{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-01-18", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY--JANUARY 18, 2022--7:00 P.M.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:02 p.m. Councilmember Daysog led the Pledge\nof Allegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Knox White,\nVella, and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note: Vice Mayor\nVela arrived at 7:14 p.m. The meeting was conducted via\nZoom]\nAbsent:\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\n(22-043) Councilmember Daysog moved approval of hearing first two referrals [paragraph nos.\n22-058 and 22-059 after the Consent Calendar.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer seconded the motion, which failed by the following roll call\nvote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Ayes; Knox White: No; and Mayor Ezzy\nAshcraft: No. Ayes: 2. Noes: 2. [Absent: Vice Mayor Vella - 1.]\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(22-044) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft announced that the Omicron variant of COVI-19 is making its way\nthrough the community; urged residents to strictly perform all precautionary measures; stated\npeople should wear an N-95, KN-95, triple-layer, or cloth mask over a surgical facemask\nwhenever outside or in public spaces; urged social distancing, hand washing and vaccination;\nannounced a vaccine booster clinic at Mastic Senior Center.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(22-045) Josh Altieri, Housing Authority, provided a monthly update on Housing Authority\nactivities.\n(22-046) Darren Byrne, Alameda, discussed the destruction and reinvigoration of Lincoln Park\nplayground and park; urged expanding on the possible.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nCouncilmember Daysog requested the SEED Collaborative agreement [paragraph no. 22-049\nbe removed from the Consent Calendar.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer requested the RiverRock agreement [paragraph no. 22-050]\nand playground replacement project resolution [paragraph no. 22-051 be removed from the\nConsent Calendar.\nCouncilmember Knox White moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJanuary 18, 2022\n1", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-01-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-01-18", "page": 2, "text": "vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Ayes; Knox White: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy\nAshcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. [Absent: Vice Mayor Vella - 1.] [Items so enacted or adopted are\nindicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]\n(*22-047) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings Held on December 21,\n2021. Approved.\n(*22-048) Ratified bills in the amount of $1,915,834.26.\n(22-049) 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.\nThe Assistant City Manager, Paul Hudson and Tara Taylor, SEED Collaborative, gave a brief\npresentation.\nCouncilmember Daysog expressed support for the efforts; stated that he pulled the matter to\nintroduce the project and encourage SEED Collaborative to include background reports on\nbroader demographic and health trends within the City of Alameda; he would like SEED\nCollaborative to provide analytic context to data; Alameda's African American population is\nrelatively low compared to many other East Bay cities; stated if health related data is included,\ndata about different demographics experiencing disparate kinds of health outcomes should be\nexplained and not automatically attributed to racism; expressed support for a range of\nperspectives for underlying issues; stated issues related to racism and prejudice should be\ncalled out as seen; expressed concern about Alameda being considered behind the times;\nstated that he has seen the City grow tremendously in relation to representation and diversity on\nCouncil; discussed prior instances of offensive language being used by City staff; stated that he\nis looking at SEED Collaborative to provide context; discussed the demographics of the East\nEnd of Alameda versus the West End; stated that he would like to look at the data\ncomparatively, as well as understanding the context; noted issues might be more complex.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she has concerns about spending $275,000;\ninquired whether the funding comes from the General Fund, to which the Human Resources\nDirector responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer expressed concern about the five-year fiscal forecast.\nThe City Manager stated the last five-year budget forecast shows issues in the future mainly\ndue to increases in pension obligations; a positive surplus occurred in the past year; due to\nconservative budgeting, staff is expecting a positive surplus for this year as well; the City has\nfunds for the project if Council wants to move forward.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether staff will be requesting additional taxes.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed concern about a discussion related to taxes; inquired whether\nthe discussion is allowable at the current time.\nThe City Attorney responded certainly, the Council would not want to discuss tax measures;\nhowever, the inquiry from Councilmember Herrera Spencer can be answered by the City\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJanuary 18, 2022\n2", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-01-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-01-18", "page": 3, "text": "Manager in the affirmative or negative; the matter can be left at the simple answer without\nfurther discussion.\nThe City Manager stated staff does not have any proposals at this time; however, polling is\nbeing conducted.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated a committee has provided comments and\nrecommendations on spending funds, including daycare and possibly increasing Council pay;\nexpressed concern about spending $275,000 on a consultant; stated that she would rather have\nthe subcommittee recommendations put into action.\nCouncilmember Knox White expressed concern about the suggesting that the City is more racist\nthan other places; Alameda is a City of its time which matches other cities of the time that have\nsignificant, ongoing racial issues; he hopes that a vote on the matter does not give credence to\nthe idea that the City will require data to prove that racism exists; 400 years of systemic issues\naround racism have impacts that show up in all data; expressed support for bringing forth the\nbest proposal as possible to deal with the very large and difficult issues in order to have the\ndesired discussion; expressed support for the matter.\nVice Mayor Vella stated the work is detailed and important; experts are needed to help lead the\nway; the City will have a consultant which is able to perform nuanced discussions; someone\nfrom the outside coming in will help the organization transform, meet the needs of the\ncommunity and be as inclusive as possible; expressed support for the matter.\nCouncilmember Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which 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(22-050) Recommendation to Approve Property Management Agreement with RiverRock Real\nEstate Group for an Additional Three (3) Years Not to Exceed $1,209,374.19 and\n(22-050A) Resolution No. 15858, \"Amending the Base Reuse Budget to Increase Expenditure\nAppropriations by $100,000 to Establish a Liability Reserve Account for Third-Party Claims.\"\nAdopted.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director gave a brief presentation.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification about the added liability of the City.\nThe City Attorney stated staff understands it is difficult to continue to maintain the previously\nrequired level of indemnity while continuing to attract the right kind of property managers; staff\nhas worked to set up a liability fund; the fund estimates how much liability the City is taking on;\nat the moment, it is difficult to tell whether or not the amount is correct; staff will have a better\nidea in one to two years and will return to Council with a more accurate amount and any\nconcerns.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated there are no numbers attached to the report; inquired\nwhether an attachment can be provided with numbers for the alleged expenses.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJanuary 18, 2022\n3", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-01-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-01-18", "page": 4, "text": "The Assistant Community Development Director responded the attached property management\nagreement includes two to three years of budgets as an exhibit; stated the amounts are broken\ndown by line items.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer requested clarification about the City's liability.\nThe City Attorney stated the current agreement requires the property manager to assume all\nliability for operations; the agreement completely transfers responsibilities; if the City receives a\nclaim currently, the City submits it to the property manager ; under the new regime, the property\nmanager would only be liable for negligence, recklessness and intentionally wrongful acts; if\nmatters do not fall under the new categories, the City will be on the hook instead of the property\nmanager; staff is recommending the new account to pay for instances where the City might\nhave to undertake additional liability.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired how the City is overseeing the limit of exposure.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director responded the existing contract has the\nproperty manager on the hook for things that may have happened under the Navy's purview;\nstated claims would be tended to the property manager even if something happened from\npreexisting Navy conditions; property management has taken an inventory of property\nconditions; the City has been working on mitigating conditions and liabilities.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she does not see the budgets break down on a\nper-unit basis; the exhibits show dashes through certain line items.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director stated that she can provide detailed and\nspecific costs related to the property management budget, if desired.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated janitorial costs for the 2021-22 budget do not show\nwhat was incurred for the first three years; she is trying to figure out any increases over time;\ninquired whether the City reimburses the property manager for expenses above the cost of the\ncontract.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director responded in the negative; stated information\nis shown for the 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021 budgets; discussed the summary and changes to\nsecurity and life safety from 2018 and 2021; stated explanations for the variances are included.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated the janitorial costs are shown with dashes instead of\namounts.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director stated the amount is under security, life safety,\ncleaning and janitorial.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated the amounts are not filled in for the prior years.\nThe City Manager stated the costs are in the contract; only certain costs go over and above the\ncontract budget.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director stated the $1,209,374.19 amount is the cost\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJanuary 18, 2022\n4", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-01-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-01-18", "page": 5, "text": "that goes directly to the property manager for operations; other line items shown in the budget,\nsuch as the security, life safety, cleaning and janitorial are not included in the $1,209,374.19\namount; the same occurs with the repairs, maintenance, and Heating, Ventilation and Air\nConditioning (HVAC) costs; the total operating expenses cost $3,700,000 and include\nmanagement, landscaping, utilities, and other items; Council is currently considering costs that\ngo directly to the property manager for operations.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she is trying to find the breakdown for the\n$1,209,374.19 amount.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director stated the $1,209,374.19 includes $840,000 for\nadministration in 2020-21; the administration cost for 2021-22 is $850,000.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired what the $850,000 is spent on; stated that she would\nlike a breakdown.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director stated the costs includes salaries and benefits,\ngeneral office supplies, equipment costs, telephone, internet, janitorial supplies and services,\nsupplies, services, shared buildings electricity, marketing, tenant support, memberships,\nprofessional associations, Alameda Chamber of Commerce, business licenses, postage,\ncomputers, and wayfinding sign maintenance; the management fee is now $216,000; for the\npast five years, the management fee remained at $165,000 with no increase; the new\nagreement includes 3% annual increases; the final charge to the $1,209,374.19 is for general\nbuilding services which includes the property management's estimate of cleanup costs for trash\nand dumping.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would like a specific breakdown provided for\nthe $1,209,374.19; expressed support for receiving a breakdown of salaries and benefits per\nproperty management employee; stated that she is trying to figure out whether the program\nshould be housed within the City under the Community Development Department as opposed to\nhiring property management, especially due to the increase in liability.\nThe Assistant Community Development Director stated that she does not have the information\ncurrently available; prior to 2000, leasing and property management was performed internally;\nCouncil decided a property manager would be faster, easier and more efficient privatizing\nsignificantly reduced costs; at the time, port management services were $750,000 per year;\nprivatizing reduced costs by more than half.\nCouncilmember Knox White moved approval of the staff recommendation [including adoption of\nthe resolution] with direction to staff to provide information to Councilmember Herrera Spencer\non detailed budget items.\nVice Mayor seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the contract with RiverRock is\nseparate from the PacWest Security contract, to which the Assistant Community Development\nDirector responded PacWest Security is a subcontractor of RiverRock; a Request for Proposals\n(RFP) process will likely occur soon.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired how soon the RFP for security will occur.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJanuary 18, 2022\n5", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-01-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-01-18", "page": 6, "text": "The Assistant Community Development Director responded one service is ahead of PacWest;\nstated the RFPs could be simultaneous; once the property management agreement is in place,\nthere will be RFPs for many of the subcontractors; the indemnity clause needed to be modified\nprior to issuing RFPs.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether the RFP will occur within the year, to which the\nAssistant Community Development Director responded in the affirmative; stated the process will\nlikely occur in the spring.\nVice Mayor Vella stated helpful information has been shared with Council relative to breaking\ndown details; the administrative costs include 5.5 full time employees; there are a number of\nresidents and tenants at Alameda Point; many people would like to ensure the City has\nresponsive services; the RFPs will help address responsiveness and customer service; Council\nis discussing general and building services, which cost roughly $135,000 for picking up trash\nand dumped items throughout the property; the management fee has been stagnant for five\nyears; the current contract allows for a slight annual increase to deal with inflation; the bulk of\nthe costs include administration, which is important to ensure the City has property managers\nthat will be responsive and provide the level of customer service desired; expressed support for\nthe contract.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is also supportive of the contract; she expects RiverRock\noversight of all subcontractors and inspection schedules to be met for all City properties,\nresidential and commercial; expressed concern about deferred maintenance; stated that she\nunderstands challenging situations related to refusing admittance for inspection.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she is looking forward to staff's more specific\ndetails and dollar amounts; the report does not show dollar amounts for salaries; she would like\nthe dollar amounts for salaries and benefits in order to see whether or not the amounts are\ncompetitive; she questions whether or not it makes sense to continue hiring outside firms when\nthe City is taking on liability.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he would like to ensure that whoever provides security\npatrol services does a top notch job; concerns have been raised by citizens; he is looking\nforward to the RFP process for security services.\nVice Mayor Vella stated that she is concerned about holding the matter up; Council has been\nprovided with more detailed information; the amount listed for 5.5 full time employees includes a\nnumber of general costs; stated $850,000 can be divided by 5.5 yielding $154,000 per person;\nhowever, the yield does not include the other general expenses; the rough estimate provides\nenough information; the matter should not be held up.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the motion includes approving the property management agreement\nand simultaneously have staff answer any further outstanding inquiries from Councilmember\nHerrera Spencer; questioned whether the motion includes a delay.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated the motion is to approve the agreement [including adoption\nof related resolution] and to work with Councilmember Herrera Spencer on answers to her\nquestions; staff does not have to come back to Council.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJanuary 18, 2022\n6", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-01-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-01-18", "page": 7, "text": "Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would like the additional information provided\nto the public as well; the information can be attached to the agenda item.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the request was not part of the original motion; staff can work on the\ninformation.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers\nDaysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft:\nAye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.\n(22-051) Resolution No. 15859, \"Amending the Fiscal Year 2021 22 and Fiscal Year 2022-23\nCapital Budgets for the Playground Replacement Project (C5200) by Increasing Expenditure\nAllocation by $250,000 for Fiscal Year 2021-22 and Decreasing Expenditure Allocation by\n$250,000 for Fiscal Year 2022-23.\" Adopted.\nCouncilmember Knox White recused himself and left the meeting.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she appreciates the staff report; the matter is\nimportant.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer moved adoption of the resolution.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft:\nAye. Ayes: 4. [Absent: Councilmember Knox White - 1.]\n(*22-052) Resolution No. 15860, \"Approving Application to the Land and Water Conservation\nFund for Estuary Park Phase 2 Project, which Authorizes the City Manager to Submit a Grant\nApplication to the Land and Water Conservation Fund to Construct the Final Phase of Estuary\nPark and for His Designee to Execute All Necessary Documents.\" Adopted.\nCONTINUED AGENDA ITEMS\nNone.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(22-053) Public Hearing to Consider the following Ordinances to Govern the Future\nDevelopment of the Encinal Terminals Property:\n(22-053 A) Introduction of Ordinance Approving a Disposition and Development Agreement for\nthe Encinal Terminals Project By and Between the City of Alameda and North Waterfront Cove,\nLLC (\"Developer\") Governing the Encinal Terminals Project for Real Property Located at 1521\nBuena Vista Avenue and Approving and Authorizing the Assistant City Manager, or Designee,\nto Execute a Land Exchange and Title Settlement Agreement for the Encinal Terminals Project\nBy and Among the State of California Acting By and Through the State Lands Commission, the\nCity and Developer Substantially in the Form Attached Hereto. Introduced; and\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJanuary 18, 2022\n7", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-01-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-01-18", "page": 8, "text": "(22-053 B) Introduction of Ordinance Approving the Amended Encinal Terminals Tidelands\nExchange Master Plan and Density Bonus Application for Redevelopment of Real Property\nLocated at 1521 Buena Vista Avenue (APN 072-0382-001, 072-0382-002, 072-0383-003 and\n072-0382-009). Introduced; and\n(22-053 C) Introduction of Ordinance Approving Development Agreement (Encinal Terminals\nProject) By and Between the City of Alameda and North Waterfront Cove, LLC Governing the\nEncinal Terminals Project for Real Property Located at 1521 Buena Vista Avenue. Continued to\nJanuary 18, 2022. Introduced.\nThe City Manager recused himself and left the meeting.\n***\n(22-054) Vice Mayor Vella moved approval of allowing the Applicant to speak for 5 minutes.\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.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director gave a Power Point presentation.\nMike O'Hara, Applicant, gave a Power Point presentation.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired the breakdown for the 589 units.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded the Master Plan requires that\n50% of the units be mapped for sale; stated the units will be individually available for sale.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether any of the 80 affordable units will be for sale.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded the affordable housing\nagreement is not done yet; stated most similar projects in Alameda have the very low and low\nunits for rent; the moderate units are sprinkled throughout as part of the for sale units; how the\nfinal 80 affordable units will be distributed between rental and for sale has not yet been finalized;\nthe 10 workforce units will be for sale.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired the proposal breakdown for the remaining 500 units.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded 50% of the 589 units will be for\nsale; stated it will be safe to assume that the 50 very low and low income units will be for rent;\nstaff cannot assume more than the current breakdown provided.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer requested clarification on the townhomes.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated townhomes will likely be for sale;\nstated townhomes are capped at 200 units.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether any of the rentals will not have rent control.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJanuary 18, 2022\n8", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-01-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-01-18", "page": 9, "text": "The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded in the affirmative; stated that is\ntrue for all new units.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the rent control requirement falls under Costa Hawkins,\nto which the Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated if the project is not approved, 589 units will be distributed\nthroughout residential areas; inquired whether the 589 units will go across the City; questioned\nhow the process plays out.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded if the entitlements are not\napproved, staff will need to increase the number of units which are going to be built in\nneighborhoods by 589; current projection is roughly 450 units; adding 589 units will change it to\nover 1,000 units; the challenge for staff is to have unit distribution equity across the City; these\n589 units would be in central Alameda; approximately 200 more units would be in each of: east\nAlameda, Park Street and central Alameda; the unit distribution is needed for the Housing\nElement State certification; staff will not be able to place the 589 units in west Alameda, the\nunits must be distributed in central and east Alameda.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted the current project requires for affirmative votes; inquired how many\nvotes are needed for the alternative of placing the 589 units elsewhere.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded the alternative consists of zoning\nrequirements, which only need three affirmative Council votes.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether there is a Project Labor Agreement (PLA) for\nthe project.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded in the affirmative; stated Council\npolicy requires any City controlled lands to have a PLA; the executed PLA is required before\nany construction occurs.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether an executed PLA is currently in place, to\nwhich the Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded in the negative.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether the 589 units being placed in other areas of Alameda\nthrough zoning amendments is currently up for Council discussion; questioned whether the topic\nlends to a Brown Act issue.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded the staff report discusses the\nimplications of not approving the project; stated Council should not be discussing how to up-\nzone neighborhoods if the project is not approved; the implication and consequence of not\napproving the project is the distribution of 598 units through other residential areas of Alameda.\nCouncilmember Daysog expressed concern about being speculative; stated the final vote is not\nknown.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated there is reference to the units in the staff report related to the City's\nRegional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) number and how the units help satisfy the\nobligation.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJanuary 18, 2022\n9", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-01-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-01-18", "page": 10, "text": "The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated the implication is not speculative; staff\nis in regular communications with the Department of Housing and Community Development\n(HCD) that must approve the City's Housing Element; staff has held discussions with the State\nabout what would happen in certain situations; staff feels confident about the consequences.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether there have been appraisals for the project\nparcels.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded there is an appraisal for the\noverall site once developed; the appraisals are done for the State Lands Commission (SLC); the\nSLC is looking for the value of the entire development, once developed; the SLC requires the\nvalue of the land being received be equal in value to what is being traded; in the current\ninstance, there is equal value per acre; the State is receiving 7.2 acres; the land is not City-\nowned, the land is State land; the SLC feels the State is receiving more than it is giving from a\nvalue perspective; an appraisal has not been conducted for the value of the 6.4 acres versus\nthe value of the Tim Lewis Communities property.\nBill White, Shute, Mihaly, Weinberger LLP, stated an appraisal has been done for the entire site;\nthe purpose of the appraisal is to calculate the value of the lands that are coming into the Trust\nand lands coming out of the Trust; due to the project being a Master Plan development project,\nthe only real way to perform an appraisal is to value the entire site as a whole; the appraisal\ngets the highest and best use to figure out the maximum economic value of the property.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether there is an assumption that each acre holds\nthe same value.\nMr. White responded in the affirmative; stated the assumption is made for Master Plan\ndevelopment projects; there have been a number of large Trust exchanges with Master Plan\nprojects; there is no other viable way to perform the appraisal; if the process is not be followed,\nthere is risk of drastically under-valuing the lands coming to the City; it is difficult to value open\nspace by itself; the value of the open space is the value that it contributes to the Master Plan\nproject; the Master Plan project would not be possible without the open space amenity; the\nvalue is considered unitary.\nIn response to Councilmember Herrera Spencer's inquiry, the Planning, Building and\nTransportation Director stated the way the deal is structured, the costs to maintain the\nparklands, or State-owned lands, developed by the developer, will be covered through an\nannual assessment district; the property owners will pay into the assessment district; there\nwould be no cost to the City to pay for maintenance; the practice is standard and was previously\ndone for the Marina Shores Park.\nStated that she is disappointed that the water park elements of the original plan have been\neliminated; expressed support for the Tidelands Exchange; stated the area has been land-\nlocked for years and development will allow public access to the water: Karen Miller, Alameda.\nExpressed support for the Encinal Terminal project; urged Council approve the project; stated\nthe number one concern for local businesses is local, affordable housing for employees; many\naspiring Alameda businesses question whether there is local affordable housing for staff;\ndiscussed the site's public access and housing; stated the project will reduce the need to up-\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJanuary 18, 2022\n10", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-01-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-01-18", "page": 11, "text": "zone residential areas: Madlen Saddik, Alameda Chamber of Commerce.\nStated that she is in favor of the Encinal Terminal project; stated only two of her 14 employees\nlive in Alameda due to the lack of affordable housing; the project offers much needed affordable\nand middle housing and will help meet RHNA numbers; expressed support for the public access\nto the waterfront; urged Council to move forward with the project: Kelly Lux, Alameda Chamber\nof Commerce.\nExpressed support for the Encinal Terminals project; stated that she supports public access to\nthe waterfront; the current conditions are dangerous and the project is a wonderful use of the\nspace: Michelle Morgan, Alameda.\nExpressed support for the land exchange and development of the Encinal Terminals site; stated\nthe site is key for residential development, which will further Alameda's ability to meet the RHNA\nobligation; the City will receive a useful waterfront; the site is ideal for waterfront residential\ndevelopment and a public shoreline; expressed support for a water shuttle landing; urged the\nproject showcase waterfront design; urged Council to approve the land exchange and\ndevelopment proposal: Betsy Mathieson, Alameda.\nExpressed support for the project; urged Council approve the Tidelands exchange; discussed\nthe consequences of not approving the project; stated the City is coming out ahead in the\nexchange; he supports the kayak launch and public trust idea; he would like to see the\ndeveloper increase the density by replacing the townhomes with mid-rise buildings; expressed\nconcern about parking: Zac Bowling, Alameda.\nQuestioned whether the planning for the project has taken into account other potential units\nbeing built in Marina Village of it the project is being considered in a vacuum; stated the project\nhas the potential to transform the area; the project gives the City a good chance at meeting the\nRHNA obligation; expressed support for the project; urged Council approval: Bill Pai,\nCommunity of Harbor Bay Isle.\nExpressed support for the project; stated that he applauds the emphasis on the RHNA\nobligation, Housing Element and ramifications of non-approval; discussed his experience with\nthe RHNA obligation process; stated HCD has changed its stance on non-compliance with\nRHNA; HCD has already taken action against cities for non-compliance and will likely impose\nfees; urged Council take the project and run with it: Matt Regan, Bay Area Council.\nExpressed support for the project; stated there is no real reason to reject the project; discussed\nthe shape and value of the project site; expressed concern about not supporting the project;\nstated the vote for the project should be unanimous; the City is not losing anything of value; the\nproject provides benefits to many; he supports a water taxi for the site: Josh Geyer, Alameda.\nStated the project offers workers career pathways, apprenticeship opportunities and healthcare\nbenefits; an agreement has been made; he supports the partnership; the project is well thought-\nout and will play a vital role in the City; it is important to support the land exchange and title\nsettlement agreement; the project will directly improve the lives of hundreds: Vince Sugrue,\nSheet Metal Workers Local Union 104.\nStated approval of the project is important to Alameda historic preservation; the project will\nprovide 589 housing units which can be applied towards RHNA; if the project is not approved,\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJanuary 18, 2022\n11", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-01-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-01-18", "page": 12, "text": "other sites will need to absorb the 589 units; expressed concern about promoting architecturally\nintrusive new development in historic areas; stated significant issues still need to be worked out;\nurged Council to approve the project; stated the remaining issues can be addressed through\nsubsequent actions with public hearings; expressed support for traditional waterfront design:\nChristopher Buckley, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society.\nUrged Council to vote in favor of the project; stated finding appropriate housing in Alameda can\nbe difficult; expressed support for introducing new housing to Alameda: Blithe Rocher, Alameda.\nExpressed support for the Master Plan as recommended by the Planning Board; stated that she\nwas disappointed in 2017 when the project was not approved; she hopes the outcome will be\ndifferent; the project is close to land and water transportation and has a park; the design does\nnot impinge; the 589 units will attempt to temper the exorbitant prices for the area and will help\nsatisfy the RHNA obligation; the intent is to stabilize the cost of housing: Laura Thomas,\n-\nRenewed Hope Housing Advocates.\nUrged Council vote to move forward with the project; stated the project is a key component\nin\nensuring a compliant Housing Element for the City; discussed walking along the Oakland side of\nthe estuary being an enjoyable experience; stated that he hopes a similar experience will occur\nfor the Alameda side of the water: Drew Dara-Abrams, Alameda.\nExpressed support for speakers being in favor of housing in Alameda; stated there is still a lot of\nwork to do; discussed the City's progress on policies for more housing in the City; stated he is\nnot taking a position on the Encinal Terminals project; the City must have greater investment in\naffordable housing and develop a regional plan to address rising groundwater; new financing\nmethods are needed to finance affordable housing and reduce speculative fevers that drive up\nhousing prices; affordable housing must also be built elsewhere: William Smith, Alameda.\nStated the developer will address sea level rise protections; the site is prime real estate and has\nbeen languishing; the possibility of the site being vibrant and accessible is exciting; urged\nCouncil to support any new, affordable housing that can be built on the Island; stated the\ndeveloper has shown commitment to the community of Alameda: Tina Blaine, Alameda.\n***\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft called a recess at 9:16 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:34 p.m.\n***\nCouncilmember Knox White moved approval of the staff recommendation [including introduction\nof the ordinances].\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated Councilmember Herrera Spencer posed\nquestions regarding homeownership numbers for first time home buyers; inquired whether\nnumbers have been discussed.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded in the affirmative; stated staff has\nhad months of discussion with the developer around various Council priorities; the Master Plan\nhas a 50% requirement for homeownership; staff also included workforce housing and recently\ndiscussed different ways of organizing homeownership; the developer feels 50% across the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJanuary 18, 2022\n12", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-01-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-01-18", "page": 13, "text": "board is the best approach; the developer is concerned about maintaining the financial viability\nof the project and has resisted getting more specific about fine tuning for the project's product\ntypes; the developer does not want to promise a project that is not viable.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she has been negotiating in good faith with the\ndeveloper and is saddened that the responsiveness is not at the desired level; she is not able to\nsupport the project at the current time; inquired whether the 50% units mapped would be for\nsale.\nThe City Attorney responded the developer has committed to creating subdivided units; stated\nthe units will be sellable; he has not been part of negotiations and cannot say whether the units\nwill be for sale on day one.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is confused about a Councilmember negotiating in good\nfaith; requested clarification about the role of Councilmember in negotiations.\nThe City Attorney stated a Councilmember has made specific requests, through staff, of\npreferred project details; staff has then been negotiating with the developer directly.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director concurred with the City Attorney; stated staff\nhas been communicating with the developer to determine whether or not the preferred project\ndetails are things that the developer could do; the developer believes that the current language\nincluded in the Plan is the best commitment that can be made; questioned how the City can\nrequire homeownership versus rentals; stated the City cannot prevent someone from renting\ntheir property; mapping 50% of the units would allow units to be designed and constructed to be\nsold, rather than rental units; there is not a requirement that the developer must sell individual\nunits to a separate parties; discussed condominium builds; stated many prior projects have units\nrented first, then sold when the market returns; the agreements do not prevent the developer\nfrom renting units first and selling later; expressed concern about units remaining vacant; staff\nhas not recommended having vacant units.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that there appears to be the possibility of a major investor\nbuying properties; inquired whether staff is envisioning major investors buying properties.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded in the negative; stated nothing\nprevents a buyer from renting a unit.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he is intrigued by the matters raised by Councilmember\nHerrera Spencer; he is glad to see that 7% of units will be dedicated to moderate income;\ninquired what Council can do to get some number of the moderate income units to be for sale;\ndiscussed low and moderate income homeownership.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the project must first be approved; if the project is not be approved,\nnothing will be built and the space will be remain blighted; if Council wishes to provide the\nopportunity, staff can work with the developer; no one can predict the market or economy; the\ngoal is laudable; however, she would hate to see the goal be used as a way to kill a project;\nthere are opportunities for homeownership and affordable housing; it is extremely important that\nthe project move forward; the City has seen an immense turnout of public comment and all are\nin favor of the project; the project can use some fine tuning.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJanuary 18, 2022\n13", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-01-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-01-18", "page": 14, "text": "Councilmember Daysog expressed support for delaying the project for one month to flesh out\ndetails; stated that he does not believe the total number of affordable units is being changed;\nhowever, some part of the total needs to be looked at once more; a reasonable number can be\nstruck for the moderate income units.\nCouncilmember Knox White inquired whether the Applicant is agreeable to a one month delay;\nstated it appears as though the discussion has already been occurring and the Applicant is not\nagreeable to a delay; delaying one month would only be for the sake of delay.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the question can be asked; she is willing to support Councilmember\nHerrera Spencer's request for more time to explore possibilities with the developer if Council\nwould be able to get four affirmative votes to move the project forward; expressed concern\nabout Councilmembers requesting many things to be added yet still vote against it; stated the\nproject will not address the blight, create public waterfront space, water transit opportunities or\n589 units toward the RHNA allocation if it does not move forward; if Council secures the four\naffirmative votes to move the project along, further discussion can occur; requested\nCouncilmember Knox White's inquiry be restated.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated there have been questions related to timing and the City's\nability to reach agreement on changing the mix of units; his understanding of the matter is that\ndiscussions have been occurring for weeks and feasibility has already been determined;\ninquired whether two to four more weeks of delay would be feasible.\nMr. O'Hara responded that he has been discussing numerous ways to address concerns; stated\nthat he has always expressed a willingness to discuss matters; threading the financial feasibility\nneedle is a challenge for the project; modifying the number of units does not allow the project to\nreact to the market; the project is long-term and will have many units over a long period of time;\nnoted markets change and what works for one component may not work in six months' time; the\naspect of the Master Plan allows the developer to react to the market and provide the types of\nunits which are needed; the discussions have been occurring and he urges any additional\ndiscussion to occur in short order; he does not see the benefit of a delay for either party; he is\nsupportive, if the delay is a means by which the project discussion will continue; he would\nentertain further discussions; however, the matter must remain within the lens of financial\nviability and the ability to properly react to the market.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired the meaning of proposing to map the property; stated\nthe last counter-proposal from the developer included mapping at least 50% of the market rate,\nnon-townhome units through the subdivision process to allow for homeownership as opposed to\napartment buildings; she is looking at the dispersion of the 50% of units; she is unsure how\nclose the matter is to a resolution.\nMr. O'Hara responded the proposal had been on the table; stated if the proposal allows the\nproject issue to be resolved, the developer is agreeable to an increase in the number of non-\ntownhome products and allow an increase in the number of units mapped for sale.\nVice Mayor Vella stated that she is concerned about the item being previously agendized and\nwithdrawn; there has been a lot of back and forth with an opportunity to ask the desired\nquestions; the matter has been on the agenda for the second time and a lot of work has been\nput in; if there is not support for the project to move forward, Council should know so that other\ndecisions can be made; urged Council to provide direction to staff to come back with an update\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJanuary 18, 2022\n14", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-01-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-01-18", "page": 15, "text": "on where Council can place the 589 units if the matter does not pass with four affirmative votes;\nstated that she is willing to have staff and the developer spend time looking over concerns only\nif there be four affirmative votes for the project to move forward; she is happy to amend or\nsecond an amended motion if there is need.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated that he is happy to amend the motion; however, he is unsure\nthat he understands the concept; questioned whether Council is conditionally approving the\nproject.\nVice Mayor Vella stated that she supports amending the motion; one Councilmember has stated\nthat he will not support the project and another Councilmember has expressed a willingness to\nsupport the Tidelands swap; she has heard the developer state that they are willing to explore\nthe different possibilities; some of the concerns raised have been matters which will be worked\nout in the Master Plan; the question is whether or not Council can work out the Tidelands swap\nat the current meeting with four affirmative votes and then work out the remaining details as part\nof the Master Plan development further down the road.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that it would be nice to approve the matter in its entirety; Council\nneeds to approve the Tidelands exchange and the Disposition and Development Agreement\n(DDA).\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated the Tidelands swap requires four affirmative votes and\nthe other matters do not; it is important to have the agreement ensure that four affirmative votes\nare needed for the proposed changes moving forward; her proposed changes ensure the\nmapping at different levels actually includes that the units are for sale and at least 50% of the\nmarket rate non-townhome units shall be mapped throughout the subdivision.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated staff can add the terms \"mapped for\nsale;\" the developer did make a proposal to move the needle closer to 50% of the non-\ntownhomes; 50% of the apartment buildings would be mapped for sale as condominiums; the\ndeveloper is willing to accept the proposed change at the current meeting if Council will approve\nthe project.\nCouncilmember Knox White inquired whether the compromise is being met; stated that he does\nnot understand the delay.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would like to go over the proposed changes to\nfind whether there is agreement for Council; stated the issue is whether or not the map will\nactually include units for sale or just the term \"mapping;\" it appears as though the language will\ninclude the term \"for sale\" which is important; expressed concern about housing for the middle\nusually landing as rentals, as opposed to opportunities for purchase; stated the ability to\npurchase is important; expressed concern about whether the main road going into the\ndevelopment allows sufficient space to be able to go around delivery trucks or bicycles; stated\nClement Avenue has a four foot buffer between each direction to allow people to pass on either\nside; she would like something similar for the main road of the development; inquired whether\nstaff and the developer agree about the proposed changes.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is having a difficult time considering taking a vote on\nsomething that is not part of the record; questioned whether the list of concerns will be much\nlonger; stated that she understood the concern to be relative to people's ability to purchase\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJanuary 18, 2022\n15", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-01-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-01-18", "page": 16, "text": "units.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated there are eight points of concern; Council has\ndiscussed two; some points are clarification; the proposed change for the main road is a safety\nconcern; she does not know whether the developer and staff are agreeable to having the main\nroad be a similar design to Clement Avenue.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded in the affirmative; stated the right\nof way for the central road is 62 feet; the right of way for Clement Avenue is 60 feet; there is\nplenty of room in the right of way to stripe the road such that cars and trucks can get around\nbicyclists and delivery trucks without going into the other lane.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated the next proposed change is to have the windows be\noperable to open; the proposed language would read: shall be designed with operable\nwindows to the extent allowed under the [Building] Code.\"\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated the language is not a problem; there\nis agreement that operable windows are a good idea; the Plan encourages operable windows;\nthe proposed language can certainly be adopted and is not a substantive change.\nMr. O'Hara concurred with the Planning, Building and Transportation Director.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated the next point is regarding the block design subsection\nhaving language that does not require cross streets that provide for automobile access; she\nunderstands the language is an error and that the intention is to have vehicle access and ability\nto get to parking structures; the language would be a clarification.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director concurred; stated the language is a\nclarification; noted the Master Plan states that the east to west streets can be designed primarily\nfor bicyclists and pedestrians due to being designed around a central corridor; staff will also\nneed to provide access to parking garages on the east to west streets; staff has come up with\nclarifying language which indicates the streets be designed as Slow Streets to allow for vehicle\naccess in addition to bicycle and pedestrian.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would like to see all on-street parking spaces\nbe a minimum of eight feet wide; noted the developer has agreed to the width.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated the width is consistent with Council's\nrecent policy related to street widths.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she is agreeable to the requirement of 20,000 to\n50,000 square feet of commercial development; it would be appropriate to allow the developer\nto modify the requirement if desired to strengthen the project; the commercial development may\nor may not be the best use of the space and could allow for an increase in the number of\nhousing units.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the items have been discussed and agreed upon.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded in the affirmative; stated the\npoints are all clarifications to the Plan; the major issue of discussion relates to complications\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJanuary 18, 2022\n16", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-01-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-01-18", "page": 17, "text": "around homeownership; the North Waterfront Cove has made a proposal to change the\ndenominator on homeownership; the last communication was understood as not good enough\nand yielded back to the 50% requirement.\nCouncilmember Knox White amended his motion to approve including the mapping and\nwindows clarification language; stated that he has heard all other proposed changes are\nconsistent with City policy and will be required in the Plan; Council should not be getting into\nextreme detail direction that is already consistent with City policy.\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the amended motion.\nUnder further discussion, Councilmember Daysog requested clarification about the language\nrelated to mapping.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated the language will be clarified;\ncurrently the language in the Master Plan states: \"50% of all units will be mapped.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired the meaning of the term \"mapped.\"\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded it means mapped for sale; stated\nthe term means a unit cannot be sold unless the unit is legally separate; rental projects include\nthe entire building as one piece of property and units cannot be sold; a condominium project\nmust be mapped as a condominium project; maps come before Council and there is a process\nto ensure the properties are mapped for sale; when projects are built, the units must meet\ncertain physical, construction requirements; the proposal for the project includes 50% of the\ntotal number of the 589 units; noted Councilmember Herrera Spencer's desire is to have more\nunits within the apartment complexes be considered as condominiums to allow for purchase;\nstated the developer counter offered and proposed a mapping of 50% of the non-townhome\nunits; there is assumption that all townhomes will be for sale; there are 200 townhome units; the\nremaining 389 units are distributed through multi-story buildings and will be committed to having\n50% mapped for sale; roughly 190 additional units will be mapped for sale; the distribution of\ndifferent product types mapped for sale is now larger.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the language must state: \"mapped for sale\"\nas opposed to simply: \"mapped,\" to which the Planning, Building and Transportation Director\nresponded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated the term \"mapped for sale\" was missing and will clarify\nthe intent; reducing the commercial space requirement allows more housing units within the\ncommercial area; stated it makes sense to provide more housing by reducing the commercial\nspace.\nMr. O'Hara stated that he would like to clarify the language related to mapping in order to be\nprecise; the proposal indicated that \"at least 50% of the non-townhome, market-rate units shall\nbe mapped through the subdivision process to allow for homeownership;\" expressed support for\nthe language as-described.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the language is sufficient or whether the\nlanguage must include \"mapped for sale.\"\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJanuary 18, 2022\n17", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-01-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-01-18", "page": 18, "text": "The City Attorney responded the term \"mapped for sale\" has no legal significance; stated the\ndeveloper is agreeing to map the units to ensure sale; the developer is not committing the units", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-01-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-01-18", "page": 19, "text": "The Assistant City Attorney outlined proposed language moving the Master Plan into the DDA.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated that his motion did not intended to move the entire Master\nPlan into the DDA; the motion addresses mapping to allow for future sale; expressed concern\nabout moving the Master Plan into the DDA and raising the Master Plan to require four\naffirmative votes; stated changes are made to Master Plans often; inquired whether there is\nanother way to address the issues.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded Council could amend the Master Plan on its own or\nCouncil could attach the Master Plan to the DDA.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated Counsel is providing two options;\nthere is also an in between option: the specific issues could be added as a term in the DDA,\nrather than including the entire Master Plan; obligations in the DDA are above and beyond the\nMaster Plan; the 50% mapping is in the Master Plan and could also be a requirement of the\nDDA; if the particular provision ever needs to be changed in the future, the change would\nrequire four affirmative votes; a minor amendment to the Master Plan at a future date would only\nrequire three affirmative votes.\nCouncilmember Knox White inquired whether the proposed option is viable; expressed support\nfor the in between option proposed by the Planning, Building and Transportation Director; stated\nthat he cannot support moving the entire Master Plan into the DDA.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded the proposed option provided by the Planning, Building\nand Transportation Director does work; stated if key terms which are more important can be\ncarried into the DDA, rather than including the entire Master Plan.\nCouncilmember Knox White clarifies the motion is to include the option provided by the\nPlanning, Building and Transportation Director; stated that he is unprepared to support moving\nthe Master Plan into the DDA.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification of the motion.\nThe City Clerk stated the motion include the mapping and windows; the rest of the proposed\nchanges were consistent with City policy and therefore have been captured.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the two items, the mapping and windows, would be the\ntwo matters included in the DDA, to which Councilmember Knox White responded in the\naffirmative.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether Council wants to include trading commercial\nspace for more residential units as part of the agreement.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would not support the trade; she thinks it is important to for\nany residential development to have supporting retail space; the area has public waterfront,\nwhich holds various opportunities; there will be further opportunities down the line for the\ndeveloper to return to Council if there is a need.\nMr. O'Hara stated discussions had to do with not wanting to have empty commercial space on\nthe project site; the developer is in agreement and also agrees with having commercial space\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJanuary 18, 2022\n19", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-01-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-01-18", "page": 20, "text": "support the residential areas; the developer also supports a situation if the commercial space is\nnot being supported and environmental findings can properly be made, additional housing units\ncould be accommodated if the market conditions allow for the option; the developer can return\nto the Planning Board and request a modification of the 50,000 commercial square foot space\nfor additional residential units.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the matter can be brought before the Planning Board\nwithout having the change included as part of the motion.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded in the affirmative; stated the\ndeveloper can always return to amend the Master Plan; the change must go to the Planning\nBoard, then, City Council must ultimately approve the amendment; the proposed language\nwould authorize the Planning Board to perform the commercial and residential swap at a later\ndate pending certain findings and would not require a Master Plan amendment.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated that he does not support adding the language to the motion;\nthe commercial space has been a key component during community discussions; changes to\nthe Plan can be made in the future; a broader community discussion would be desired for the\nchange.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the discussion has been an improvement over the current\nproposal due to the for sale unit breakdown; discussed the 200 townhome units and 50% of the\nnon-townhome units being for sale; stated those interested in for sale units are seeing a\nsubstantial improvement; the issue for him relates to the workforce housing units; the workforce\nhousing units are not low or moderate income and are slightly above moderate income; stated\nthe City can do better than 10 units out of 589 for workforce housing; noted 80 units are deed\nrestricted for very low to low income; Council is trying to get more first time homebuyers in the\nworkforce housing units; the project is worth a delay to flesh out the details regarding workforce\nhousing.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated some of the products for sale are now going to be stacked flats; the\nunits will be affordable by design and are smaller units than a townhome; some income earners\nmight not qualify for moderate affordability and will be able to get into the smaller products; the\nunits will only be available if the project is approved and built; the opportunities are ample and\nchanges have been made to provide opportunities; the vote will be momentous and will either\nmove the project forward or allow the land to sit blighted.\nVice Mayor Vella stated if housing is not built, there will be no workforce housing; workforce\nhousing is every for sale housing unit included in the project; affordable by design exists; data\nshows that building housing allows for other units to become affordable and allows people to\nsave up and become first time homeowners; expressed support for the City desiring to have a\ndiscussion about investing in first time homeowner opportunities or finding other ways to\nsubsidize the purchase of units; stated the discussion can occur in addition to seeing the\nproject through; Councilmembers will have explaining to do for other parts of the City if the need\nfor up-zoning occurs while the project parcel is left vacant due to non-approval; Council has a\nresponsibility to ensure the RHNA obligation is met and that opportunities are being reviewed;\nthe project is an opportunity to provide density and build in a way that creates more ownership\nopportunities and will not require up-zoning of areas, which will impact existing residents;\nexpressed support for the project and building housing in a responsible way.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJanuary 18, 2022\n20", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-01-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-01-18", "page": 21, "text": "On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers\nDaysog: No; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft:\nAye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.\n***\n(22-055) Councilmember Knox White moved approval of hearing the balance of the agenda with\na stop time of 12:00 a.m.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she will not support the motion; noted one Councilmember is\nunder the weather.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Herrera Spencer concurred with Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft and\nstated that she thinks it is not the best time to continue.\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: No; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: No.\nAyes: 1. Noes: 4.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\n(22-056) The City Manager announced applications are being accepted for Roseville Village;\ndiscussed the Federal government supplying up to four free COVID-19 rapid tests via\nwww.covidtest.gov; stated Community Development Department staff is working on bringing the\nrent moratorium matter back to Council for discussion in the future; staff is looking at possible\nrevisions to the rent moratorium or financial assistance for small landlords.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\n(22-057) Consider Directing Staff to Support Removal of the US Navy Constraints Limiting\nHousing Development at Alameda Point. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer and Councilmember\nDaysog)\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification about the matter be provided by the City Manager.\nThe City Manager stated City staff has been working with the US Navy and continues to have\ndiscussions related to possible removal of the Navy Cap that limits the number of market rate\nhomes which can be built at Alameda Point; units above the Cap cost a fee of $100,000 per unit\npayable to the Navy; staff is working to modify the agreement in order to provide increased\nhousing units at Alameda Point.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the referral was brought forth prior to Council discussion; events\nhave now overtaken the time when the Referral was published; the Referral is being dealt with\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJanuary 18, 2022\n21", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-01-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-01-18", "page": 22, "text": "for all intents and purposes.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there is no need to give direction to staff due to the work\nhaving begun, to which Councilmember Daysog responded in the affirmative.\nIn\nresponse to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, Councilmember Daysog stated Council can move\non without taking action.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification about the Referral process.\nThe City Attorney stated the Council rules indicate that Council can either vote to direct staff to\ndo work or not; if the request for work is withdrawn due to work already occurring, no action\nneeds to be taken.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the Councilmembers are willing to withdraw the Referral.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that her understanding of the matter is that Council\nnever took a vote in public; expressed support for the matter returning with an actual Council\nvote to provide recorded Council support; stated staff does not currently have a vote of Council\nsupport on record.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the official vote is important even with staff working with\nthe Navy.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer responded in the affirmative; stated it is cleaner to have a vote\nby Council in public, on record; it is helpful when negotiating on behalf of Council to have an\nofficial vote of support from Council.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of having the matter return to Council for a\nvote on record.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated the events on the ground are working towards\nreducing or removing the Cap.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether staff needs the vote in order to successfully negotiate.\nThe City Manager responded staff has direction; however, Council can provide clear direction if\ndesired.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated that he will not support the motion; noted the City Manager\nupdate from September 2021 announced that the Community Development Department had\nalready begun discussions with the Navy about the Cap; stated the matter has been moving\nforward and the vote is not needed.\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.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJanuary 18, 2022\n22", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-01-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-01-18", "page": 23, "text": "(22-058) 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(22-059) Consider Directing Staff to Move Jean Sweeney Park Fencing. (Councilmembers\nHerrera Spencer and Daysog) Not heard.\n(22-060) Consider Reviewing and Updating the Previous City Council's Priorities at a Regular\nCity Council Meeting. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard.\n(22-061) Consider Having the City Council Address the Zoning of the Harbor Bay Club.\n(Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard.\n(22-062) Consider Having the City Council Review Recreation and Parks Department\nCommunity Events. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(22-063) Councilmember Herrera Spencer discussed a meeting regarding a proposal to widen\nthe estuary to allow for a larger turning basin.\n(22-064) Councilmember Daysog announced an upcoming joint liaison meeting of the City\nCouncil and Alameda Unified School District with Councilmember Knox White.\n(22-065) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft discussed a recent hostage situation in Dallas, Texas; expressed\nsupport for the Police Chief reaching out to support to local synagogues.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 11:06 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 18, 2022\n23", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-01-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-01-18", "page": 24, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -JANUARY 18, 2022- -5:00 P.M.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 5:02 p.m.\nRoll Call -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Knox White,\nVella and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note: Vice Mayor Vella\narrived at 5:34 p.m. The meeting was held via Zoom.]\nAbsent:\nNone.\nConsent Calendar:\n(22-037) Recommendation to approve Eric Levitt, City Manager, Nico Procos, Alameda\nMunicipal Power General Manager, Erin Smith, Public Works Director, Alan Cohen,\nAssistant City Attorney, and Alan Harbottle, Senior Energy Resources Analyst, as\nDesignated Negotiators with NextEra Energy Resources Related to Doolittle Landfill.\nNot heard.\nThe meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(22-038) Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Pursuant to Government Code\n54956.8); Property: 11-Acre Portion of the 33.2-Acre Doolittle Landfill Sire Located\nNorthwest of the Intersection of Doolittle Drive and Harbor Bay Parkway. Not heard.\n(22-039) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (Government Code\nSection 54956.9); Case Name: City of Alameda V. All Persons Interested in the Matter\nof the Issuance and Sale of One or More Series of Pension Obligation Bonds to\nRefinance Outstanding Obligations of the City of Alameda to the California Public\nEmployees' Retirement Law, and All Proceedings Leading Thereto, Including the\nAdoption of a Resolution and Sale of Such Bonds, Alameda County Taxpayers'\nAssociation, Steve Slauson, and Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association; Court: Superior\nCourt of the State of California, County of Alameda; Case Number: 21CV001157.\n(22-040) Conference with Legal Counsel - Potential Litigation, Initiation of Litigation\n(Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9, subsection (d)(4)); Number of Cases:\nOne (As Plaintiff - City Initiating Legal Action); Potential Defendant(s): Alameda Point\nPartners, LLC.\n(22-041) Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Pursuant to Government Code\nSection 54956.8); Property: Alameda Point, Site A, Alameda, CA; City Negotiators: Eric\nLevitt, City Manager, Lisa Maxwell, Community Development Director, and Louis Liss,\nBase Reuse Manager; Negotiating Parties: City of Alameda and Alameda Point\nPartners, LLC; Under Negotiation: Price and Terms.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJanuary 18, 2022", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-01-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-01-18", "page": 25, "text": "(22-042) Conference with Labor Negotiators (Government Code Section 54957.6); City\nNegotiators: Eric Levitt, City Manager, Gerry Beaudin, Assistant City Manager, and\nNancy Bronstein, Human Resources Director; Employee Organizations: Alameda Police\nManagers Association (APMA), and Alameda Fire Chief's Association (AFCA); Under\nNegotiation: Salaries, Employee Benefits and Terms of Employment.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and the City Clerk\nannounced that regarding the Existing Litigation, staff provided information and Council\nprovided direction, by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera\nSpencer: Aye; Knox White: Abstain; Vella: Absent; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye;\nAyes: 3. Abstain: 1. Absent: 1; regarding Potential Litigation and Real Property, staff\nprovided information and Council provided direction by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 4. Noes: 1; and regarding Labor, staff provided\ninformation and Council provided direction 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.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 6:28\np.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJanuary 18, 2022", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-01-18.pdf"}