{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-01-04", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY--JANUARY 4, 2022- -7:00 P.M.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:07 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Knox White,\nVella, and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note: Vice Mayor\nVella arrived at 7:10 p.m. The meeting was conducted via\nZoom]\nAbsent:\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\n(22-006) The City Clerk announced that the SEEDS Collaborative agreement [paragraph no.\n22-014 was withdrawn from the agenda and the Encinal Terminals hearing [paragraph no. 22-\n025 was continued to the January 18, 2022 regular meeting.\nCouncilmember Daysog moved approval of hearing the recreational vehicles referral [paragraph\nno.\n22-028 after the Continued Agenda Items.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated that his motion is an effort to lessen the\nnumber of Council referrals.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated if the Council is able to move expeditiously through the agenda,\nthere is a significant chance of getting to all Council referrals; noted the agenda has been\nwhittled down.\nOn the call for the question, the motion failed by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers\nDaysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Ayes; Knox White: No; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: No. Ayes: 2.\nNoes: 2. [Absent: Vice Mayor Vella - 1].\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\nNone.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(22-007) Bill Ng, Alameda, discussed rent increases in Alameda; questioned the progress being\nmade and next steps for rent increases in Alameda.\n(22-008) Brian Kennedy, Alameda, expressed support for Alameda having a National Day of\nRemembrance for victims of illegal alien violence.\n(22-009) Margaret Hall, Alameda, discussed the Alameda School Board's decision to return to a\nrotation system for officer selection.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJanuary 4, 2022\n1", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-01-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-01-04", "page": 2, "text": "The City Clerk announced anyone wishing to comment on the Community Development Block\nGrant (CDBG) block grant hearing [paragraph no. 22-012) could comment now.\nExpressed support for the Social Services Human Relations Board (SSHRB) work on the needs\nstatement for the CDBG annual plan; discussed statistics related to Alameda's increases in\nservices and reports from 2020 to 2021 Erin Scott, Family Violence Law Center.\nExpressed support for the amendments related to Police updates; expressed concern about the\ncontinued use of Lexipol; urged Council to develop and define a City policy manual; stated\naccess to City meetings is important and he would like to see permanent remote public\nparticipation: Zac Bowling, Alameda.\nDiscussed the CDBG annual review process and priority needs; stated the impacts of COVID-\n19 continue to impact and challenge many residents; outlined priority areas; urged Council to\napprove the needs statement: Sarah Lewis, SSHRB.\nOutlined 2-1-1 calls and homelessness calls handled by Eden I&R: Alison DeJung, Eden I&R.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft announced that the Mosquito Abatement Board resolution [paragraph no.\n22-019\nwas removed from the Consent Calendar.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer requested the EveryOne Counts item [paragraph no. 22-013)\nand teleconferencing findings items [paragraph no. 22-017 be removed from the Consent\nCalendar.\nCouncilmember Knox White moved approval of remainder of the Consent Calendar.\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Ayes; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor\nEzzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk\npreceding the paragraph number.]\n(*22-010) Minutes of the Continued November 16, 2021 City Council Meeting Held on\nNovember 30, 2021 and the Special and Regular City Council Meetings Held on December 7,\n2021. Approved.\n(*22-011) Ratified bills in the amount of $3,339,938.15.\n(*22-012) Public Hearing to Consider Approving the Housing and Community Development\nNeeds Statement for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Annual Plan for Fiscal\nYear 2022-23. Accepted.\n(22-013) Recommendation for City Council to Accept a Report Regarding the EveryOne Counts!\n2022 Upcoming Point-In-Time Count of the Homeless Population in the City of Alameda.\nThe Community Services Manager gave a brief presentation.\nKatie Haverly, EveryOne Home, gave a Power Point presentation.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJanuary 4, 2022\n2", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-01-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-01-04", "page": 3, "text": "Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the program is taking place Statewide.\nMs. Haverly responded in the affirmative; stated the program is required of every continuum of\ncare to fulfil the county order and receive funding.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired the contact information for those who wish to\nvolunteer for the program.\nMs. Haverly responded two types of volunteers are needed for the count: community volunteers\ncan email, and outreach volunteers can email the Community Services Manager at\nvcole@alamedaca.gov\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Ayes; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor\nEzzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.\n(22-014) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute an Agreement with SEED\nCollaborative, Inc., to Assist the City with the Development of a Citywide Diversity, Equity,\nInclusion and Belonging Plan for an Amount not to exceed $275,000 Including a 10%\nContingency. Not heard.\n(*22-015) Recommendation to Authorize the Chief of Police to Update Section 1030 of the\nExisting Alameda Police Department Policy Manual Entitled \"Commendations and Awards\" to\nConform to Operational Changes. Accepted.\n(*22-016) Recommendation to Authorize the Chief of Police to Update Section 444 - Watch\nCommanders and Section 814 - Computers and Digital Evidence within the Existing Alameda\nPolice Department Policy Manual to Conform with Best Practices and Operational Changes.\nAccepted.\n(22-017) Recommendation to Approve Findings to Allow City Meetings to be Conducted via\nTeleconference.\nIn response to Councilmember Herrera Spencer, the City Clerk stated the matter relates to a\nState Assembly Bill with certain exemptions to the Brown Act which allows Councilmembers and\nmembers of Boards and Commissions to continue participating in meetings remotely without\ndisclosing their location on the agenda or allowing members of the public to participate from the\nlocation; the findings must be made every 30 days in order to continue the practice; the matter\nis before Council for another extension.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she will not support the matter due to members of\nthe public regularly stating that they are unable to participate in meetings; noted regulars\nattendees do not attend virtually; expressed support for a hybrid meeting model for people who\ndo not have access.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired the amount of meeting participants, to which the City Clerk\nresponded 81 attendees are present via Zoom.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJanuary 4, 2022\n3", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-01-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-01-04", "page": 4, "text": "Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the meeting is also being broadcast on Facebook Live.\nThe City Clerk stated the meeting is also broadcast on two local channels and the live stream is\navailable on the City's website.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired how many chairs are in the Chambers gallery, to\nwhich the City Clerk responded around 120 chairs.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated in-person meetings would typically have overflow; she\nbelieves people are being excluded; many people previously heard from are not participating.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated there is currently an Omicron variant surge of COVID-19; she also\nmisses in-person meetings; however, in-person meetings would be inviting people to be\nexposed to an extremely contagious variant; people in the community have died from COVID-\n19.\nVice Mayor Vella stated a couple of occasions required overflow rooms; however, the need was\nnot normal; remote meetings have had over 100 people call-in and attend via Zoom; people are\nwatching via live stream and can call-in; it would not be the best in health and safety to have\nmembers of the public fill all the seats in the Chambers; social distancing would be needed as\nwell as a number of other precautions, which would create barriers; expressed support for\nfinding as many ways for meetings to be inclusive; stated finding ways of integrating technology\nis important; there have been increases in COVID-19 cases; now is not the time for in-person\nmeetings; the City should take as many precautions as possible; expressed concern about staff,\nCouncil and members of the public being exposed.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated that he would like the matter addressed at a Council\nworkshop.\nCouncilmember Knox White moved approval of findings.\nCouncilmember Daysog started the points made are valid; the City can begin planning for hybrid\nmeetings; there is a blip of the Omicron surge; he will support the findings; however, the City\nshould move look at hybrid models.\nBy consensus, on the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor\nEzzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.\n(*22-018) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Two-Year Agreement\nwith NBS for Audit Implementation Services for Alameda's Landscape and Lighting District and\nSpecial Financing Districts, in an Amount Not to Exceed $101,750. Accepted.\n(22-019) Resolution No. 15856, \"Appointing Tyler Savage as Trustee to the Alameda County\nMosquito Abatement District Board.\" Adopted.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she has the privilege of nominating to the regional Board; Mr.\nSavage will be one of 15 members within Alameda County.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer moved adoption of the resolution.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJanuary 4, 2022\n4", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-01-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-01-04", "page": 5, "text": "Councilmember Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Ayes; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor\nEzzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.\nThe City Clerk administered the Oath of Office.\nMr. Savage made brief comments.\n(*22-020) Resolution No. 15857, \"Ordering Vacation of a Portion of an Existing Public Utility\nEasement within Parcel Map 8474, 2450 Marina Square Loop, and Recordation of a Quitclaim\nDeed.\" Adopted.\nCONTINUED AGENDA ITEMS\n(22-021) Recommendation to Accept an Update and Approve a Work Plan Addressing Efforts to\nReimagine Police Services and Racial Equity.\nThe Assistant City Manager gave a brief presentation.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she and Councilmember Knox White have been appointed to\nreview the matter; expressed support for working collaboratively.\nStated that she supports pursuing American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) dollars to explore\nUniversal Basic Income (UBI); there is vagueness around community oversight; tools without\nhuman or citizen involvement are inadequate related to body camera footage review; urged\nCouncil to take a more active approach in reviewing policies and go beyond staff\nrecommendations; expressed concern about gaps in the Police policy manual and the term\nexcited delirium: Jennifer Rakowski, Alameda.\nStated the matter has been around for two years; expressed concern about the amount of time\ntaken on the matter; expressed support for a short-term Citizen Oversight Board: Melodye\nMontgomery, Alameda.\nStated that she does not have confidence in the use of Truleo; the resource is unproven;\nexpressed support for taking steps towards UBI; stated there should be a continued increase in\nPolice accountability; she supports oversight: Laura Cutrona, Alameda.\nStated the Citizen Oversight Committee must go forward; expressed concern over the use of\nTruleo; stated human contact is needed on Police matters: Marilyn Rothman, Alameda.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired the theory in including UBI with the matter.\nThe Assistant City Manager responded UBI has been included based on Council discussions of\nthe Steering Committee recommendations; noted the Steering Committee brought UBI forth as\na mechanism to help support members of the community that may not have the resources\nneeded; stated another recommendation brought forth relates to decriminalizing acts based on\nsurvival; UBI is also based on a societal value in the context of social and economic equity; UBI\nis a tool to level the playing field.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJanuary 4, 2022\n5", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-01-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-01-04", "page": 6, "text": "Councilmember Knox White stated UBI ties into policing based on the Committees also focusing\non community safety and security; the number one way to decrease violence in the community\nis through addressing income inequality and issues; the UBI pilot is put forth as a way for\nCouncil to address crime and issues from the community.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated presentations related to UBI show it does not take a lot of money to\nhelp lift people out of housing and food insecurity; UBI allows people to find better jobs and\nafford child care; UBI models have been used throughout the United States as well as Canada;\nthe opportunity is exciting; noted cities will need to apply for the State program and will have to\nprovide matching funds; ARPA funds can be used as matching funds; expressed support for the\nsubject being included at the priority setting workshop.\nIn response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry about the business community's effort to\naddress equity and race, the Assistant City Manager stated the matter came up in the\ncommunity-led efforts; the intent is for the City to partner with the business community to create\ngreater awareness.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether the Chamber of Commerce, business districts or City\nManager's Committees provided the recommendation.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft responded the Chamber of Commerce Executive Director was a member\nof one of the subcommittees; discussed members of the community being followed in stores\nwhile shopping; noted the matter is one way to help open a dialogue.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for meetings with the business districts\nbeing open to the public; expressed concern about the subcommittees being represented as\ncommunity-led without meeting Brown Act requirements; stated that she is comfortable with UBI\ncoming back to Council for consideration; both individuals and businesses have been suffering\nthrough COVID-19 and prior; it is appropriate to look at ARPA funding to find matching funds; a\nCitizen's Oversight Committee would have to be placed on the ballot and voted on by the public;\nstated that her preference is to always have meetings be open to the public; she was\ndisappointed that meetings were not publically noticed; a lot of work has been done to address\nthe concerns raised by the subcommittees and community.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification on the Steering Committee and subcommittees.\nThe City Manager stated that he appointed four Alameda residents as Board Members to the\nSteering Committee in August 2020; communications were sent out about subcommittees; the\nSteering Committee reviewed and recommended individuals to subcommittees; he officially\nappointed the recommended individuals; individuals were allowed to select which subcommittee\nthey desired; staff attempted to represent people of color and different view-points on each\nsubcommittee; Council unanimously approved many of the recommendations put forth by the\nSteering Committee.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Jolene Wright, Christine Chilcot, Al Mance, and Cheryl Taylor\ncompiled the Steering Committee; inquired how many applications were received for serving on\nsubcommittees, to which the City Manager responded over 100.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJanuary 4, 2022\n6", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-01-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-01-04", "page": 7, "text": "The Assistant City Manager stated over 70 people were on the 5 subcommittees.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she believes the City had over 200 applicants; noted the\nresponse was robust.\nCouncilmember Knox White seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Knox White stated that he would hope the motion could be\namended prior to approval; expressed support for the work completed prior to the presentation;\nstated matters marked as complete are not finished; expressed support for shifting traffic\nenforcement; traffic enforcement was not part of the original Council direction; discussed the\nnumber of prior citations; stated catalytic converter theft includes staff returning with a program\nto fund catalytic converter cages and stop thefts before they occur; the matter came before\nCouncil again during the budget discussion; stated the topic should not be complete until\nCouncil discusses the program; the Citizen's Oversight Committee is important; Council should\nprovide more direction on the matter for a work plan to be completed within the year; Council\napproved budget appropriation for an independent Police Auditor; Council did not discuss\nposition details; expressed support for Council providing direction to staff to come back with a\nproposal for the independent oversight; many cities have not figured out how to execute the\nprogram well; staff can come back with proposals; if a matter need to be placed on the ballot,\nthe deadline is July; he could support Council placing the matter on the ballot; he would like a\nbetter understanding of the use of Truleo and research on how the Artificial Intelligence (AI) and\nalgorithm works; expressed support for understanding how Truleo's discrimination and equity Al\nworks in practice since many existing programs having significant built-in biases; stated Truleo\nis a vocal source system and does not look at video; the system provides speech analysis while\nidentifying key words and could be a great training tool; he does not think the system meets\nwhat the Council has been asking for related to oversight and non-Police review of body camera\nfootage; the matter is marked as complete due to being in the budget; however, implementation\nis not yet complete.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like an update on the concerns related to catalytic\nconverter theft cages; requested clarification about the use of Truleo.\nThe Police Chief stated staff has started an educational campaign about catalytic converter\nthefts; the campaign focuses on things that can minimize thefts; part of the education includes\ndevices that can prevent theft, such as cages.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether staff is seeing the same high level of catalytic converter\nthefts in Alameda.\nThe Police Chief responded catalytic converter theft is not just in Alameda; the trend is National;\ncatalytic converter theft is up 800% across the country.\nThe Police Captain stated the thefts are still a concern; staff is working collaboratively with other\nagencies; there has been significant progress with other agencies in dismantling criminal rings;\ninformation sharing has been robust and has provided many leads to help solve cases;\nheadway is being made.\nThe Police Chief stated Truleo started as Greenkey and is primarily used in customer service for\nmajor banks; the system analyzes and assesses speech and is able to decipher intent and\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJanuary 4, 2022\n7", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-01-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-01-04", "page": 8, "text": "identify specific language; the system produces a daily report and identifies at-risk encounters\nwith staff; the system can identify whether staff are engaging or exposed to at-risk behaviors;\nthe system is able to decipher commands associated with force and tone and is able to identify\nat-risk patterns of behavior; real-time identification of Officers' body worn camera footage is\npossible within 24 hours; encounters can be flagged for review as opportunities for re-training,\nholding people accountable and acknowledging unacceptable behavior and negative\nencounters; negative encounters are approached from a wellness perspective; discussed\nemployee wellness; stated the Department is leveraging technology to accomplish both aspects;\nTruleo technology provides a real-time opportunity to address acceptable behaviors and praise\nbehavior that goes above and beyond; policies and procedures can be adjusted to provide top-\nlevel services; expressed concern about missing little things, which can avalanche in bad\nbehavior; unchecked, bad behavior can amount to larger issues; the technology is not a solve-\nall; however, it helps people make decisions in the correct direction; the technology is efficient;\noutlined review of body worn camera footage; stated the Department is not solely relying on the\ntechnology; the technology is to help point people in the right direction to ensure appropriate\naction is taken, at-risk patterns of behavior are curbed, wellness concerns are addressed and\ngood behavior is applauded.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she understands Alameda would be the first city in\nthe State to use the technology; inquired whether other cities are also implementing the\ntechnology.\nThe Police Chief responded Alameda would be the first City in the State to use the technology;\nstated several cities and local agencies in the Bay Area are subscribing as well; the City of\nSeattle is conducting reform and Truleo is being used to point people in the right direction.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for the use of the technology; stated trying\nis worthwhile; the use of technology will complement the Department's efforts; she understands\nthere has been a reduction in citations issued; inquired what has attributed to the reduction.\nThe Police Chief responded the City had a full traffic unit; stated currently, one Officer is\nassigned to the traffic unit; the Department has a staffing issue; his focus is currently on\nproviding basic first line service in the Patrol Division; he needs to ensure the Patrol Division is\nadequately staffed so that Officers can respond in a timely manner while still considering Officer\nsafety; he needs to have enough Officers on the street to serve the community at the expected\nlevels; traffic enforcement does not only include the number of traffic citations; each month will\nfocus on a specific Vehicle Code violation; January focus on impaired driving; February will\nfocus on unsafe changes of course; the Department will provide information through all\nchannels of social media to advise of monthly focuses and provide fun facts and statistics as\nregular reminders of related dangers; the Department will use directed patrol teams; many\nchanges will occur in 2022, including dividing the City into 12 small beats; each beat will have\nTraffic, Outreach and Crime (TOC) trend points; each beat will be looked at to find out priorities\nassociated with TOC trend spikes.\nThe Police Captain stated there has been a reduction in citations; COVID-19 has curbed\nenforcement; Officers are currently more intelligent and deliberate with enforcement; the\nDepartment is more focused on primary collision factors; there is reduced staff in the Traffic\nUnit; staff is visiting schools more to educate students on proper bike safety; the Department\nhas many new items for 2022; he anticipates the numbers will increase as the number of\nOfficers swells through deliberate growth of the organization.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJanuary 4, 2022\n8", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-01-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-01-04", "page": 9, "text": "Councilmember Daysog stated there are 25 items on the work plan; three categories are very\nimportant: reforming Police, revamping traffic safety and increasing sworn Officers; some items\nrelating to reforming Police are complete related to the mental health component; Council has\ndone incredible work in reforming Police; Council should be proud of the substantial reform;\ndiscussed revamping traffic safety; stated not everything can come from engineering;\nenforcement is also vital; the Vision Zero plan goes a long way in providing a more robust traffic\nsafety plan; part of traffic safety is sworn Officers, which is in progress; the City's target is 88\nsworn Officers; one Officer is dedicated to traffic safety; prior years, upwards of 6 sworn Officers\nwere dedicated to traffic safety; there is a lot for Council to claim victory on; he is not convinced\nthat some of the listed items are appropriate to include, such as UBI and the business\ncommunity issue; businesses not working well with certain segments of the community is an\nSSHRB matter; he believes the City already has an Oversight Board in the City Council; Council\nhas responded in an incredible, rapid manner; expressed concern about having a Citizen's\nOversight Board; stated that he is unsure the Board will be helpful; Council is the rightful\nOversight Board; the remaining 16 items begin to get in the weeds and do not rise to the level of\nPolice reform; Automated License Plate Readers (ALPR) are controversial; however, should not\nbe a Police reform matter; ALPRs are supplemental; he can support the motion; Council has\ndone a lot of the heavy lifting related to reforming Police.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft discussed information about mental health programs, including response\ncall length; inquired how the program is going for Alameda.\nThe Fire Chief responded the program launched December 16th; stated the Community\nAssessment Response and Engagement (CARE) team has responded to 32 calls for service;\n10 of the calls for service utilized the on-call Alameda Family Services (AFS) licensed clinician;\n16 calls have been referred for case management follow-up with AFS; of the 16 calls, 7 people\nare receiving services; the remaining clients have either not responded, declined services or are\nstill in-process for intake; training is a part of the program; the first training has occurred;\nParamedics and Emergency Medical Technicians (EMT) have developed safety plans for clients\nduring interaction; staff has reviewed possible options and other navigation for clients; one of\nthe biggest successes for the program has been the ability to find appropriate resources;\noutlined a thank you note from one of the first calls for service; stated the program is working;\nthere have been 5 calls that staff was unable to respond to; staff looks forward to continuing to\ncollect data in order to provide a comprehensive report on the pilot program in the future.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she knows one of the calls was four hours in duration; the\nprogram collaboration is multi-level; expressed support for a portion of Alameda Hospital being\nused for a program similar to the White Bird Clinic that supports Crisis Assistance Helping Out-\nOn-The Streets (CAHOOTS); the matter should be included in the Council priority setting\nworkshop.\nVice Mayor Vella stated Council has done a significant amount of work and has made significant\nprogress; work still needs to be done; some of the items might be complete in terms of budget\nallocation, but are not fully complete and still need follow up or follow through; updates would be\nhelpful; she understands concerns around the use of Al; Al is not a replacement for actual\nreview; having a timeline about the Oversight Board item would be helpful when the item returns\nto Council; if the item is placed on the ballot, Council can work backward from the deadline;\nCouncil is looking for near and long-term solutions relative to oversight; reviewing hours of\nfootage is a lot of work and would constitute a few full-time positions; she would like to better\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJanuary 4, 2022\n9", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-01-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-01-04", "page": 10, "text": "understand long-term solutions and options; expressed support for proposed interim measures;\nstated that she hears support for others looking at the matter and an option for civilian review;\nshe looks forward to seeing the options; expressed support for including UBI; stated that she is\ntroubled to hear questioning about UBI; effectively reimagining Police includes reimagining\nsupport services to help uplift people and even the playing field; UBI is provided to help uplift\nand even the playing field.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Councilmember Knox White has made some additional requests;\ninquired how to incorporate the items in the motion.\nCouncilmember Knox White made a friendly amendment to the motion to include Council\nproviding direction to staff to come back with a plan and options for oversight; stated the idea is\nto have time to move the matter forward by July or to have an independent staff person in the\nCity Manager or City Attorney's office; he would also like to change catalytic converter from\ncomplete to return with a plan.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer accepted the friendly amendments; stated that she would like\nto add having staff come back to Council with a timeline for the oversight.\nCouncilmember Knox White seconded the amended motion.\nUnder further discussion, Councilmember Daysog requested clarification about oversight.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated staff will return with a proposal for oversight on a timeline\nwhich would allow for something to go on the ballot if Council so desires.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated the language is broad in order to provide Council with\noptions, which include going to the ballot; expressed support for the including a breadth of\noptions.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated the language includes options.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers\nDaysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft:\nAye. Ayes: 5.\n***\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft called a recess at 9:06 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:20 p.m.\n***\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(22-022) Public Hearing to Consider Introduction of an Ordinance Amending Alameda Municipal\nCode Chapter XXX to Implement Senate Bill 9 Regarding Two-Unit Housing Developments and\nUrban Lot Splits in Single-Family Residential Zones, as Recommended by the Planning Board;\nand\n(22-022A) Adoption of Urgency Ordinance_Amending Alameda Municipal Code Chapter XXX to\nImplement Senate Bill 9 Regarding Two-Unit Housing Developments and Urban Lot Splits in\nSingle-Family Residential Zones. Not heard.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJanuary 4, 2022\n10", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-01-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-01-04", "page": 11, "text": "The Planning, Building and Transportation Director gave a PowerPoint presentation.\n(22-023) Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of allowing an additional 5 minutes\nfor the presentation.\nCouncilmember Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor\nEzzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.\n***\nCouncilmember Knox White inquired how many properties could accommodate 10 units under\nthe rules.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded that he does not have an actual\nnumber; stated staff believes the amount to be very little; the City has allowed second units;\nabout 9,500 homes have second units; 2021 has been the biggest year for second units in\nAlameda; only 21 property owners from the R1 district requested a second unit; staff does not\nbelieve there is huge demand for R1 property owners to max out and build 10 units; the\nstandard approach or request will be for one additional unit; no one has submitted an\napplication and staff has not received calls regarding Senate Bill (SB) 9 units; 10 additional units\nper year is the maximum.\nIn response to Councilmember Herrera Spencer's inquiry related to findings, the City Attorney\nstated one neighboring jurisdiction had health and safety findings due to fire safety near\nhillsides; staff prepared findings that are included in the emergency ordinance in the best way\npossible; the SB 9 regulations would lead to a faster and more prompt creation of units, which is\ncritical to resolving the State's housing crisis.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the basis for the other cities' findings were related to fire\nsafety; to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated the jurisdiction found that\nthere needed to be regulations imposed to ensure hillside and fire safety risk mitigation.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated several cities have adopted SB 9 using the framework of a\nmaximum of four units; he does not see why the Alameda cannot use the same maximum.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated every city has been hustling to\ndevelop regulations and have been learning from each other; most cities assumed four units\nwere possible; the City can write a provision for applicants to request a lot split and have the\nunits limited to four; if an R1 property owner is allowed a duplex, staff cannot limit Accessory\nDwelling Units (ADU); ADUs can only be limited if an applicant comes in with a lot split first; SB\n9 can prevent applicants from building more than four units; staff is struggling with instances\nwhere the limitation is not allowed under SB 9; discussed examples of applicants being able to\nbuild five units under the current ADU ordinance; stated SB 9 regulations allows two units plus\nADUs; SB 9 limits units with a lot split; if applicants come in and apply for units without an initial\nlot split, they can return in one year after building units to request a lot split to build more units\non the new, vacant lot; staff does not have all the answers and no city does; staff will need to\nmake decisions over-the-counter once the first application comes in and there will be no public\nhearings with Council and Planning Board; the most effective way to structure the current matter\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJanuary 4, 2022\n11", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-01-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-01-04", "page": 12, "text": "is to let staff know whether to be as restrictive as possible with unit size and number of units or\npush the ordinance as far as legally possible; the Planning Board recommendation allows ADUs\nin\naddition to the SB 9 units; staff can structure the ordinance based on Council direction; the\nregulation is new; staff is unsure how many applications will be received; staff can provide an\nupdate in six months based on applications; Council can make adjustments in the future.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Housing Element is being worked on in the coming year; the\nCity has Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) numbers to fulfil; inquired whether the\npotential lot splits are the only way staff can address the RHNA requirements.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded depending on how strict or\nlenient the ordinance is, staff will project how many units will be produced within the R1 district\nover the next 8 years; staff needs to provide the projection for the Housing Element; an\nadvantage of the ordinance being lenient is better ease in advocating that the R1 district will\ngenerate additional units over the next 8 years; staff wants to make a case that the City will add\nas many units as possible; however, if Council does not want to have additional units in the R1\ndistrict, a more restrictive ordinance is needed.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the City will get additional units in the R1 district based on SB 9;\ninquired whether there are other tools for staff to meet the City's RHNA obligation.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded in the affirmative; stated staff will\nbe looking at up-zoning shopping center and Park and Webster Street districts; staff has held\nPlanning Board and City Council hearing about the need of up-zoning residential districts; the\ncurrent matter is part of the residential up-zoning; staff estimates the residential districts are\ngenerating about 60 units per year; the rate should be doubled in order for RHNA obligations to\nbe met; the ordinance will be helpful if it allows the R1 district to generate an additional 10 units\nper year to meet the RHNA obligation; the City's obligation is roughly 5,353 housing units over\nthe next 8 years, which puts the units around 600 per year; the R1 district of the City only\ngenerates 21 units per year.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether there are any minimum requirements for\nsetbacks and space between ADUs.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded in the negative; stated applicants\nmust meet Building Code requirements for health and safety; the SB 9 setback is four feet; staff\ncan explore additional requirements in terms of spacing between buildings; however, SB 9 is\nclear that the City cannot adopt any rules which prevent at least the two units on-site; each unit\nmust be at least 800 square feet; the only rule staff can enforce is a four foot setback from the\nproperty line.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired what the Building Code requires space between\nunits.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded the requirement is typically three\nfeet to the property line and approximately six feet between buildings.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer further inquired whether the units can be added to the front of\nthe property, to which the Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded in the\naffirmative.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJanuary 4, 2022\n12", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-01-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-01-04", "page": 13, "text": "Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether there are requirements to add off-street\nparking for the units, to which the Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded in\nthe negative.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated some cities are restricting SB 9 units to a certain income\ncategories; inquired whether anything is preventing the City from doing the same.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Councilmember Daysog is interested in a permanent\ndeed restriction, to which Councilmember Daysog responded in the affirmative.\nThe City Attorney responded State law does not contain an express prohibition or authorization\non income limitations for the newly created units; stated the area is grey; if Council wishes to\nimplement a restriction, staff can look into the matter; many jurisdictions have adopted many\ndifferent rules that are not specifically authorized or prohibited; restrictions have the effect of\nreducing the overall housing production due to cost implications.\nIn response to Councilmember Herrera Spencer's inquiry regarding waiving fees on ADUs, the\nPlanning, Building and Transportation Director stated Council adopted a Citywide Development\nImpact Fee (DIF) update three years ago; the update clarifies that the ordinance does not apply\nto deed restricted, affordable units and ADUs, which helped reduce costs for affordable and\nsmall units; the only fee that is waived is the DIF.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether it is possible to have the matter be limited to\naffordable units to try and encourage affordable units.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded if Council wishes to create a\ndeed restriction requirement on the SB 9 units, staff can do so.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the City can require the deed restriction on\naffordable units if unit fees are waived.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded the restriction will require a\nchange to the Citywide DIF ordinance; currently, second units or ADUs are automatically waived\nfrom Citywide DIF fees whether they are deed restricted or not; the other approach would be to\namend the DIF ordinance to waive fees on ADUs if they are deed restricted; the change will be\nan incentive for property owners to deed restrict in order to avoid the upfront DIF costs.\nUrged Council to reject the Planning Board's up-zoning to 10 units per parcel, to limit the\nmaximum size to 800 square feet and to reject the proposal to adopt the four foot setbacks;\nexpressed support for choosing how new housing happens: Joyce Boyd, Alameda.\nStated that she is confused about what is being accomplished; affordable housing is needed in\nAlameda; expressed concern about market rate homes; discussed home sale prices; stated an\n800 square foot home will be affordable; the number of units should be limited to four;\nexpressed support for an State initiative; discussed global warming: Karen Miller, Alameda.\nStated allowing two duplexes on lots will not be the only increase in the number of residential\nunits in the City; there is no meaningful difference between unit limits; it does not make sense to\nadd restrictions; people can infill wherever desired: Josh Geyer, Alameda.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJanuary 4, 2022\n13", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-01-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-01-04", "page": 14, "text": "Stated the matter is an opportunity to create small, more affordable units with minimum,\nnegative impact; SB 9 spreads the responsibility for providing housing throughout the City; the\nproposed ordinance presents a custom version of SB 9; ten units is too many; discussed\nAlameda apartment units causes a loss of trees, stormwater run-off and loss of solar access;\ndevelopment with no public notice or hearing was previously illegal; urged implementing a\nreasonable ordinance and adopting the original staff recommendation: Betsy Mathieson,\nAlameda.\nUrged Council to take the most restrictive, legal approach; expressed concern about going\nbeyond the State's suggestion; stated ten units per parcel with no hearing is neither desirable\nnor reasonable; cheaper housing will be created; questioned the quality of life being created;\nstated the stress on infrastructure needs to be contemplated; there could be negative impacts to\ndiverse and working class homeowners due to developer interest; SB 9 will make the City too\ndense; urged more community input: Tracy Cote, Alameda.\nUrged Council to refrain from accommodating ten units per parcel in the R1 district, which can\nopen the door to up-zone other neighborhoods; transportation infrastructure is not being\nconsidered; Alameda cannot continue to create density at such pace without public notice and\noff-street parking; urged Council to consider a more modest and sustainable 800 square foot\nsize; stated 1,600 square feet seems too large; urged Council look at recommendations\nprovided by Alameda Citizens Task Force (ACT) and Alameda Architectural Preservation\nSociety (AAPS): Carmen Reid, Alameda.\nExpressed support for the Planning Board's proposal; stated Council should eliminate the\nsquare footage requirements; he is a fan of small units and flexibility for a range of housing\noptions; the matter is for homeowners; a misleading narrative is being spread; discussed the\npotential percent increase in lots: Zac Bowling, Alameda.\nUrged Council to adopt the Planning Board's recommendation; stated staff has made a good\nfaith effort to update the City's Zoning Code; discussed minimum lot size requirements in Bay\nArea cities; stated that he is glad to see City staff and the Planning Board not follow other cities\nas a template; the Zoning Code adjustments are straight forward; discussed City website\nresources: Drew Dara-Abrams, Alameda.\nExpressed support for the ordinance; stated that she lives on a dense parcel; the measure can\nhelp facilitate her children being able to live in Alameda; SB 9 has built important provisions\nwhich preserve housing security for current tenants; the ordinance helps people not to lose\nhousing security for current tenants as housing is being built: Jennifer Rakowski, Alameda.\nUrged Council to uphold the Planning Board recommendation, which will allow flexibility and\nprovide opportunity within the R1 district; discussed the variety of housing opportunities; stated\nmore housing solutions are needed throughout Alameda; more density should be supported to\nhelp reduce the impacts of climate change: Ruth Abbe, Alameda.\nStated that she is against the Planning Board recommendation; the 800 square foot limit should\nbe kept on ADUs; expressed support for the minimum allowed under SB 9; stated SB 9 is\nforcing the City to allow additional density and will be challenging; expressed support for using\ncaution and enacting only what is required; stated the City can increase amounts at a later date:\nDevon Westerholm, Alameda.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJanuary 4, 2022\n14", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-01-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-01-04", "page": 15, "text": "Stated that she does not support the Planning Board recommendation; she would like to see\nlocal control; the matter will not solve the housing problem; discussed an owner-occupied\ntriplex; urged Council vote against the recommendation: Michelle Morgan, Alameda.\nUrged Council to limit units to four per split lot and 800 square feet; stated more housing should\nbe provided for people being squeezed out; the units will provide lower cost rental units;\ndiscussed real estate websites offering services related to SB 9: Birgitt Evans, Alameda.\nStated that she is concerned about the interpretation of the intention of SB 9; the City should\nslow down policy implementation; expressed support for a limit of four units per lot split and 800\nsquare feet on ADUs; stated the limits ensure green space is preserved; she would like more\ncommunity input before a new policy is adopted; expressed concern about effects on schools,\nPolice, parking and infrastructure; discussed electric car charging and the Oakland-Alameda\nAccess Project: Therese Hall, Alameda.\nStated that he is opposed to the ordinance as proposed; the matter is concerning; central\nAlameda parking is congested; expressed concern about rush to approve an ordinance; stated\nthat he shares fears that developers will take advantage of homeowners: Matt Reid, Alameda.\nStated the new law creates infrastructure problems; expressed concern about Council planning\nto purchase distressed and foreclosed properties to build ADUs; questioned the maximum\npopulation that can safely be evacuated from the Island; urged Council to have the City Attorney\npush back legislation which endangers the general population and visitors: Jim Strehlow,\nAlameda.\nExpressed support for capping the number of units on a lot; stated the ordinance is premature;\nshe supports capping the amount at four units and 800 square feet; expressed concern about\nparking; outlined her ability to put ten units on her lot; stated height restrictions have not been\nmentioned: Margaret Hall, Alameda.\nExpressed support for the Planning Board recommendation; urged Council to move forward;\nstated two of the biggest problems being faced in the area are the lack of housing and climate\nchange; increasing the density of the R1 district addresses both problems; discussed impacts:\nDenyse Trepanier, Alameda.\nUrged Council not to be more permissive than SB 9; stated the City can loosen rules at a later\ntime using the Housing Element process; expressed concern about a piecemeal approach to\nthe R1 district; discussed informational notices, building setback language, waiving zoning\nstandards, side yard setbacks and deed restrictions: Christopher Buckley, Alameda\nArchitectural Preservation Society (AAPS).\nDiscussed tenants reacting to building ADUs; stated that she has not heard much about how\ntenants would be effected: Leslie Carter, Alameda.\nStated that she supports the proposals made by AAPS; urged Council to limit the maximum\nnumber of units on a 1,200 square foot lot to four, rather than ten; stated allowing ten units goes\nbeyond SB 9 requirements; discussed Measure Z and limiting density; urged Council to vote no\non the Planning Board recommendation: Elizabeth Greene, Alameda.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJanuary 4, 2022\n15", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-01-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-01-04", "page": 16, "text": "Expressed support for comments provided by Speaker Rakowski; stated that she is\ndisheartened to think she will have to look outside of Alameda in order to purchase a home; SB\n9 might create the possibility of affordable home purchasing options: Melodye Montgomery,\nAlameda.\nStated that he does not know how many R1 parcels are impacted; expressed support for\nCouncil requesting data; stated SB 9 is closely intermingled with SB 10, which applies to all\nproperties; discussed urban infill and raising the number of housing units: Paul Cohen,\nAlameda.\n***\n(22-024) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if there is a motion to consider new items after 11:00\np.m.\nCouncilmember Daysog moved approval of hearing the first three referrals.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer seconded the motion, which failed due to requiring four votes\nby the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox\nWhite: Aye; Vella: No; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: No. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.\nCouncilmember Daysog moved approval of hearing the first two referrals.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer seconded the motion, which failed due to requiring four votes\nby the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox\nWhite: Aye; Vella: No; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: No. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.\nVice Mayor Vella moved approval of hearing the first three referrals up until midnight.\nCouncilmember Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor\nEzzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.\n***\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated there have been comments on how Alameda is full of small lots;\ninquired the average lot size.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded the R1 district has a wide variety\nof lot sizes; stated generally lots sizes are in the 4,000 to 5,000 square foot range; some parcels\ncan be much smaller and some unusually large lots exist.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether height restrictions exist, to which the Planning, Building\nand Transportation Director responded in the affirmative; stated the existing height limit in the\nR1 district is 30 feet.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired what occurs if Council does not pass an ordinance.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded if an application come in before\nCouncil adopts an ordinance, staff will follow State Law; there will be no limit on unit size or lot\nsplits; every property owner would have rights under SB 9.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJanuary 4, 2022\n16", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-01-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-01-04", "page": 17, "text": "Councilmember Daysog requested clarification about how seven units could be achieved.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated State Law allows the City to stop an\napplicant at four units; a property could build two units without requesting a lot split; a property\nwith two units is considered multi-family under the City's ADU ordinance and State law; multi-\nfamily properties are allowed two second units in the backyard and a junior unit is allowed within\neach of the two units for up to five units total; the City does not have the ability to limit ADUs\nsince there is no lot split; if someone requests a lot split after placing five units on one side of\nthe property, two additional units would be allowed for a total of seven units; the City can limit\napplicants to four units if the lot split is done first.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether five units are eligible for a density bonus.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded second units are not eligible;\nstated the second unit ordinance does not trigger density bonus; if the Council wishes to limit\nSB 9 to the minimum amount allowable, Council may direct staff to redraft the ordinance to have\na maximum of four units; even with the direction to limit SB 9 to the minimum allowable units\nthere is a loophole due to the way the law is written; an applicant can sequence the build to get\nto seven units total.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated Council can conceivably work on a parallel track where the\nmaximum of four units at 800 square feet; the City should have the discretion and can designate\nall SB units must be affordable; he does not know whether or not the affordable clause would\nstop people from taking the loophole.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated the ordinance could indicate an\napplicant can maximize the number of units under SB 9 and the ADU ordinance, but a lot split\nafter the fact on the same property will only yield two, deed restricted units.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would like further clarification of the scenario;\ninquired whether it is legally possible for Council to deed restrict the additional units.\nThe City Attorney questioned whether another scenario is the City could modify the ADU\nordinance to require dispersion; stated once the five units are built, it would not be practically\npossible to create a split lot.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded the approach is creative and\ndoable; stated the objective development standards could be set up to have the units spread\nout; if an applicant returns for a lot split under SB 9, the existing, previous units cannot be torn\ndown; the lot can be severed and two of the units can be sold.\nThe City Attorney stated the approach is an easier legal path to defend than to impose a deed\nrestriction; outlined the State Law provision; stated local agencies can do three things under SB\n9: 1) impose objective zoning standards, 2) objective subdivision standards and 3) objective\ndesign review standards; staff would have to argue that deed restrictions on income limitations\nfits within one of the three provisions; staff could possibly argue income limitations are zoning\nstandards; however, it would be an uphill the argument; the dispersion approach is likely an\neasier legal direction; dispersion is a clear provision under State Law.\nIn response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry regarding a first reading returning to Council, the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJanuary 4, 2022\n17", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-01-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-01-04", "page": 18, "text": "City Attorney stated staff will need to work with the Planning Department to figure out the\ndispersion standards, which could not be finalized at the current meeting; the dispersion\nstandards will have to be brought back to Council.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated input from the Planning Board and public might be considered;\nexpressed concern about things happening on the fly; stated Council needs to measure twice\nand cut once; he understands concerns about the risk of State Law; however, it is best to craft\nthe law as best as possible with public input.\nCouncilmember Knox White inquired how bad it would be for Council not to pass anything\ntonight.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded that he does not anticipate a\nflood of applications; stated over the last few years R1 property owners have built a second unit\nfor college aged kids who cannot afford housing in Alameda or an in-law unit; not many property\nowners are maximizing what is currently allowed; an average of 20 units are built out of 9,000\nproperties in the R1 district; staff does not see a huge risk in the approach proposed by\nCouncilmember Daysog.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated the sky is not going to fall if Council adopts the ten unit\nmaximum; the City does not have lots large enough; the lots that are large enough will not have\nten units; he is comfortable with the idea of taking time and providing direction to bring back an\nordinance as a part of the Housing Element; expressed support for Council giving direction\nabout what is desired; prior to SB 9, five units were allowed on a lot; if an applicant chooses not\nto split their lot, five housing units are still allowed; questioned the point of having anything\nreturn to Council with less than five units; expressed support for discussing goals and for\nsmaller units; stated housing affordability is important; he will not vote on a fake use of\naffordable housing requirements to limit units; he is interested in increasing the ability for people\nto own homes in Alameda and for split lots; housing ownership is important; Council should\nthink about how to limit the number of units and incentivize lot splits; he does not think limiting\nthe number of units does anything; expressed support for a limit of five to seven units in the R1\ndistrict.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for providing staff direction on Council goals; stated\nthat she appreciates the work put into the matter and the consideration of the housing crisis; the\nmatter is one tool in the City's toolkit which can be further refined; she is unsure whether or not\nthe matter should go back to the Planning Board; the proposed ordinance is not ready for first\nreading.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated the matter does not need to go back to the Planning\nBoard; it is important that the matter stays at the Council level; staff can take direction from\nCouncil and return; the matter should not drag on indefinitely and deserves to be its own\nagenda item, rather than as part of the Housing Element; expressed support for pursuing the\nrecommendation related to dispersion and for the middle having opportunities to buy property;\n1,600 square feet does not create the possibility of affordable units; expressed concern about\n1,200 square feet; stated that her preference is 800 square feet; 1,200 square foot units are\nover $1 million to purchase; questioned whether the City has an ordinance which allows 1,200\nsquare foot units for ADUs.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded in the affirmative.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJanuary 4, 2022\n18", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-01-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-01-04", "page": 19, "text": "Councilmember Herrera Spencer further inquired whether the square footage would remain\nunless changed by Council, to which the Planning, Building and Transportation Director\nresponded in the affirmative.\nIn response to Councilmember Herrera Spencer's inquiry related to additional units, the\nPlanning, Building and Transportation Director stated the City it could be part of the same\nordinance; if Council desires to limit all ADUs on SB 9 projects to 800 square feet, the ordinance\nshould be clear; he believes State law allows the City to implement the limit.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for the 800 square foot limit on ADUs;\nstated the size provides more opportunity for affordable housing; the City should try to end up\nwith as many 800 square foot units as possible; she is interested in revisiting the waiver of fees\nfor any ADU; expressed support for the waiver being limited to units which are deed restricted to\naffordable housing; she is unsure why the City is waiving fees for building 1,200 to 1,600 square\nfoot units; inquired whether rent control would not apply to any of the proposed units.\nThe City Attorney responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated the best opportunity for ending up with affordable units\nis to limit the size; it is important for the matter to return to Council.\nVice Mayor Vella stated the discussion is best to be had along with the Housing Element; based\non questions posed and misinformation circulated, it should be part of the broader Housing\nElement discussion; there is unlikelihood of people maximizing the units; she does not see\ndevelopers coming in and maximizing the units; affordability and other requirements will make\nhousing infeasible; expressed support for striking a balance in order to get units and meet the\nintent of SB 9 and for having an Alameda ordinance; stated a cap is not necessarily needed;\nshe appreciates the Planning Board recommendation; she would like to see something that will\nallow for flexibility in terms of square footage; a number of factors go into the price of a home,\nnot just the square footage of the unit; her preference is not to cap the square footage; there\ncould be a reason to have a 1,200 square foot ADU; she is leaning towards allowing as much\nflexibility as possible; the City is in the middle of a housing crisis and housing has been deemed\na Council priority; Council needs to prioritize building housing.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he believes Council needs to move quickly, yet carefully; he\ndoes not think Council should wait until the Housing Element is complete; expressed support for\nan 800 square foot maximum, two to four units, and dispersion of units; stated the history of\nAlameda includes people taking advantage of the opportunity to build more and is why Measure\nA was created; it is incumbent upon Council to respect the history for those who are Article 26\nstalwarts,; soon enough, people will exploit the opportunity by building as many housing units as\npossible; Council needs to carefully craft the ordinance and should not wait; expressed support\nfor Council working with City staff and allowing for public input.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she does not want to fold the matter in with the Housing\nElement process due to the need to address the housing shortage sooner rather than later;\nCouncil has provided many good suggestions for staff to return with an revised ordinance;\nexpressed support for a cap on unit size, which provides a better chance at affordable by design\nunits and more housing opportunities; stated a dispersion requirement makes sense; design can\nmaximize small square footage; she would vote for a unit size limit; expressed support for\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJanuary 4, 2022\n19", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-01-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-01-04", "page": 20, "text": "scheduling a check-in at six months after the ordinance goes into effect so staff can report how\nthe ordinance is unfolding and how many applications have been received; stated Council can\nmake changes when needed; she favors a phased approach; Council can keep an eye on the\nHousing Element and meeting RHNA goals; discussed moderate affordable units being 80% to\n120% of the area median income; stated some people miss the cutoff and struggle with\nhousing; this provides more opportunities.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would like to know how soon the matter can\nreturn to Council with the incorporated direction.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded that he is hearing strong general\nconsensus for limiting unit sizes somewhere between 800 and 1,200 square feet in size; stated\nthe dispersion idea is great for shutting down loopholes and guaranteeing a maximum of five\nunits; staff will have to work through the question of whether Council will want to use the lot split\nas an incentive to gain homeownership; a lot split can increase the number of units to six or\nseven and should be considered; staff can return with a solid plan by the second meeting in\nFebruary; currently, there is not a single application; if an application comes in before the matter\nreturns, the information will be helpful; expressed support for returning to Council six months\nafter an ordinance is passed for a report back on how the process is working.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether there are any legal issues with posting draft ideas to\nthe City's website for public comment.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded in the negative; stated staff can\nplace the information on the City website before the meeting materials are published; the\nprocess can stretch out a couple months depending on how much public input is desired;\nsuggested setting a deadline.\nCouncilmember Know White stated the Planning Board is the process of getting public input on\nplanning projects; the matter should be sent to the Planning Board if Council wants public input;\nexpressed concern about a false Planning Board process to collect input using staff time; stated\nCouncil will either need to provide staff with six months or have the matter return in February.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with Councilmember Knox White; stated Council is making\nsubstantive changes to the ordinance which does not qualify as a first reading; Council is\nproviding direction to staff and proposing matters which arose via public comment and\ncorrespondence; the public has had a good change to weigh in; staff can work through Council\ndirection.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the matter would be returning to Council\nFebruary 15th\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded in the affirmative; inquired\nwhether the matter is being continued to February 15th or whether the matter will be re-noticed.\nThe City Clerk responded the matter must be re-noticed.\n(22-025) Public Hearing to Consider the following Ordinances to Govern the Future\nDevelopment of the Encinal Terminals Property:\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJanuary 4, 2022\n20", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-01-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-01-04", "page": 21, "text": "Councilmember Knox White moved approval of rejecting the referral; stated Council provided\ndirection in March prior to the referral being placed on the agenda; there has been a hearing\nand direction has been provided to staff.\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated that he believes the matter is being brought\nforth with the intention of representing constituents; the issues being raised are valid;\nCouncilmembers would like to know when key items will be resolved; expressed support for the\nreferral.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she was not on Council in March when the matter\ncame forth; she has been consistent in wanting to hear from the Police Chief.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated that he supported Councilmember Herrera Spencer's motion\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJanuary 4, 2022\n21", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-01-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-01-04", "page": 22, "text": "in March of 2021 to place the matter on the agenda; on the first meeting in June, Council\nreceived a staff report; the matter is returning in March of 2022; expressed concern over re-\nagendizing matters.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that her issue continues to be the same; she would like\nthe matter to come back to Council as soon as possible; inquired the date the matter will come\nbefore Council.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated Councilmember Herrera Spencer is not asking for much;\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer is asking for a formal update to allow a commitment to a\ntimeline; expressed support for extending courtesy.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council addressed the ALPR matter at a recent meeting; Council\nrequested additional information and clarification; staff is working on the matter and will return to\nCouncil; the referral reads to provide an update on ALPRs; an update has been received; the\nreferral has been answered; some issues can be resolved by meeting with the City Manager;\nquestioned the goal of the referral.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated a response to when the matter will return to Council\nhas not been provided; the matter has remained open-ended, which is the reason the referral\nhas remained on the agenda.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated in December, Council provided direction to staff to have the\nmatter return as fast as possible.\nThe City Manager stated the intent is to return the first meeting in February; staff is working to\nmeet Council requirements; certain requirements may cause the matter to push to the second\nmeeting in February; however, the goal is to have staff bring for the matter at the first meeting in\nFebruary.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether further Council direction is needed for the ALPR matter to\nreturn to Council, to which the City Manager responded in the negative.\nOn the call for the question, the motion failed by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers\nDaysog: No; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft:\nAbstain. Ayes: 2. Noes: 2. Abstention: 1.\n(22-028) Consider Directing Staff to Publicly Share Information on Parking Recreational\nVehicles (RV). (Councilmember Herrera Spencer)\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated Council should have staff flesh out the matter and return with\nanalysis and policy issues for Council discussion.\nCouncilmember Daysog moved approval of the referral.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the matter is valid item to consider; however,\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJanuary 4, 2022\n22", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-01-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-01-04", "page": 23, "text": "consideration should not be through the referral process; Council is close to scheduling a\nCouncil priority setting workshop; priority setting workshops provide Council the ability to\nprioritize matters; expressed concern about addressing matters piecemeal; stated staff is\nworking on many projects; inquired whether a date for the workshop has been set.\nThe City Manager responded the date will either be February 1st, 4th, or 5th; everyone has\nresponded to the poll.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the Council referral is an example of a Councilmember\nresponding to an issue raised by a constituent; the issue was raised in May; planning meetings\nare not meant to stifle how Councilmembers respond to constituents; Councilmembers must do\ntheir best; Councilmembers not in support of the referral can vote accordingly.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with Councilmember Daysog about responding to constituents;\nstated there are other ways to get information and provide a response.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she has communicated with staff multiple times on\nthe matter; there is inconsistency in how the policy is applied; there is a question whether\npeople can park RV in front of houses; some people receive a ticket and others do not; the\nreferral process is about responding to the public; expressed concern about using the priority\nsetting meeting as a way to never use the Council referral process and for squashing\nCouncilmembers' ability to raise issues; stated there is no way for Council to know all matters of\nconcern that might arise in future; expressed support for priority setting on high level goals;\nhowever, some matters have nuance and require the Council referral process.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted the priority setting workshop has categories of topics and does not\nrequire anticipating all future matters.\nIn response to Councilmember Knox White's request to clarify the motion, Councilmember\nDaysog stated the motion is to approve directing staff to publically share information on RV\nparking to clarify the policy for Council and the public.\nCouncilmember Knox White inquired whether Council is voting to have information return, to\nwhich Councilmember Daysog responded in the affirmative; stated Council needs staff to return\nfor Council policy discussion.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated a policy exists.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the policy does not exist; the point of the referral is that there are\nconflicts in how departments respond to RV parking; the matter will be taken to staff to resolve\nconflicts and return to Council with a policy discussion.\nVice Mayor Vella stated Councilmembers have the ability to ask staff questions on policy\ndiscrepancies and respond to constituents; all Councilmembers have done constituent case\nwork; the referral seems to extrapolate an anecdotal issue into a wholesale policy change; it\nseems as though an inquiry was made; Councilmembers owe constituents representation as\nwell as performing the job of an elected official; expressed concern about Councilmembers\nescalating referrals which may or may not be able to be answered by an email and spending\nlimited time at Council meetings discussing a matter with a simpler solution; stated that she is\nunsure whether there is an issue with the policy; policies are typically written to allow a level of\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJanuary 4, 2022\n23", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-01-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-01-04", "page": 24, "text": "discretion for situations to be addressed accordingly; she will not support having staff return.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there is a desired time frame for the matter to return to\nCouncil.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer responded that she has asked staff to figure out the matter;\nnoted some RVs are ticketed and some are not; expressed support for staff verifying the policy\nfor the public when convenient; stated that she would like the matter to be enforced consistently\nthrough the City.\nOn the call for the question, the motion failed by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers\nDaysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: No; Vella: No; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: No.\nAyes: 2. Noes: 3.\n(22-029) Consider Directing Staff to Address Representation for Below Market Rate\nHomeowners on Homeowner Association (HOA) Boards and with Property Management.\n(Councilmember Herrera Spencer)\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated all Councilmembers received an email for the matter; he\nfollowed up with staff; the person is not an HOA member; the loophole used has been closed\nand the matter has been addressed; the issue of concern was not related to the HOA; the\nperson was connected with proper City staff; the requestor originally thought the HOA maintains\nthe green space; he will not support the referral.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated the matter should be looked at in the long-term to\nensure people who buy affordable units are included in the HOA.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated the matter is in-progress.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the information satisfies Councilmember Herrera\nSpencer.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer responded in the negative; stated the matter should be\nincluded in City policies.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the broader policy is spot-on; if there are projects where the City\nis implicated with a subsequent HOA, a City policy should require the HOA voting process\ninclude all residents.\nCouncilmember Daysog moved approval of the referral.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer seconded the motion, which failed by the following roll call\nvote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: No; Vella: No; and\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft: No. Ayes: 2. Noes: 3.\n(22-030) Consider Directing Staff to Support Removal of the US Navy Constraints Limiting\nHousing Development at Alameda Point. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer and Councilmember\nDaysog). Not heard.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJanuary 4, 2022\n24", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-01-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-01-04", "page": 25, "text": "(22-031) Consider Directing Staff to Address Identifying New Areas at Alameda Point to\nDevelop a Number of Housing Units Above the Originally-Agreed Upon Numbers of the 2023-\n2031 Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). (Councilmember Daysog). Not heard.\n(22-032) Consider Directing Staff to Move Jean Sweeney Park Fencing. (Councilmembers\nHerrera Spencer and Daysog). Not heard.\n(22-033) Consider Reviewing and Updating the Previous City Council's Priorities at a Regular\nCity Council Meeting. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer). Not heard.\n(22-034) Consider Having the City Council Address the Zoning of the Harbor Bay Club.\n(Councilmember Herrera Spencer). Not heard.\n(22-035) Consider Having the City Council Review Recreation and Parks Department\nCommunity Events. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer). Not heard.\n(22-036) Consider Directing Staff to Immediately Agendize an Urgency Hearing on Senate Bill\n(SB) 9. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer). Not heard.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\nNot heard.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 11:59 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJanuary 4, 2022\n25", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-01-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-01-04", "page": 26, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY--JANUARY 4, 2022- 5:45 P.M.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 5:47 p.m.\nRoll Call -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Knox White, Vella\nand Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note: Councilmember Herrera\nSpencer arrived at 5:59 p.m. and Vice Mayor Vella arrived at 6:04\np.m. The meeting was held via Zoom.]\nAbsent:\nNone.\nConsent Calendar\n(22-001) Recommendation to approve Eric Levitt, City Manager, Lisa Maxwell, Community\nDevelopment Director, Elizabeth Mackenzie, Chief Assistant City Attorney, and Nanette\nMocanu, Assistant Community Development Director, as Real Property Negotiators for Building\n163, Located at 1800 Orion Street, Suite 100 and Building 414, Located at 1820 Orion Street,\nAlameda, CA. Not heard.\nThe meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(22-002) Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Pursuant to Government Code 54956.8);\nProperty: Alameda Point, Alameda, CA; City Negotiators: Eric Levitt, City Manager, Lisa\nMaxwell, Community Development Director, Elizabeth Mackenzie, Chief Assistant City Attorney,\nand Nanette Mocanu, Assistant Community Development Director; Negotiating Parties: City of\nAlameda and Sustainable Technologies, 1800 Orion Street, Suite 101 (Building 163) and 1820\nOrion Street Alameda Point (Building 414). Not heard.\n(22-003) Conference with Labor Negotiators (Government Code Section 54957.6); City\nNegotiators: Eric Levitt, City Manager, Gerry Beaudin, Assistant City Manager, and Nancy\nBronstein, Human Resources Director; Employee Organization: Alameda Police Officers\nAssociation (APOA), Alameda Police Managers Association (APMA), and Alameda Fire\nManagers Association (AFMA); Under Negotiation: Salaries, Employee Benefits and Terms of\nEmployment.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and the City Clerk announced that\nstaff provided information and Council provided direction, by the following two roll call votes:\nVote 1: Councilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 3. Noes: 2; Vote 2: Councilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera\nSpencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 6:45 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJanuary 4, 2022", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-01-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-01-04", "page": 27, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND\nSUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE\nCOMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (SACIC)\nTUESDAY- - -JANUARY 4, 2022--6:59 P.M.\nMayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:01 p.m. Councilmember/Commissioner\nDaysog led the Pledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers/Commissioners Daysog, Knox White,\nSpencer and Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft - 4. [Note: The\nmeeting was held via Zoom.]\nAbsent:\nVice Mayor/Commissioner Vella - 1.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nThe City Clerk announced anyone wishing to comment on the Public Hearing [paragraph no.\n*22-005 CC/22-02 SACIC] could comment at this time. There were no speakers.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Knox White moved approval of the Consent Calendar.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll\ncall vote: Councilmembers/Commissioners Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Spencer: Aye; and\nMayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. [Absent: Vice Mayor/Commissioner Vella - 1.] [Items\nso enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]\n(*22-004 CC/22-01 SACIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and SACIC Meetings Held\non November 16, 2021 and December 7, 2021. Approved.\n(*22-005 CC/22-02 SACIC) Public Hearing to Consider City of Alameda Resolution No.\n15855/SACIC Resolution No. 22-14 \"Approving the Development List of Affordable Housing\nProjects and Funding Request for Such Projects as Requested by the Alameda Unified School\nDistrict.\" Adopted; and\n(*22-005A CC/22-02A SACIC) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Submit the\nRecognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS) and Administrative Budget for the Period\nfrom July 1, 2022 to June 30, 2023 to the Countywide Oversight Board. Accepted.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 7:07 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\n1\nJanuary 4, 2022", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-01-04.pdf"}