing uses is performed; there are\ndifferent approaches to potential redevelopment; noted some jurisdictions will call down\nsites to the most realistic and best opportunities; stated maintaining inventory is a factor\nthroughout the planning period; prudent moves include identifying buffer areas; outlined\nthe no net loss law.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification about non-vacant sites.\nMr. McDougall stated non-vacant sites are sites which have existing uses; HCD factors\nthe possibility of sites expiring or discontinuing in a planning period; when a site is\nidentified as a non-vacant site, while under 50% of the RHNA, the analysis bar goes up\nand substantial evidence is needed to demonstrate uses will likely discontinue in a\nplanning period; if existing units are present, replacement factors must be considered\nfor the policy; only new units are to be counted [toward RHNA].\nVice Mayor Vella inquired the process for multi-family related to the Charter.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded the first step is to request\nthe work plan, reach out to HCD and ask for advice on how to address the conflict in the\nCharter to ensure the benefit of advice from both staff and HCD; stated changes have\nbeen made at the County and State levels; Council's stance on Alameda Point and\nEncinal Terminals will define how much multi-family housing is needed and where it will\nbe placed; staff has identified its top five to six multi-family sites and believes 1,000 to\n2,000 units can be placed on those sites; there is a public input and planning process\nquestion about whether more sites with less units will be more desirable; there are very\nfew vacant sites in Alameda; all possible sites are considered non-vacant; staff has\nworked closely with property owners in the past.\nMr. McDougall stated HCD welcomes the opportunity to provide guidance in order for\ncities to understand pathways in the statute; HCD will examine the issue and\ncomplexities; there are five areas in the statute which are potentially perilous with\nMeasure A.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the General Plan and Environmental Impact Report\n(EIR) for Alameda Point was for 1,400 units; the Navy has provided an interpretation\nwhich allows the City to go beyond the 1,400 units to build more market rate housing;\ninquired whether the increased unit amount will require another EIR.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nFebruary 2, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-02-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-02-02", "page": 12, "text": "The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded in the affirmative; stated\nall sites will require new general plans, densities, zoning ordinances, and be subject to\nthe California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether the CEQA analysis can be completed within\nthe eight year time frame and be counted under the current phase.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded environmental review\nmust be completed and reviewed by Council before action can be taken on the Housing\nElement; stated Council will be adopting the environmental review for the Housing\nElement and new sites during the following year; an environmental review must be\nconducted for new 5,400 units in Alameda and must be made available to Council\nbefore a decision is made to adopt a new Housing Element.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether the additional units for Alameda Point require\na new EIR.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded staff can provide the\ninformation on the impact and effect of additional units in the environmental analysis.\nMr. McDougall stated there are options; the area can be rezoned with a new, full EIR\nwith a housing cap folded in or the information can be programmed in the Housing\nElement with analysis.\nDiscussed getting the Housing Element passed in in 2012; stated the housing crisis\ncontinues and is more serious than ever; Alameda will not be able to avoid the 5,400\nunits; there is an opportunity to right the wrongs of the past; policy changes in areas\nsuch as housing will force the community to walk the walk of justice; there must be a\ncommitment to finding housing for people; the Housing Element will be part of the path:\nLaura Thomas, Renewed Hope Housing Advocates.\nQuestioned whether his 210 work-live units could be converted to residential housing;\nstated the units will be ready in one to one and a half years: Jonah Hendrickson,\nAlameda.\nQuestioned whether the multi-family overlay could be used to get a certified Housing\nElement; stated that he and the public would be interested in the City Attorney's\nconfidential memo on the matter to understand risk: Zac Bowling, Alameda.\nDiscussed underused blighted areas being prevented from being used for housing due\nto density restrictions; stated the blight detracts from enjoyable areas in Alameda; the\nCity is prizing maintaining blighted property over providing more housing for the\ncommunity: Josh Geyer, Alameda.\nStated that he understands few jurisdictions in the State have met affordable housing\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nFebruary 2, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-02-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-02-02", "page": 13, "text": "have specific questions answered by Mr. McDougall, questions can be specifically\nposed.\nMr. McDougall stated the first question related to enforcement; due to legislature,\nenforcement is on the front burner; HCD has expanded authority under Assembly Bill\n(AB) 72; HCD can enforce a lack of action or actions and refer matters to the Attorney\nGeneral's office; the enforcement authority extends to other housing related laws; there\nis a push to expand well beyond the current enforcement; ; HCD will generally look at\nthe attempt to design a way to achieve maximum density within the smallest allowable\ngroup unfavorably; stated efforts to suppress the zoning are unfavorable.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer requested clarification about the number of allowable\nfloors.\nMr. McDougall stated in reviewing zoning, HCD will look at allowable densities and\nassume the development standards allow for maximum density; at times height comes\ninto play and at times it does not, it depends on the cumulative development and the\nability to achieve the standards.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether there is possibility for residential\nunits to be placed on Mr. Hendrickson's property.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded the thought is very\ninteresting; stated Mr. Hendrickson owns Building 8 at Alameda Point and is retrofitting\nthe space under the City's Commercial zoning for work-live; the City cannot report his\nunits as housing units because the units have been defined as Commercial; Measure A\ndoes not define Mr. Hendrickson's units as housing; the building zoning can be changed\nto residential and be reclassified in order to have the units count toward the Housing\nElement; as a work-live facility, the building is not subject to the inclusionary\nrequirements and therefore has no deed requirements on the units; if the units are\nconverted to residential, a 25% pickup of affordable units could be placed on the site;\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nFebruary 2, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-02-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-02-02", "page": 14, "text": "the idea of converting the site should be reviewed.\nMr. McDougall stated the site can be classified as adaptive reuse and will count toward\nRHNA.\nCouncilmember Daysog outlined the Housing Element being previously out of\ncompliance for many years; inquired whether key triggers encouraged HCD to accept\nAlameda's Housing Element in 2012.\nMr. McDougall responded the progression started with Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU)\nlaws, State law, and density bonus law; Measure A conflicts with the ability to\naccommodate RHNA and provide multi-family zoning.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether HCD has used the State fair housing law\nagainst any city thus far.\nMr. McDougall responded the use is peripheral; stated HCD has not directly utilized the\nState fair housing law much; however, there is potential for use; there have been\nchanges to law and the Government Code for all public agencies, which may cause\nissues with Measure A.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification about the affirmative fair housing laws, the\nrole of equity in reaching RHNA numbers and the factors HCD reviews.\nMr. McDougall stated HCD's duty to affirmatively further fair housing goes back to the\nFair Housing Act of 1968; the program has been around for over 50 years and it is fair\nto say a great job has not been done; the Obama administration took a refresh and a\nstronger approach to implementing the long standing obligation; with the change in\nadministration, the measures went away quickly; California's Governor and legislature\ntook the obligation and put it into State law; outlined Government Code Section\n8899.50; stated the obligation falls on all public agencies to affirmatively further fair\nhousing in all programs and activities related to housing and community development;\nthe matter is not just about discrimination, it is about proactively promoting more\ninclusive communities; there is analysis related to displacement; site evaluations must\nbe done in a way which promotes fair housing; HCD examines local information, such\nas patterns, trends, policies, practices and demographics, and compares neighborhood\nto neighborhood; HCD compares Alameda to its surroundings to determine whether the\nCity reflects a composition of the broader region; HCD examines specific actions being\ntaken to overcome patterns of non-compliance; meaningful actions must be shown by\nthe City; HCD focuses on zoning and practices which limit housing choices.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how many problems are present with Article 26 that are\ndetrimental to the City.\nMr. McDougall responded there are requirements around a variety of housing types;\nstated HCD will not find Alameda in compliance if it does not have zooming for a variety\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nFebruary 2, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-02-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-02-02", "page": 15, "text": "of housing types; analysis must be completed around the RHNA; there is a zoning\nappropriate to accommodate lower income housing; the statute lays out the approach\nfor jurisdictions to have prescribed densities in urban, suburban and rural areas; the\nthreshold is either met or analysis is provided; an analysis of potential constraints on the\nproperty may be completed, which includes regulatory framework, zoning, land use\ncontrols, permit procedures, fees and old building codes; HCD will see Measure A as a\nconstraint on the supply and cost of housing and programs will be sought to address\nand remove restrictions where possible; the affirmative fair housing will also come into\nplay; the recent Housing Crisis Act provides various provisions to suspend certain\nactions, such as anything which results in lesser intensifications for sites for the next\nfive years.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired the consequences for non-compliance.\nMr. McDougall responded cities will not have access to money or points if out of\ncompliance; stated the lack of access is not limited to housing money; the One Bay\nArea Grant (OBAG), which is transportation related, includes a Housing Element\ncomponent and will not be accessible along with transportation planning grants that\ninclude Housing Element components; the City would not have access to the\nGovernor's pro-housing designations which allow cities to gain a competitive advantage\nin programs, such as infrastructure grants with a Housing Element component; as part\nof the pro-housing designation, HCD is looking to incorporate the designation into not\nonly housing programs, but transportation programs as well; the statute allow the City to\nbe sued by essentially anybody and includes attorney fees; stated the courts have the\nauthority to take actions, such as suspending permit authority; outlined the City of\nPleasanton's permit suspensions; stated there is an additional level of consequence in\nreferring non-compliance to the Attorney General to request penalties and fees of\n$10,000 to $100,000 per month; courts can allow any action to be taken to obtain\ncompliance.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated a legal analysis has come up a number of times;\nexpressed support for releasing the legal analysis in some form; stated the Council\nrepresents the residents of the City and it is important for residents to understand the\nissues Council is wrestling with, rather than protecting the City against the issues in the\nfuture; expressed support for moving forward with said direction; stated the timeline\nprovided by staff is great and right; he questions waiting to have the conversation about\nthe multi-family overlay until the Fall; the City can wait until it hears from HCD; whether\nor not the City appeals, the presentation shows there would be tremendous difficulty in\nsuccessfully appealing the RHNA number; he questions whether a Council would be\nwilling to pass a policy which ignores the City Charter in furtherance of fair housing and\nmeeting State mandates; expressed support for looking at the timeline and bring the\ndiscussion back in late Spring, rather than waiting another six months to find that the\nmulti-family overlay is going to be accepted and adopted; stated there will be a lot of\nscrambling if the City waits and try to figure out how to move forward; he is pro-housing;\nhousing is needed and is a moral, human right; for decades, Alameda has fallen down\non the commitment to fellow community members and it is time for the City to start;\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nFebruary 2, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-02-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-02-02", "page": 16, "text": "outlined the campaign confusion around Measure Z.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she maintains voters had an unclear understanding\nabout repealing Article 26; noted there was not as much time to provide public\neducation; stated the process is an opportunity to help bring the public along and\ndeepen understanding; outlined implementation of Alameda's Housing Element.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he favors growth control; Alameda is an Island with\nlimited ingress and egress; the lack of infrastructure requires him to be mindful of\nlimitations; he was the campaign chair of the \"No on Z\" measure; in recent history\nAlameda has been able to meet Housing Element obligations, while also maintaining\nMeasure A through the density bonus and housing overlay; the housing overlay is key in\nallowing the City to build at a density required by HCD; the challenge for Alameda is to\ndemonstrate to HCD that it can fulfil the RHNA obligation numbers within the context of\nMeasure A using the density bonus and housing overlay; the residents who voted no on\nMeasure Z understood that the City has workarounds to Measure A; it will be very\ndifficult for the City to handle the 5,300 RHNA units; State and local leaders will need to\nfind the right number; expressed support for the challenge of meeting obligations; stated\nthe housing overlay should not be placed in certain areas; the residents overwhelmingly\nconfirmed Measure A in voting down Measure Z; outlined Measure A; stated the\nchallenge for Council is to work within Measure A, the density bonus and the State\nhousing overlay; additional challenges have now been posed in the affirmative fair\nhousing; different approaches allowed Council to get the Housing Element adopted in\n2013; Council is extending a lot of the policies and changes adopted in the 2012\nHousing Element; the City has demonstrated its ability to meet the RHNA obligations\nwithin the context of local zoning; the ultimate goal is to meet the obligations; the\nobligation number is a separate issue; he does not see Council not wanting to support\nlower income housing; noted the City has a 25% inclusionary policy at Alameda Point\nand the City meets the 15% inclusionary policy elsewhere.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether HCD hears from other communities that the\nRHNA allocation cannot be met due to unique constraints.\nMr. McDougall responded that he appreciates the acknowledgement of challenges as a\nstarting point.\nVice Mayor Vella stated that she shares concerns about timing, the Charter language\nand potential ethical issues created for the Planning Board and Council; that she has\nheard from people that voted no [on measure Z] because they do not believe multi-\nfamily should be allowed; she believes more clarity is needed for the Council and\nPlanning Board; expressed concern about Boards and Commissions being put in the\nplace of having to make decisions on the fly; stated more guidance is needed;\nexpressed concern about local review boards relative to Charter violations; stated that\nshe hopes Council can make use of the different buckets and avoid having to rely on\ngrey area discussions; Council needs to know the options and roadmap.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nFebruary 2, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-02-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-02-02", "page": 17, "text": "Mr. McDougall stated HCD will work to respect any request as soon as possible; that he\nwould emphasize timing; stated earlier is better.\nVice Mayor Vella moved approval of directing staff to get guidance from the State as\nsoon as possible.\nCouncilmember Knox White seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed concern about the\nsafety of Alamedans; stated the concerns are legitimate; the City has a population of\n80,000 with other building going on; questioned getting another bridge or way off the\nIsland and how to ensure residents can get on and off the Island in an emergency;\nAlameda is between two fault zones; constituents have concerns; she questions how to\naddress said concerns; expressed concern about building more market rate housing;\nstated that she prefers workforce and affordable housing; adding more market rate\nhousing adds to gentrification; expressed support for help in understanding how to\naccomplish the tasks in a balanced way; stated the State has not addressed the issue.\nMr. McDougall stated there are many challenges; it is not easy to balance objectives;\nthe State relies on cities as being best suited to make decisions and help the community\nnavigate through objectives.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated the process is 18 to 24\nmonths and will require a lot of community conversation, discussion and education;\nnoted that he has heard the question posed about rushing off the Island in the event of\nemergency; questioned the scenario needed for evacuation; stated the Island is\nvulnerable to risks and major disasters; there is an issue about how to get emergency\npersonnel and supplies onto the Island; the event of a tsunami, even as a low risk\nsituation, is to evacuate toward the center of the Island, not toward the water; the event\nof a massive earthquake does not yield evacuating to Oakland; building another bridge\nis not the solution to Island living and will not help concerns about the traffic situation;\nneither the State nor the region will fund a bridge for the City; every city has problems\nand constraints that have been acknowledged but cannot be used an excuse for not\ndealing with the Statewide housing issue; the City must figure out how to deal with\nrecovery after major disaster and the housing crisis simultaneously.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated market rate housing is being built and will not\naddress the problem of the unsheltered.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated market rate developers build\nhousing; people pay very little in taxes to build affordable housing; cities are relying on\nthe private sector, which relies on a profit to build housing; once society is ready to fund\nhousing for everyone through taxes and pocketbooks, the dynamic can change; for\nnow, private investors are building the vast majority of housing in California.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the legislature is running out of patience for cities throwing\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nFebruary 2, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-02-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-02-02", "page": 18, "text": "up road blocks to building more housing; the dilemma faced with Article 26 is that it\nprevents building smaller units that can be affordable by design and workforce housing;\nthere are many ways to help solve the problem; expressed support for exploring Mr.\nHendrickson's proposal to count work-live units towards RHNA numbers; noted the City\nhas launched a homelessness strategic plan; stated transitional housing is needed;\nthere are many problems to solve and many are inter-related; a West End bicycle\npedestrian bridge would allow bicycles and pedestrians to get on and off the Island;\nmany solutions can be worked on at the same time.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.\n***\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft called a recess at 9:55 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 10:10\np.m.\n***\n(21-073) Oral Update from the Police Chief on Police Activity.\nThe City Manager made brief comments.\nThe Interim Police Chief gave a brief presentation.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the City has embarked on a Homelessness Strategic Plan;\noutlined a recent Town Hall on addressing homelessness; stated that she was\nimpressed by City staff and Alameda Police Department (APD) Officers' ability to build\nrapport with homeless individuals.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether there are glaring commonalities within the\nseventeen shooting cases and seven arrests.\nThe Interim Police Chief responded the cases vary; stated some are settling disputes\nwith gunfire and some are illicit business dealings; staff is trying to forensically link guns\nand ammunition to determine usage locations.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether there is an issue of people being released\nfrom prison engaging in criminal activity.\nThe Interim Police Chief responded the number of prisoners has been reduced\nthroughout the State over the years; stated the reduction is due in part to criminal justice\nreform and COVID-19; part of the regional homelessness and crime problems are\nconnected to people being released from prison not yet being ready to assimilate with\njobs, families and housing.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n13\nFebruary 2, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-02-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-02-02", "page": 19, "text": "Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired how much time it will take to get to the\nstaffing level of 73 sworn Officers; questioned the ideal number of sworn Officers and\nhow to address the crime; inquired the status of the camera equipment and the sale of\nthe armored vehicle.\nThe Interim Police Chief responded that the department is awaiting the report from the\nSteering Committee; stated many communities and jurisdictions are questioning what is\ndesired from Police; more bodies are needed in investigations; , the ability to provide\nproactive policing is hampered by Officers being taken out of investigations to do patrol;\nlaw enforcement throughout the area is grabbing from the same pool of applicants and\nis diversifying in an effort to reflect communities; efforts will be ongoing.\nThe Police Captain stated the matter of License Plate Readers (LPR) has stalled.\nThe City Manager stated the armored vehicle will come before Council once the\nSteering Committee has provided their report; Council previously requested options for\nselling the vehicle.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated there has been a definitive decision by leadership\nnot to move forward with LPRs; inquired whether the decision is still in effect.\nThe City Manager responded there have been restrictions placed on LPRs; however,\nthe Council discussion occurred prior to his start with the City; stated the matter has\nstalled and has not moved forward; leadership has changed and historical perspective\nhas been lost due to changeover.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the City Manager intends to bring the matter\nback to Council, to which the City Manager responded in the affirmative.\nIn response to Councilmember Knox White's inquiry, the Interim Police Chief stated\nguns need to be out of the hands of people who should not have them; Officers linking\nfirearms using forensic information, gets more guns out of circulation; Alameda must\ndecide what is desired of the Police; traditional law enforcement tactics include more car\nstops and encounters trying to get guns off the streets; the tactic increases criticism of\nPolice; there have been recommendations to have the Police solely focus on violent\ncrime; violent crime is is, thankfully, a small component of what Officers do; violent\ncrimes have a tremendous impact on the community; in order to address violent crime,\nOfficers must complete other forms of enforcement; in general, society is trying to\ndecide what actions should be taken by Police moving forward; there are tough\ntightropes to walk as the Interim Police Chief.\nCouncilmember Knox White inquired whether the City will release an analysis of traffic\nstops based on race; stated the release has not yet happened after requests; noted\nthere has been recommendation to have a contractor look through the data; the review\ndoes not require a deep law enforcement understanding to complete; inquired whether\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n14\nFebruary 2, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-02-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-02-02", "page": 20, "text": "staff estimates the information will be received in a reasonable amount of time, which\nshould be public and could help address questions related to those being stopped.\nThe City Manager responded a company has been contacted; stated the services for\nAlameda are in the queue and a short time frame is not available; staff will need to\nreturn with an estimate if Council wants to change direction.\nThe Police Captain stated the company contacted is the Center for Police Equity (CPE);\ninitial requests showed the company to be extremely backlogged; contact with the\ncompany has been made several times and confirmation of a start date has not\noccurred; part of the cause for delay is the updates to APD's Computer Aided Dispatch\n(CAD) and Record Management System (RMS), which the company uses to pull data;\ndata can be provided in the years to come, not just as a one-time thing; staff is willing to\nlook into other companies.\nThe City Manager stated prior to the pandemic, the Council created privacy policies,\nincluding facial recognition, which added a new component to LPRs; staff needs to\nevaluate the matter prior to bringing it back for Council consideration.\nVice Mayor Vella stated concerns about privacy and limiting the scope of the\nphotograph being taken was previous included in the LPR matter; several follow-up\nmeetings occurred to discuss pros and cons of data capture and accessibility; the State\nchanged public records request laws adding another element and causing concern\nabout adequate staffing levels; outlined previous concerns about protecting privacy and\nreleasing information; stated her understanding is the LPR matter included privacy\nconcerns; many instances of firearm usage were stated to have been between parties\nhaving knowledge of each other; inquired whether the incidents were related to\nbusiness transactions and personal issues.\nThe Interim Police Chief responded in the affirmative; stated a number were domestic\nissues, some were matters of prostitution, illegal drug sales and the furtherance of\nstreet gangs.\nVice Mayor Vella stated part of the matter relates to training and expertise; different\ntypes of underlying relationships and interactions require different types of policing\ntactics; traffic stops are typically related to drug sales; inquired whether traffic stops\nhave uncovered evidence of large transaction sales as opposed to a domestic incidents.\nThe Interim Police Chief responded in the affirmative; stated APD does not have a\ndomestic violence advocate or youth services unit; the programs have been present in\nthe past; proactive policing helps stop some of the prostitution, drug sales and other\nmatters which draw violence.\n***\n(21-074) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated a vote is needed to consider new items after 11:00\np.m.; stated that she will only support a motion to go to 11:59 p.m.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n15\nFebruary 2, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-02-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-02-02", "page": 21, "text": "Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of hearing Councilmember Daysog's\nreferral regarding housing unit calculations [paragraph no. 21-076 and carrying over the\nnaming policy [paragraph no. 21-075]; noted that she will withdraw her referral on\nrequesting a Police Department staffing and crime update [paragraph no. 21-077].\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the motion includes ending by 11:59 p.m., to\nwhich Councilmember Herrera Spencer responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which required four affirmative votes and\nfailed by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer:\nAye; Knox White: No; Vella: No; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.\nCouncilmember Knox White moved approval of hearing the Council referral with the\nnaming policy to follow, after the completing the current matter.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the motion includes ending by 11:59 p.m., to\nwhich Councilmember Knox White responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call\nvote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: No;\nand Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.\nStated the previous Council direction was to begin the process to sell the armored\nvehicle; urged the Interim Police Chief to provide the number of Officers promoted\nwithout passing the requisite exam; urged comments be provided on the progress of the\ninvestigation of the armed individual brandishing a weapon against peaceful protestors;\nstated information should have been gathered from the area; there has been no update;\noutlined a break-in at APD: Erin Fraser, Alameda.\nStated communication can improve on how events or investigations are made; outlined\nthe armed individual threatening a friend of hers: Cheri Johansen, Alameda\nProgressives.\nExpressed concern about the increase in shootings being due to unprecedented times\nof poverty and insecurity; stated people harm each other when living in insecurity;\nprison is violent and traumatizing; prisoners face significant job and housing\ndiscrimination when leaving prison; justifications given for traffic stops theorize the\npotential to prevent violent crime: Grover Wehman, Alameda.\nUrged investigation of support for the Capitol insurrection as well as any ties to white\nsupremacist organizations among APD ranks; stated community calls for the\ninvestigation have been dismissed and ignored; APD has shown no interest in\nidentifying and removing Officers with ties to white supremacist groups; armed white\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n16\nFebruary 2, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-02-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-02-02", "page": 22, "text": "supremacists should not be patrolling Alameda or responding to 911 calls; urged an\ninvestigation to occur; outlined misinformation on social media: Is Sullivan, Alameda.\nStated there is lack of response to community concerns about possible support of the\nCapitol insurrection; many have asked for investigation of Officers social media\npresence; outlined troubling social media posts by a former Officer; stated the matter is\na public safety issue; APD follows a troubling account that is supportive of\ninsurrectionists; expressed concern about the handling of communication after an\narmed individual threatened a car caravan and for the homeless liaison being an armed\nOfficer: Jenice Anderson, Alameda.\nStated more cops do not solve issues; 29% of individuals arrested identify as transients;\nshe is unsure how the statistic follows the statement: \"homelessness is not a crime\" in\nAlameda; statistics being ignored have to do with race; outlined arrest and population\nstatistics; stated since inception, Police have had racist roots; expressed concern about\nthe armed individual being present with APD Officers in plain-clothes nearby; stated\nmany cops would not be needed if funding were shifted: Alexia Arocha, Alameda.\nStated that she has experienced a decline in the quality of life; there are valid reasons\nto look at Police practices; however, the narrative is often summarized as the desire for\nPolice to have less power; there is a grey area between social pressures and real life;\nsolutions posed by the Steering Committee are correct; however, the grey areas leave\nsmall business owners stuck; taking powers away from Police can be dangerous:\nMegan Livernoche, Alameda.\nExpressed concern about a racist and anti-Black Lives Matter (BLM) culture at APD;\noutlined concerning tweets by a former APD Captain, which show a lack of respect for\nBLM protestors; stated the former APD Captain commanded an entire Police\nDepartment bureau; urged Council to order an independent investigation of APD to see\nhow wide-spread the racist and anti-BLM attitudes are within the department: Carly\nStadium-Liang, Alameda.\nExpressed concern about distorted feedback; stated that he is an advocate of LPRs;\nmany jurisdictions have a high success rate with LPRs; the reduction in traffic cops has\nled to a reduction in citations being issued; stated that he is a subscriber to the \"broken\nwindow theory;\" urged APD to give more tickets; stated Police living in the community\nwill inherently build more trust with the community: Matt Reid, Alameda.\nExpressed concern about APD not releasing information on Officers or staff involved in\nthe Capitol insurrection and the peaceful protest on Martin Luther King (MLK) Jr. Day;\nstated it is imperative to ask questions around double standards; expressed support for\nkeeping guns from those who should not have them: Laura Cutrona, Alameda.\nStated that he is an advocate for LPRs; Alameda is heading in the wrong direction; his\nwife was almost shot on Park Street; stated LPRs help and are important; outlined his\nexperience witnessing crimes; questioned how many locals are committing crime versus\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n17\nFebruary 2, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-02-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-02-02", "page": 23, "text": "those from other cities; stated Alameda is an easy target; more Police enforcement is\nneeded: Michael Murphy, Alameda.\nStated racist attitudes, comments, and actions by Police Officers are inexcusable; there\nis a problem with Police racism; any hint should be investigated; questioned the quality\nof life described by previous commenters; stated assertions of a decrease in quality of\nlife are based on personal experiences and anecdotes and run counter to data; bringing\nmore housing does not bring more crime; efforts that are discriminatory and damaging\nshould not be duplicated: Josh Geyer, Alameda.\nExpressed concern about LPRs and having an outside agency evaluate City data;\nstated that he is not convinced the LPRs will do anything to deter crime; expressed\nsupport for adequate steps being taken to prevent abuse of LPRs by Police Officers and\nother agencies; stated that he would like personal identifying information to be protected\nby any agency evaluating data: Jay Garfinkle, Alameda.\nVice Mayor Vella requested clarification relative to the armed individual at the MLK Day\npeaceful protest.\nThe Interim Police Chief stated APD is still looking for help from the public in identifying\nthe suspect; the investigation is ongoing; urged anyone with information to call APD;\nsaying APD has not taken the incident seriously is incorrect; available resources were\nsent to the scene; the handling of the matter has been discussed internally at APD to\nlearn from; a call for de-escalation and restraint is needed at large group events; APD\nwants to bring the individual to justice.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether APD would do anything differently should\nanother similar event occur.\nThe Interim Police Chief responded appropriate response is part of the internal\nconversation; stated if Officers rush in, a shooting is possible; the argument can be\nmade that Officers handled the event appropriately due to there being no active\nshooting; split second decisions are made by Officers in situations.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the communication around an event is as important as what\ntranspires; noted a Press Release was not issued until the evening after the event;\nexpressed support for communication in real-time.\nVice Mayor Vella stated that she would appreciate updates; expressed support for\ncommunication with the community to the extent possible; stated there can be the\nperception of work not being done unless work is shown as it is being done; an absence\nof information causes confusion and distrust; there is concern about conflicting\ninformation and the Capitol insurrection; she would like clarification from City staff.\nThe City Manager stated that he has asked staff to look into any social media posts; no\n[Capitol insurrection] support has been found within current APD Officers; promotion of\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n18\nFebruary 2, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-02-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-02-02", "page": 24, "text": "criminal activity cannot occur from an Officer; personnel investigations are confidential\ndue to State law; reports have been submitted; urged residents to share information\nabout current Police Officers with City staff for investigation.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether the tweets from the former APD Officer have been\nreviewed; whether incidents occurred while on-duty; questioned whether the concerns\nare being addressed.\nThe City Manager responded the concerns will be looked into; stated that he had not\npreviously heard about the incidents explained.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether the City Manager is the point of contact for such\ninformation to be shared by community members.\nThe City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated that he or the Interim Police Chief\ncan be contacted with information.\nVice Mayor Vella stated regarding requests for data, raw numbers without context leads\nto a number of different conclusions; the way in which events are defined, the context\nprovided and who is involved matters; expressed concern about different ratios in terms\nof who has historically been stopped in Alameda; stated the data is not definitive and\nmore clarity on trends and the meaning of data will be helpful for all in making decisions;\nexpressed concern about the lack of housing, transitional housing, and the impact of\nCOVID-19; stated the trends are not specific to Alameda, many are National and\nregional; stressors are compounding and tolls are taken on members of the public due\nto economic and housing insecurities; 2020 has been an anomaly; questioned how to\naccount for such an anomaly in the data to ensure that response is not just focused on\none particular year; expressed support for looking at all underlying issues and overall\ntrends relative to data.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification related to the difficulties in job performance;\nstated there is a search for a new Police Chief; inquired how the City can attract, hire\nand retain good Officers while working in a challenging environment.\nThe Interim Police Chief responded that he has found APD employees are a good\ngroup, which is community-minded and service-oriented; APD is not perfect; however,\nno department is; Officers want the community to know they care about their job and\nwhat they do; the last year has been rough; APD Officers are looking for stability and\nunderstanding of what the community is looking for and what to expect going forward;\nthe stability and understanding will be key in moving forward attracting new Officers;\nthere will be a balance between Committee reports, residents, and business owners;\nOfficers feel as though they are in the middle and are unclear.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Council will consider recommendations from the\nSteering Committee on March 16th; Council would like to hear from citizens prior to the\nMarch 16th meeting; noted a survey is being mailed to all households and needs to be\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n19\nFebruary 2, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-02-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-02-02", "page": 25, "text": "returned by February 21st; an online survey is available at:\nwww.alamedaca.gov/policesurvey.\nCouncilmember Daysog expressed support for the Interim Police Chief; stated there\nhave been increases in violent crimes; expressed support for having 88 sworn Officers;\nstated the temporary lull at 73 sworn Officers was supposed to be only until October\n2020; any modifications contemplated should work and build off of institutions, protocols\nand procedures in place; if the City proceeds in modernizing the Police force from the\ncurrent, stability will be provided to Officers.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated APD is in a divided community with a split\nCouncil; noted that she was not present when the Council decided to form a\nSubcommittee; stated the Subcommittee has not been a public process; this is the City\nManager's Steering Committee, not Council's Steering Committee and subcommittees;\nexpressed concern about the process not being public; stated the Council will have only\nheard from one group of people; comments and input provided from people outside the\ncommittees is as valuable due to the Subcommittees not having Brown Act noticed\nmeetings; the public was not allowed to submit questions; outlined an armed home\nrobbery and the minimum amount of Officers allowed on duty; stated that she will be\nlooking to hear from law enforcement, not committee members; committee members\nare not members of trained law enforcement; noted that she does not want to wait until\nMarch to find out what will happen to APD; she does not want to be a victim of an\narmed home invasion; expressed support for having enough Officers to respond to calls\nin a timely manner; stated that she does not want to compromise responses to gun\ncalls; expressed concern for Officer safety; stated people need to find a way to protect\nthemselves as well as the community; that she needs to ensure that APD has the tools\nneeded to provide responsible policing.\nCouncilmember Knox White requested clarification about the home invasion response\nfrom APD.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated there have been incidents when response time\nfrom APD has been to the best of their ability; not having enough Officers to respond to\ncalls in a timely manner is a problem.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated that he would like to hear from the Interim Police\nChief about response times and whether APD is waiting until the Steering Committee's\nreport in March to make any needed changes; if any changes are needed to stop violent\ncrime, APD should provide insight.\nThe Interim Police Chief stated response times are looked at often; APD has prided\nitself for a long time on quick response times; there is risk of a longer response time due\nto reduced staffing; he has not heard specific complaints related to violent crime or\npriority one calls with a delay in response time; stated APD has had discussions\ninternally to address the need should demand outweigh the ability to deliver service,\nespecially for violent crimes; the more Officers on the street, the more response to\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n20\nFebruary 2, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-02-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-02-02", "page": 26, "text": "matters.\nCouncilmember Knox White expressed support for having a discussion of LPRs brought\nback; stated that he would like the matter to include information about proven\neffectiveness; many neighboring cities which have installed LPRs have seen increases\nin crime after installation; stated that he has not found any good, well-documented\neffectiveness studies on LPRs in California; expressed support for an getting a time\nestimate on the traffic analysis in the coming months; stated Council needs the\ninformation to guide conversations; outlined injuries and deaths by cars; stated the\ngreatest harm to the community is coming from those being hit by drivers.\n(21-075) Recommendation to Provide Feedback on City Facility Naming Policy and\nProcedures. Not heard.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\nNot heard.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNot heard.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\n(21-076) Consider Establishing a New Methodology by which the Number of Housing\nUnits are Calculated for Parcels Zoned C-2-PD (Central Business District with Planned\nDevelopment Overlay). (Councilmember Daysog) Not heard.\n(21-077) Consider Directing Staff to Provide a Police Department Staffing and Crime\nUpdate. Not heard. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard.\n(21-078) Consider Directing Staff to Provide an Update on a Previously Approved\nReferral regarding Free Public WiFi throughout the City. Not heard. (Councilmember\nSpencer) Not heard.\n(21-079) Consider Directing Staff to Extend Webster Street Physical Improvements/\nBeautification. Not heard. (Councilmember Daysog) Not heard.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(21-080) Consideration of Mayor's Nominations for Appointments to the Housing\nAuthority Board of Commissioners and Transportation Commission.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft nominated Randy Renschler.\n(21-081) Announcement of Mayor's Appointment to a Council Subcommittee to Review\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n21\nFebruary 2, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-02-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-02-02", "page": 27, "text": "the City Council Meeting Rules of Order.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she and Councilmember Knox White would serve on\nthe subcommittee.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 12:00\na.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\n22\nFebruary 2, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-02-02.pdf"}