{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-03-01", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- -MARCH 1, 2022- -5:00 P.M.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 5:03 p.m.\nRoll Call -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Knox White, Vella\nand Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note: Vice Mayor Vella arrived at\n5:21 p.m. The meeting was held via Zoom.]\nAbsent:\nNone.\nThe meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(22-124) Conference with Legal Counsel - Potential Litigation, Initiation of Litigation Pursuant to\nGovernment Code Section 54956.9, Subsection (d)(4); Number of Cases: Five (As Plaintiff -\nCity Initiating Legal Action); Potential Defendants: Owners of: 2801 Newport Road, Alameda,\nCA 94501 (Residential), 2825 Pearl Harbor Road, Alameda, CA 94501 (Residential), and\nSteeltown Winery 2440 Monarch Street, Alameda, CA 94501, Project Burger 2319 Central\nAvenue, Alameda, CA 94501.\n(22-125) Conference with Labor Negotiators (Government Code Section 54957.6); City\nNegotiators: Eric Levitt, City Manager, and Nancy Bronstein, Human Resources Director;\nEmployee Organizations: Alameda Police Officers Association (APOA), Alameda Police\nManagers Association (APMA), and Alameda Fire Managers Association (AFMA); Under\nNegotiation: Salaries, Employee Benefits and Terms of Employment.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and the City Clerk announced that\nregarding the Potential Litigation, staff provided information and Council provided direction by\nthe following six roll call votes: Vote 1: Councilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: No;\nKnox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 3. Noes: 2 and Vote 2:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor\nEzzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 5. Vote 3: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox\nWhite: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 4. Noes: 1. Vote 4:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor\nEzzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 4. Noes: 1. Vote 5: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer:\nNo; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 4. Noes: 1. Vote 6:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor\nEzzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 5; regarding Labor, staff provided information and Council provided\ndirection, by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: No;\nKnox 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 7:00 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\nMarch 1, 2022", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-03-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-03-01", "page": 2, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND\nSUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE\nCOMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (SACIC)\nTUESDAY--MARCH 1, 2022--6:59 P.M.\nMayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:16 p.m. and made brief\ncomments in support of Ukraine. Councilmember/Commissioner Daysog led the\nPledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers/Commissioners Daysog, Herrera\nSpencer Knox White, Vella and Mayor/Chair Ezzy\nAshcraft - 5. [Note: The meeting was held via Zoom.]\nAbsent:\nNone.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Knox White moved approval of the Consent Calendar.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the\nfollowing roll call vote: Councilmembers/Commissioners Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye;\nSpencer: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. [Items so\nenacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]\n(*22-03 SACIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and SACIC Meeting Held on\nJanuary 4, 2022. Approved.\n(*22-126 CC/22-04 SACIC) Recommendation to Accept the Investment Transactions\nReport for the Period Ending December 31, 2021. Accepted.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at\n7:19 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\nMarch 1, 2022", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-03-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-03-01", "page": 3, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- MARCH 1, 2022- -7:00 P.M.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:19 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Knox White,\nVella, and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note: The meeting\nwas conducted via Zoom.]\nAbsent:\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\n(22-127) The City Clerk announced that the Play House lease [paragraph no. 22-148], the\nClimate Action Resiliency Plan [paragraph no. 22-150) and the Council Referral regarding the\nland use initiative [paragraph no. 22-155 were withdrawn and would not be heard.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(22-128) Season for Nonviolence Word of the Day: Si Se Puede!\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer read a quote.\n(22-129) Proclamation Declaring March 7, 2022 as COVID-19 Memorial Day.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft read the proclamation.\n(22-130) Proclamation Declaring March 2022 as American Red Cross Month.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(22-131) Zac Bowling, Alameda, discussed Seaplane Lagoon ferry ridership increasing;\nexpressed support for the AC Transit Line 78 bus route; expressed concern over the closure of\nOriskany Avenue and the Consent Calendar public comment process; urged the Open\nGovernment Commission to develop a policy recommendation for the Consent Calendar.\n(22-132) Clifton Linton, Alameda, discussed a recent mechanical failure of the filtration system\nand heater at Emma Hood pool causing closure; stated the closure has impacted the aquatics\ncommunity and programs; the pool infrastructure is fragile.\n(22-133) Josh Altieri, Alameda Housing Authority (AHA), provided a monthly Housing Authority\nupdate.\n(22-134) Jay Garfinkle, Alameda, expressed support for the monthly Housing Authority updates\nbeing presented as an agenda item; discussed the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force; expressed\nconcern about a decrease in open government; urged Council to consider creating an open\nworking group of citizens to set priorities and create a more open process.\n(22-135) Anne Lee, Alameda, discussed the cancellation of the Alameda Free Shuttle program;\nexpressed support for additional Uber and Lyft round-trip rides; noted there will be a cost for\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMarch 1, 2022\n1", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-03-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-03-01", "page": 4, "text": "Uber and Lyft versus the free shuttle; urged free trips be offered each month.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nThe City Clerk announced the Police Chief would like provide revised policy language on the\nPolice Department Policy Manual update [paragraph no. 22-136].\n(22-136) Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of allowing speakers to comment for\n2 minutes on the Police Department Policy Manual and the emergency response vehicle policy\n[paragraph no. 22-141].\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the two matters are each policy-\nrelated.\nOn the call for the question, the motion failed by the following rolling call vote: Councilmembers\nDaysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Ayes; Knox White: No; Vella: No; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: No.\nAyes: 2. Noes: 3.\nExpressed concern over increases in rent and housing for low-income; urged Council to take\naction to check on the Housing Authority: Ana Morales Salazar, Alameda.\nExpressed concern about the use of Lexipol; stated the City does have the ability to modify and\nchange policies using Lexipol; he does not support the City keeping the armored vehicle: Zac\nBowling, Alameda.\nStated the subcommittee on Police reform recommended review of Lexipol policies; the\nlanguage and motivations behind some of the policy updates are questionable and offensive;\nexpressed concern about using the armored vehicle at community events; stated that she would\nlike the community to have more of a voice regarding the matter: Jenice Anderson, Alameda.\nDiscussed the vote to extend public comment for the Consent Calendar: Jay Garfinkle,\nAlameda.\nStated Police policy matters being on the Consent Calendar appears dubious; discussed the\ndeath of Mario Gonzalez; urged policies be compliant with State law and go beyond including\nnot allowing positional asphyxia; stated that it does not seem as though the community is being\nlistened to; expressed concern about the armored vehicle being at parades in the community:\nSavanna Cheer, Alameda.\nExpressed support for adding the duty to intercede in unlawful use of force; stated clear\ntimelines for training and a definition of interceding are needed; the proposal for Assembly Bill\n(AB) 490 is an abomination; Council does not respect the community and does not respect\nOfficers when the First Amendment policy leaves out duties; the policies need further vetting;\nurged Council take a careful look: Jennifer Rakowski, Alameda.\nDiscussed the death of her son Angelo Quinto-Collins and AB 490; stated excited delirium is a\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMarch 1, 2022\n2", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-03-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-03-01", "page": 5, "text": "pseudo-scientific diagnosis and should not be used; urged Council to attend a webinar called\nDebunking Excited Delirium and to support AB 1608: Cassandra Quinto-Collins, Antioch, CA\nDiscussed the death of her brother Angelo Quinto-Collins; stated the upcoming webinar\nincludes knowledgeable experts with valuable information; webinar information can be found\nonline and on social media; the webinar will provide a closer look at excited delirium, restraint\nand physical asphyxia: Bella Quinto-Collins, Antioch, CA.\nDiscussed the death of his step-son Angelo Quinto-Collins; stated the death has been reported\nas an accident due to excited delirium via the Contra Costa County Coroner's Office; noted the\nAmerican Medical Association has come out against the diagnosis; the term is used to cover-up\nactions of Police Officers; excited delirium is controversial and a tool for obfuscation; urged\nCouncil's support of AB 1608: Robert Collins, Antioch, CA.\nExpressed concern over positional asphyxia; stated it is obvious that any policy should prevent\npositional asphyxia; he is concerned over the militarization of Police; Alameda does not need\nmilitarization of Police: Roger Slattery, Alameda.\nStated the policies presented are inhumane and contrary to treating people as human beings;\nthe policies should not be on the Consent Calendar, which is misleading and wrong; expressed\nconcern for an attempt at the matters being under the radar; urged Council to take action to stop\ncertain matters from being placed on the Consent Calendar: Erin Fraser, Alameda.\nCouncilmember Knox White requested the emergency response vehicle policy be removed from\nthe Consent Calendar for discussion.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer requested that the resolution opposing Initiative 21-0042A1\n[paragraph no. 22-143) be removed from the Consent Calendar and recorded a no vote on\nteleconference findings [paragraph no. 22-142].\nCouncilmember Knox White moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; 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(*22-137) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings Held on February 1, 2022.\nApproved.\n(*22-138) Ratified bills in the amount of $3,645,095.00.\n(22-139) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager, Via the Chief of Police, to Update the\nExisting Alameda Police Department Policy Manual to be Current with Existing Best Practices\nand Statutory Requirements.\nThe Police Chief gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether Policies 314, 318, and 312 were presented\nexactly as the published in the meeting packet with no changes.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMarch 1, 2022\n3", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-03-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-03-01", "page": 6, "text": "The Police Chief responded in the affirmative; stated the only modification made relates to\nPolicy 300.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the changes to the policy have gone through\nthe City Attorney's Office, to which the Police Chief responded in the affirmative.\nThe City Attorney stated staff has reviewed and approved the changes; staff recommended\nmany of the changes presented.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated that he would like to see the proposed changes to Policy\n300; he appreciates the changes coming forward; Council directed the changes due to the\ndesire for multiple community eyes being able to catch issues; the Police Chief quickly\nacknowledges concerns; questioned whether the language about unreasonably impairing an\nindividuals' breathing fits with the Government Code; stated the Government Code does not\nauthorize techniques which involve a significant risk of positional asphyxia; requested\nclarification on the use of the term unreasonably impair; expressed support for not using the\ntechnique if there is any threat of impairing; stated the term \"unreasonable\" is concerning.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft concurred with concern about using the term \"unreasonably\" as a qualifier.\nThe City Attorney stated the term \"unreasonable\" includes \"unlawful;\" AB 490 makes clear that a\nlaw enforcement agency cannot authorize techniques which involve a substantial risk of\npositional asphyxia; the term \"unreasonable\" encompasses AB 490 and goes further by taking\nthe position that any method that has an unreasonable restraint on breathing and respiration is\nunlawful under the policy; under AB 490, positional asphyxia is specifically called out; the\n\"unreasonable\" standard is read as broader and more protective.\nThe Police Chief concurred with the City Attorney; stated the \"reasonable\" standard is used\nwhen assessing force, other than lethal force; inserting the term comports with how Officers\nmake the assessment about what force is reasonable and not.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated changes respond to community feedback, including the\nsubcommittees, wanting to tighten up language; he looks forward to supporting the changes;\nexpressed support for Council adopting Policy 358.3 regarding the minimum criteria for\nnotification of major incidents; stated notifications are not provided for traffic collisions involving\nvulnerable road users; one of the biggest safety dangers in Alameda is with vulnerable road\nusers; highlighting the collisions would bring the policy into alignment with the current City\nManager practice; he is comfortable proceeding with the matter.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Councilmember Knox White is requesting Council be\nnotified by the City Manager via text message, to which Councilmember Knox White responded\nCouncil is already alerted via text.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification on the direction to staff.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated Policy 358.3 sets the minimum criteria for notification of\nhomicides, traffic fatalities, unusual deaths, rapes and armed robberies; he would like to direct\nstaff to add traffic collisions with vulnerable road users.\nVice Mayor Vella stated that she appreciates the response to feedback; inquired why the City\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMarch 1, 2022\n4", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-03-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-03-01", "page": 7, "text": "would not include the statutory language in the Use of Force policy and is including \"or\nunreasonable.\"\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the section relates to Policy 300.3.\nVice Mayor Vella responded in the affirmative; inquired whether the statutory language can be\nplaced after: \"or unreasonably impair.\"\nIn response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, Vice Mayor Vella stated the language is included\nin AB 490; the terms \"reasonably\" and \"unreasonably\" are used throughout policies based on\ndifferent legal standards and reasons; questioned whether there is legal reason to object to or\nuse the statutory language.\nThe City Attorney stated that he has no concerns with Vice Mayor Vella's proposed changes;\nCouncil may insert the language as proposed.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated Government Code Section 7286.5 contains the desired\nlanguage.\nVice Mayor Vella stated the text would read: \"a law enforcement agency shall not authorize\ntechniques or transport methods that involve a substantial risk of positional asphyxiation.\"\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the policy would read: \"Officers are not authorized to use\nany restraint or transportation method that involve a substantial risk of positional asphyxia or\nunreasonably impair an individuals' breathing,' to which Vice Mayor Vella responded in the\naffirmative.\nThe Police Chief stated the positional asphyxia language was removed to address his concerns.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification on concerns related to confusion.\nThe Police Chief stated the direction of the original language was that terms, such as positional\nasphyxia, restraint asphyxia and excited delirium, all lead to an outcome that is dangerous to\nthe public; regardless of the terms, his direction is that Officers not do anything which puts\nsomeone at risk; he does not want Officers to do anything which will restrict breathing;\nexpressed support for adding the Council proposed language to the policy; stated that he\noriginally utilized the term for consistency.\nVice Mayor Vella expressed support for including the language of: \"substantial risk of, or\nunreasonable\nstated that she agrees with the Police Chief swapping out terms relative to\nbreathing.\nThe City Attorney recommended adding definitional language from the statute if the term\n\"positional asphyxia\" is taken out; stated the definitional language provides a caveat that if an\nOfficer places someone in a compressed airway situation, the person must be monitored; the\nadded policy language should read: \" without reasonable monitoring for signs of loss of\noxygen. if the policy copies the statutory text, there is no need for change; however, the\ndefinitional language should be included; discussed an Officer effectuating an arrest with\nactions that create risk; stated the Officer's constant monitoring of the arrestee, comports with\nFourth Amendment standards and should go back into the policy.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMarch 1, 2022\n5", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-03-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-03-01", "page": 8, "text": "Councilmember Knox White stated that he understood the initial recommendation from Vice\nMayor Vella to include both options, including a substantial risk of positional asphyxia, which\naddresses the City Attorney's comments; the term \"unreasonable\" can be added; Vice Mayor\nVella did not narrow the policy, she specially called out the substantial risk of positional\nasphyxia due to the term being in the statute to provide clarity about the intent.\nThe Police Chief stated the updated language ties to the statute and respects and honors the\nconcerns of the community.\nThe City Attorney stated that he recommends adding: \"as defined by Government Code Section\n7286.5\" after positional asphyxia to make clear that positional asphyxia is a defined term under\nState law.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the language stricken from the originally\nproposed policy is from the Government Code.\nIn response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she\nis not sure why the stricken language was included; she would like to ensure that the language\nbeing struck is no longer necessary; questioned whether the language is necessary; expressed\nconcern about changing the Government Code language.\nThe City Attorney stated that he recommended striking the language; the language is not\ncontained in the State law and does not add to the policy; the language is not necessary and\nremoval is recommended.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired where the language came from, to which the Police\nChief responded the language came from Lexipol.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he is satisfied that the new language, which is in the best\ninterest of securing public safety in Alameda; expressed support for the new language; stated\nthat he appreciates both the City Attorney and Police Chief considering the community's\nconcerns; if Council adopts the matter, the action will be another profound reform implemented\nby the Alameda Police Department (APD).\nCouncilmember Knox White moved approval of the policies as written with the exception of\nsubstituting the language proposed by the Police Chief: \"Officers are not authorized to use any\nrestraint or transportation method which would create substantial risk of positional asphyxia as\ndefined by Government Code Section 7286.5 and/or unreasonably impair an individual's\nbreathing or respiratory capacity. Once controlled, the individual should be placed into a\nrecovery position (e.g. supine or seated) and monitored for signs of medical distress\n(Government Code section 7286.5).' and the addition of traffic collisions with vulnerable users\ninto Policy 358.3.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired what the additional language means for Policy 358.3.\nThe City Attorney responded that he has no legal concerns about the additional language.\nThe City Manager stated the language is not currently part of the policy; the language would\nformalize the current practice; alerts would be from APD, rather than the City Manager; he has\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMarch 1, 2022\n6", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-03-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-03-01", "page": 9, "text": "no concerns with the change.\nThe Police Chief expressed support for adding the language.\nThe Police Captain requested clarification about the language being added to the policy; stated\nthat he would like to provide clear direction to staff.\n***\n(22-140) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of giving Councilmember Knox White one\nadditional minute.\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.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated vulnerable road users are those who walk and bike;\nnotification would be of any traffic collisions involving a person walking or biking.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the clarification provided is sufficient, to which the Police\nCaptain responded he would like Council to provide the specific collision incidents which\nOfficers will need to report to Council.\nThe Police Chief recommended the language: \"any traffic collision involving pedestrians and\nbicyclists;\" inquired whether Council can narrow the scope down to reportable injuries or age\ngroups.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated that the City averages about 50 collisions per year and his\nproposal stands; the reporting does not appear to be overly broad.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the language proposed involves any collision involving a\nvehicle and pedestrian or bicyclist that results in some injury.\nCouncilmember Knox White responded the language can include \"results in some injury;\" stated\noftentimes people do not know whether or not they are injured; if Council wants to know where\nsafety is an issue in the City, Council needs to hear about collisions; Council does not hear\nabout collisions without the policy; the City Manager already provides the information; the\nlanguage will formalize the existing practice.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether statistics will be kept and reported.\nThe Police Captain responded in the affirmative; stated the statistics are generally published\naround April or May.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the information is requested in real-time for\nCouncilmembers.\nCouncilmember Knox White responded in the affirmative; stated that he would like the collision\nreport to occur the same day; having the information is useful.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMarch 1, 2022\n7", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-03-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-03-01", "page": 10, "text": "Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether APD already keeps track of all accidents\nregardless of injury, to which the Police Chief responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she is unsure whether Council receives a text each\ntime an accident occurs; inquired whether the City Manager sends out a text to Council for each\naccident.\nThe City Manager responded APD reports to him and then he reports to Council; stated if APD\nis not called to the scene, the incident does not get reported to Council.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the language needs to be added to make\nsure staff is in compliance, to which Councilmember Knox White responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer proposed a friendly amendment to the motion to add the\nlanguage to clarity expectations.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated the amendment is unnecessary; calls are reported; there is\nno reasonable expectation to have a report of a call that was not received.\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether both the Police\nDepartment policy manual and the emergency response vehicle policy matters are being\nconsidered concurrently.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft responded Council is currently considering the Police Department policy\nmanual.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers\nDaysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Ayes; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft:\nAye. Ayes: 5.\n(22-141) Recommendation to Authorize the Chief of Police, Via the City Manager, to Establish\nNew and Amended Police Department Policies Governing the Use of the Alameda Police\nDepartment's Emergency Response Vehicle.\nThe Police Captain and Police Chief gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated Exhibit 3 denotes major incident notifications; noted\nCouncil just made changes to the notifications in the previous agenda matter; requested\nclarification for the Council direction provided.\nThe Police Captain stated the exhibit is attached to the emergency response vehicle matter due\nto the proposal for the new policy to make it clear notification has to be provided anytime the\nvehicle is deployed.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the reason the notification is being heard is due to the use of the\nemergency response vehicle being added as a significant event.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the policy also refers to the previous agenda\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMarch 1, 2022\n8", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-03-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-03-01", "page": 11, "text": "matter, to which the Police Captain responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated that he has mistakenly combined an exhibit from the current\nmatter with the previous policy matter; Council can take the same action under the current\npolicy matter for the emergency response vehicle.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would like to include the action under the\ncurrent matter; proposed the previous action be included in the motion.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated a number of comments have been received related to the\npurpose of having the vehicle at community related events and public gatherings; expressed\nsupport for Council providing direction to clarify the language; stated public gatherings have to\nfirst find an incredible threat in order for the vehicle to be used; the vehicle will not be sent to\npublic gatherings and hidden away; requested clarification.\nThe Police Chief concurred with Councilmember Knox White's comments; stated staff\nrecognizes the vehicle as a tool; however, the tool has associated concerns; staff wants to be\nrespectful and honor the associated concerns; noted Policy 409 opens with: \"the emergency\nresponse vehicle shall be used as an armored vehicle resource to safely resolve incidents\nwhere there is an objective risk to civilians and/or Officer safety from a person or persons who\nmay be considered armed and dangerous;\" the qualifier must be met in order for the vehicle to\nbe used; he is willing to add language that states use at community events is for educational\npurposes; the vehicle will not be used at recruitment events; expressed support for being\ntransparent.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of the staff recommendation with the addition\nprovided by the Police Chief [and the language from the previous motion].\nCouncilmember Daysog 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(22-142) Recommendation to Approve Findings to Allow City Meetings to be Conducted via\nTeleconference.\nSince Councilmember Herrera Spencer recorded a no vote, the matter carried by the following\nvote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.\n(22-143) Resolution No. 15869, \"Opposing Initiative 21-0042A1, a Proposed Amendment to the\nState Constitution that would Limit the Ability of Voters and State and Local Governments to\nRaise Revenues for Government Services.\" Adopted.\nThe Communications and Legislative Affairs Officer gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the initiative adds a requirement for taxes to\nhave a sunset dates, to which the Communications and Legislative Affairs Officer responded in\nthe affirmative.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMarch 1, 2022\n9", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-03-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-03-01", "page": 12, "text": "Councilmember Herrera Spencer further inquired what happens to current taxes that do not\nhave a sunset date.\nThe Communications and Legislative Affairs Officer responded taxes already passed by voter\nwould not change; stated measures passed going forward would need to have a sunset date or\nspecified duration of time.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the duration of time could be 100 years.\nThe Communications and Legislative Affairs Officer responded the language only specifies a\nduration of time, not a limit.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer requested clarification from the City Attorney's Office.\nThe City Attorney stated that he concurs with the Communications and Legislative Affairs\nOfficer's assessment of the amendment.\nCouncilmember Knox White moved approval of the staff recommendation [including adoption of\nthe resolution].\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.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft called a recess at 9:04 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:21 p.m.\nCONTINUED AGENDA ITEMS\n(22-144) Public Hearing to Consider Introduction of Ordinance Amending Alameda Municipal\nCode Chapter XXX to Implement Senate Bill (SB) 9 Regarding Two-Unit Housing Developments\nand Urban Lot Splits in Single-Family Residential Zones. Introduced.\nThe Planning Building and Transportation Director gave a Power Point presentation.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS) put\ntogether a detailed letter; requested clarification about separate metering and affordability\nrequirements mentioned in the letter.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated staff anticipates new SB 9 units will\nbe separately metered; staff has not recommended requiring SB 9 units to be deed restricted for\naffordable housing; staff does not feel the restriction is necessary at the moment; discussed a,\nAssociation of Bay Area Government (ABAG) study of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) from\nthe; stated the study found that many ADUs are built for family members and over 30% of units\ncharged very low rent and 30% charged low rent; there is a natural tendency for the units to be\nmade affordable; Council may consider deed restricting the units.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired the affordability categories for the remaining 40% of\nADUs.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMarch 1, 2022\n10", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-03-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-03-01", "page": 13, "text": "The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded he over-generalized; stated\nhousing includes four categories: very low, low, moderate and market rate; the unit breakdown\nwas 33% very low, 30% low, 30% moderate and the remaining percentage were market rate;\nthe breakdown is a result of ADU builds being used for family members, not deed restrictions.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the Planning, Building and Transportation\nDepartment charges fees for SB 9 units or ADUs.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded ADUs are exempt from the\nCitywide Development Impact Fee (DIF); stated deed restricted, affordable units are also\nexempt from fees.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether SB 9 units would incur permit fees, to which\nthe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Daysog requested clarification about the issue of applying the ordinance to\nresidential district areas.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated AAPS suggested that residential\ndistricts with an associated overlay, such as Harbor Bay Isle, do not fall under State law; it is\nrisky to take the position that an overlay will exempt the City; Harbor Bay Isle does not have\nmany second units since newer developments have smaller back yards; the same instance\noccurs in the Bayport region; most second units are built in older residential neighborhoods.\nStated the ordinance fits with the recommendation and understanding of SB 9; expressed\nsupport for 1,200 square foot units and for removing the cap; expressed concern about pitting\nSB 9 units against ADUs; stated deed restrictions on SB 9 units could create favor toward\nADUs: Zac Bowling, East Bay YIMBY.\nQuestioned whether four units on a lot would all be detached or a combination of attached and\ndetached; urged the square footage for SB 9 units be capped at 900 square feet; stated 1,200\nsquare foot units are not affordable by design; units under 1,000 square feet are more\naffordable: Karen Miller, Alameda.\nUrged Council to adopt the AAPS recommendations and consider limiting new units to 800\nsquare feet, maintaining height limits and requiring that one SB 9 unit be deed restricted;\ndiscussed a new sea-level rise report; urged staff to review the report; expressed support for\nCouncil addressing whether ADUs will be allowed as AirBNB rentals: Carmen Reid, Alameda.\nStated that he disagrees with staff and State regulators; the City should require a report from\nAlameda's Emergency Operations Officer related to safe evacuation volume; Alameda does not\nhave enough electricity for existing infrastructure or a safe way to evacuate its population in\nemergencies; expressed concern about allowing people to create policies which do not address\nevacuation needs: Jim Strehlow, Alameda.\nDiscussed the AAPS letter; urged Council to adopt a revised ordinance with proposed\nmodifications; expressed support for noticing related to SB 9 construction projects and for\nlimiting SB 9 preemption of local development standards; stated the draft ordinance applies the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMarch 1, 2022\n11", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-03-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-03-01", "page": 14, "text": "preemption to all SB 9 units; discussed requirements for non-SB 9 units: Christopher Buckley,\nAAPS.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated there is concern that the units will be used for AirBNB rentals;\ninquired whether the matter is addressed in the ordinance.\nThe Planning Building and Transportation Director responded in the affirmative; stated a pre-\ncondition of building SB 9 units requires a deed restriction stating the property cannot be used\nfor rentals that are less than 30 days.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether staff has comments regarding AAPS's letter\nreferencing limiting the preemption of local standards only to the smaller 800 square foot unit\nsize; requested staff to clarify the background and theory.\nThe Planning Building and Transportation Director responded the R1 District has a 20 foot rear\nyard setback; stated the front yard setback is much smaller and the side yard setback is 5 feet;\nthe City can regulate back and side yard setbacks based on State law; the proposed ordinance\nstates SB 9 units should have a 4 foot setback from the rear and side yard; the process is\nministerial and will be handled by staff without the Planning Board or a public hearing process;\nthe goal is to have a clear and objective ordinance that requires the minimum amount of staff\njudgement and discretion; property owners in the R1 District have a good idea of where to place\nsecond units; 2021 yielded about 20 second units; most property owners think about and do not\nwish to have issues with neighbors; staff rarely finds poor placement of second units;\nimplementing the AAPS idea brings second units as close as possible to the main unit in order\nto keep as much of the rear yard setback as possible; second units typically work better with\nspace between the main and second units; Council can direct staff to use AAPS's approach.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he is concerned about the height standard; inquired whether\nSB 9 unit have to be subordinate to the height of the primary unit; expressed concern about\nbackyard mansions.\nThe Planning Building and Transportation Director responded the ordinance has a 30 foot\nheight limit; stated a two-story house with a pitched roof would be an appropriate SB 9 unit; staff\nhas not recommended a lower height limit; the limit will likely create a smaller footprint; a lower\nheight limit would require a larger footprint; the entire R1 District has a 30 foot height limit.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated Council has come to a decision that makes sense and\nhonors both SB 9 and the 2020 election result; expressed support for staff to return with the\nHousing Element; stated that he has a concern with historic preservation and design rules\nadding time and cost to processes; the new rules allow for discretionary Historic Advisory Board\nreview; he would like to give direction to staff to come back with tighter rules on how\ndeterminations can be made within the Housing Element; votes have gone against the findings\nof fact and he would like to honor the historic extensions.\nCouncilmember Knox White moved approval of the staff recommendation [including introduction\nof the ordinance] with direction that the City will look at clarifying and specific rules under the\nHousing Element.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft proposed a friendly amendment of having a smaller maximum square\nfootage for units.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMarch 1, 2022\n12", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-03-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-03-01", "page": 15, "text": "Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she supports smaller unit size.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft discussed information from an Alameda County Mayor's Conference\nmeeting about the growing homeless population being age 50 and over; living on the street\nages people prematurely; there is a lack of affordable housing for people with lower income;\nmany people are retiring from low paying, non-union jobs lacking benefits; many people are\nvulnerable to medical emergencies or car repairs, which cause the inability to afford rent; the\nbest medicine is housing; more housing needs to be built; expressed support for capping SB 9\nunits between 800 and 1,000 square feet; stated Council is trying to increase the amount of\naffordable housing by design; she would like to keep the ordinance simple; limiting the unit size\nallows for more outdoor space; a property owner can still build a larger second unit under the\nADU ordinance; 800 square foot units are affordable by design; ensuring access to affordable\nhousing is a matter of Statewide concern as noted in SB 9.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she strongly supports the affordable by design\neffort and the 800 square foot unit size; the unit size is critical; 1,200 square foot units will cost\nover $1 million; many people can only afford less; there is an opportunity to try and provide\nhousing that is affordable by design; expressed concern about tree removal impacts to the\nenvironment; stated there should be balance with the SB 9 units.\nIn response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry, the Planning, Building and Transportation\nDirector stated staff originally proposed 1,200 square feet; the Planning Board increased the\nsize to 1,600 square feet; noted the January public hearing yielded Council wanting smaller\nunits; stated staff dropped the limit to the original 1,200 square feet.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired the previous total number of allowable units on a parcel.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded the amount had been up to ten\nunits; stated there is a range; cities that wish to be liberal about second units and interpreting\nSB 9 allow up to ten units; most cities are landing around four units per parcel.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated Council previously had concerns about ten units per parcel as\nwell as the unit size of 1,600 square feet; the current proposal is reasonable with a maximum of\nfour SB 9 units or a combination of SB 9 and ADUs; Alameda Citizens Task Force put for a\npiece about price per square footage; expressed support for a smaller unit size of 800 to 1,000\nsquare feet; stated the matter is a chance for Council to do something unique; it is reasonable to\nproceed with a maximum of four units between 800 and 1,000 square feet.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would second the motion with a friendly\namendment to limit SB 9 units to 800 square feet.\nCouncilmember Knox White expressed concern about the 800 square foot size; stated people\nwill not do SB 9 units due to the size and fewer homes will be built; expressed support for\nconsideration of 1,000 square feet and higher; stated lower square footage will produce less\nhousing.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she believes many additional units can be built at 1,000 square\nfeet; expressed support for a maximum of 1,000 square feet and for working towards getting\nmore housing built; noted a substitute motion can be created.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMarch 1, 2022\n13", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-03-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-03-01", "page": 16, "text": "Vice Mayor Vella stated Council previously provided direction on the matter; expressed support\nfor units which are affordable by design; stated some people find affordability in building on their\nown parcel in order to house family or friends; previously, she did not support capping the unit\nsize; expressed support for the 1,000 square foot unit size; stated additional space can make a\ndifference for people wishing to age in place; many people have supported higher square\nfootage for full visitability; she would prefer the higher end of the unit size range.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she understands many people are building units for family\nmembers and multi-generational living; the ADU size limit is 1,200 square feet; property owners\nhave the option to elect build either SB 9 units or ADU units; expressed support for Council\nbeing creative and trying to put into place units which are affordable by design; the option to go\nup to 1,200 square feet exists with ADUs.\nVice Mayor Vella stated that she would like more similarities between SB 9 units and ADUs so\npeople do not have to choose; people are considering planning for the future due to a 19%\nincrease in home prices; Council is trying to encourage home building that meets all needs; she\nwould prefer a higher unit size range.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Vice Mayor Vella would support a maximum of 1,000\nsquare feet, to which Vice Mayor Vella responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Knox White amended the motion to 1,000 square feet.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer discussed a January article in The Chronicle related to home\nprices; stated 1,000 square feet is not affordable by design; she supports Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's\nanalysis about ADUs being 1,200 square feet; SB 9 units provide opportunity to provide\naffordable by design units; 1,200 to 1,000 square foot units are not affordable by design in\nAlameda; homes are selling for above asking price; she is willing to compromise with 900\nsquare foot units; higher unit sizes continue to drive gentrification in Alameda.\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the amended motion; stated 1,000 square foot units provide\nversatility and allow people to build for all needs and create more affordability; ; the size limit is\na cap; people can create smaller units.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Daysog inquired what would occur if Council requires at least\none SB 9 unit to be 800 square feet.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated an 800 square foot home in Alameda is $1.6 million; Council\narguing between the 800 and 1,000 square foot unit size is not meaningful for affordable versus\nnon-affordable units; housing is not affordable because people in Alameda, the Bay Area and\nthe State have refused to build housing for 50 years; building a few 800 square foot units will not\ncreate affordability; Council needs to figure out how to incentivize housing to be built within the\nconfines of the City Charter; expressed support for a maximum unit size of 1,000 and nothing\nlower; stated that he is happy to withdraw his motion if Councilmembers wish to go with a lower\nunit size.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council is trying to keep the ordinance fairly streamlined and easy\nto administer; expressed support for leaving the decision to the property owner; stated many\nthings can be done with smaller units; expressed support for the 1,000 square foot unit limit.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMarch 1, 2022\n14", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-03-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-03-01", "page": 17, "text": "Councilmember Daysog inquired whether Council is willing to split the difference and allow for a\nmaximum of 900 square foot units.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired what would be gained by a 100 square foot difference.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded that he does not know if it is\nworth worrying about the difference; stated the vast majority of R1 property owners that could\nbuild two ADUs on their property are only building one and are not getting close to 1,200 square\nfeet in size; the units being built are generally smaller; staff thinks that making the unit maximum\ntoo small will cause a family not to build; 1,000 square foot maximum is a good size; height\nlimits are the problem with second units; property owners building 1,200 square foot units on\none floor uses much of the backyard; staff has debated the reason for second units being small\nand part of the reason is due to height limits.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated Council has made substantial progress; the maximum amount of\nunits decreased from ten to four and the square footage decreased from 1,600 to 1,000; he\nwould have preferred 800 square foot units; however, there is compromise; expressed support\nfor the 1,000 maximum square foot unit size and four units on one lot.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated 1,000 square foot unit size is splitting in the middle; there\nhas been a lot of compromise and movement in the unit size.\nVice Mayor Vella stated compromise is good; however, she still would prefer not to have a cap\non unit size; Council is working on housing as a top priority.\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.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(22-145) Introduction of Ordinance Amending, in Part, Uncodified Ordinance No. 3275\nConcerning a Temporary Moratorium on Rent Increases for Fully Regulated Residential Rental\nUnits and Alameda Municipal Code, Article XV, Concerning Various Clean-Up Amendments.\nIntroduced.\nThe Interim Base Reuse Manager gave a Power Point presentation.\nCouncilmember Daysog requested clarification of the technical corrections.\nThe Interim Base Reuse Manager stated Alameda County is piloting a program where property\nowners may borrow a small amount of funds from the County and receive a regulatory\nagreement in exchange for agreeing to maintain a small percentage of units as affordable; a 50\nunit building can have as few as 10 affordable units and the entire building would become\nexempt from the rent program.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether all 50 units must be deed restricted, to which the\nInterim Base Reuse Manager responded in the affirmative.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMarch 1, 2022\n15", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-03-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-03-01", "page": 18, "text": "Urged Council to vote no on the matter; stated the pandemic has destabilized the community;\nthe Bay Area needs time to recoup; the matter is antithetical; expressed concern over not\nreceiving 60 days advance notice of rent increases; stated the 60 days are vital for renters to\nget their finances in order; there is no reason for the grace period to be halved; urged Council to\nreject allowing banked rent increases; stated the current rent relief options remain precarious for\nrenters: Austin Tam, Filipino Advocates for Justice and Alameda Renters Coalition.\nDiscussed Measure K; stated escalating rents and evictions are decimating the community;\n55% of the Alameda community are tenants; the percentage could be higher with rentals at\nAlameda Point; discussed Ordinance 3275; stated Ordinance 3275 reflects the values of a\ncompassionate community in Alameda; urged Council to listen to the softer voices of\ncompassion, vote no on the amendment and not lift the moratorium: Cheri Johansen, Alameda\nProgressives.\nStated that she is taken aback by the sudden proposal to lift the moratorium; the matter affects\nhalf of Alameda residents; questioned where the documentation exists in order to understand\nthe problem; renters have previously been asked to provide hard evidence of rising rents and\nevictions; landlords making such a request for aid is unsettling; the matter feels like a slap in the\nface; Council must make a distinction between small landlords and investment groups; proof\nneeds to be provided: Laura Thomas, Renewed Hope Housing Advocates.\nQuestioned whether there is awareness that the Consumer Price Index (CPI) is at 7% and when\nlandlords can use the banking option; stated most small landlords rental properties and income\nare lifelines; Council has cut off income; landlords must keep up with repairs to provide units in\ngood condition; housing inventory is old and needs a lot of maintenance; questioned when\nlandlords can use banked rent; expressed concern about the calculations: BeBe Cheng.\nDiscussed the Council rent cap action of 2019; stated the previous ordinance was in effect six\nmonths prior to the pandemic hitting; the amount of time was not enough for renters to recover\nthe inequities of past years; the rent moratorium provided some measure of security; the local\nemergency has not ended; however, Council is considering taking away the 60 day notice to\nrenters; questioned whether Council believes the financial state for renters has improved over\nthe pandemic; stated all costs are rising, including cost of living; urged Council to vote no: Toni\nGrimm, Alameda.\n(22-146) Councilmember Knox White moved approval of hearing the Park Street Wine Lease\n[paragraph no. 22-147] and budget resolution [paragraph no. 22-149 under Continued Agenda\nItems on March 15, 2022.\nVice Mayor Vella 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.\nStated the current rent ordinance was created and agreed upon by both landlords and tenants\nafter many community meetings; discussed the current unemployment rate in Alameda County;\nexpressed concern about the proposed 2.7% limitation on rent increases; stated inflation will\ncreate higher conditions than 2.7%; landlords should have a choice of whether or not to go with\nthe 2.7% increase or the current years' increase; the current ordinance does not allow banking\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMarch 1, 2022\n16", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-03-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-03-01", "page": 19, "text": "in consecutive years; urged Council to temporarily suspend the limit on cost recuperation and\nallow landlords to come up with a banking formula: Karen Miller, Alameda.\nStated there is a need for affordable housing; Alameda is one of the few cities in the area to\nhave a rent freeze; expressed support for an increase 60 days from notification and for the City\nreiterating rent program assistance options; stated employment rates do not mean renters can\nafford market rate or rate increases; renters must be protected; people need to remain housed:\nJenice Anderson, Alameda.\nStated many people are surprised by the matter and the lack of a 60 day notice; the City needs\nto have compassion for renters struggling with the pandemic: Zac Bowling,\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the technical amendment is meant to address the the 60\nday notice issue, to which the Interim Base Reuse Manager responded in the affirmative.\nIn response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's request for clarification of the process, the Interim Base\nReuse Manager stated the ordinance itself becomes effective on May 1st; landlords may\nincrease rent after May 1st; any notice that goes out starting May 1st would not be valid for\nanother 30 days.\nIn response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the City Attorney stated the ordinance is being\npresented to Council as a first reading and will require a second reading; as proposed, the\nordinance will not become effective for 45 days; the time would be further lengthened to 60\ndays.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the effective date for the ordinance would be\nMay 1st at which time landlords could give notice, to which the Interim Base Reuse Manager\nresponded the alternative proposed allows for notice to be given May 1st\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she heard comments from the public regarding\ntenants and problems related to COVID-19; inquired whether there are rental assistance\nprograms.\nThe Interim Base Reuse Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the Alameda County\nemergency rental assistance program will accept applications from both tenants and landlords\nfor tenants behind in rent; some tenants are experiencing issues for the first time and may not\nbe aware of programs or associate shame with applying for assistance; Alameda County\ncontinues to accept applications and has put in a request to the Federal Government for\nadditional funds.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the AHA and rent program are helping\npeople and where people should go for assistance.\nThe Interim Base Reuse Manager responded there is an application online; stated people can\ncall 2-1-1 if they cannot access the application online.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft discussed a news article; stated some money is going unused in some\ncases; inquired what the money goes towards and where to look for the application online.\nThe Interim Base Reuse Manager responded the name of the program is the Alameda County\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMarch 1, 2022\n17", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-03-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-03-01", "page": 20, "text": "Housing Secure Emergency Rental Assistance Program; stated the application is online and\nable to be found by searching Alameda Housing Secure; the application is intended for tenants\nwho have been affected by COVID-19 and are behind on their rent or utilities; the program can\npay up to 15 months of rent as well as past-due utility payments; landlords may also apply\ndirectly to the program; ultimately, both parties need to cooperate in the process since\ndocumentation is required from tenants; landlords have to receive and validate information\nprovided by the tenants.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the process can be accessed and utilized by landlords; however,\ncooperation with tenants is required; the threshold for documentation is low and includes self-\nattestation; the program pays 12 months of back rent and three months of forward rent and\nutility payments.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired which cities have resumed payment.\nGreg Kats, AHA, stated staff has looked at East Palo Alto, Mountain View, Berkeley and Los\nAngeles.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether Mountain View and East Palo Alto had allowed rent\nincreases.\nMr. Kats responded that he would have to look into the matter.\nThe Interim Base Reuse Manager stated only Los Angeles and Oakland are not allowing\nincreases.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether tenants were consulted and the reason behind the lack of\nconsultation.\nThe Interim Base Reuse Manager responded the impetus was landlords providing public\ncomment in December 2021; stated Council directed staff to present alternatives; staff shared\nthe presentation with landlord representatives, stakeholders and tenants.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether the staff recommendation allows a 2.7% rent increase\nand any capturing of banked increases will occur when the pandemic is over.\nThe Interim Base Reuse Manager responded in the affirmative; stated staff reviewed different\nalternatives; Council can approve the Annual General Adjustment (AGA) rent increases or de-\ncouple the AGA rent increases plus banked rent increases; staff is recommending de-coupling\nAGA rent increases from the emergency rent ordinance; the action would allow landlords to\nbegin raising rents up to the current AGA of 2.7%.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether capturing of the banked increase would only occur\nwhen the pandemic is officially declared over.\nThe Interim Base Reuse Manager responded banked increases are still tied to the emergency\nordinance; staff is not recommending untying banked increases from the emergency ordinance.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether staff's recommendation is only the increase of 2.7%,\nto which the Interim Base Reuse Manager responded in the affirmative.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMarch 1, 2022\n18", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-03-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-03-01", "page": 21, "text": "Vice Mayor Vella stated that she understands the Oakland rent moratorium prohibits rent\nincreases above 1.9% or CPI unless high is required in order to provide a fair return; inquired\nwhat is meant by the exceptions being Oakland and Los Angeles.\nThe Interim Base Reuse Manager responded Oakland is allowing the AGA and are not currently\nallowing banked increases or capital improvement pass throughs.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired how long Oakland has been allowing the AGA.\nThe Interim Base Reuse Manager responded not the entire pandemic; stated that she will have\nto confirm the timing.\nVice Mayor Vella stated inquired whether there is an off-ramp if Council moves forward with the\nmatter and COVID-19 cases rise and rent increases need to halt.\nThe City Attorney responded there are some off-ramps, but they are limited; stated the easiest\noff-ramp would be at second reading; if cases rise within the next two weeks, Council does not\nhave to adopt the ordinance at the second reading; if Council approves the ordinance as\nproposed and decided re-impose a moratorium, Council would need to re-adopt a rent\nmoratorium by either emergency ordinance and four affirmative votes or a regular ordinance\nand three affirmative votes.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired the process if Council amends the proposed ordinance to create\nconditions which trigger the off-ramp proposed by Vice Mayor Vella and whether there are\nassociated problems with said course of action.\nThe City Attorney responded the result depends on Council; stated Council could set forth\nobjective criteria to pause implementation of the ordinance; Council can direct staff to bring back\na first reading after creating a set of objective criteria.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is intrigued by Vice Mayor Vella's inquiry; the rent\nmoratorium ordinance passed at the beginning of the pandemic does not address\nadvancements made since; Council has learned a lot in the interim; however, not everything is\nknown about COVID-19; new variants are popping up and will continue; questioned whether a\nnew variant could cause the Public Health Department to take extraordinary measures again;\nshe is not sure how to include said possibility in the ordinance; inquired whether it is worth\ncreating objective criteria.\nThe City Attorney responded as long as the local emergency remains in place, the City Manager\nhas executive authority and could impose regulations subject to ratifications; stated the City\nManager could implement the actions in the ordinance and bring it to Council for ratification as\nlong as the local emergency is declared.\nVice Mayor Vella expressed concern about the notice provision and allowing groups to have an\nopportunity for input; stated there has been some input; however, the City should allow for\nenough notice time and clarify the notice dates; Council is trying to be mindful in its approach;\nthe approach is similar to other jurisdictions trying to mitigate increases; expressed concern\nabout what is unknown; stated there is an easing of mandates and restrictions; expressed\nsupport not creating language on the spot; stated that she would like staff to provide language,\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMarch 1, 2022\n19", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-03-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-03-01", "page": 22, "text": "which will allow time for conversation to occur with interested groups; the earliest increases\nwould go into effect would be June 1st; the City Attorney provided workable solutions.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Vice Mayor Vella is proposing providing staff with\ndirection to bring back the matter and not move forward at the current meeting, to which Vice\nMayor Vella responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated the matter is not easy; the initial discussion occurred when\nthe pandemic had just begun, people were being forced to stay in their houses and jobs were\nbeing shut down; he does not see a scenario in the next 6 to 9 months where the same will\noccur again even with future surges and variants; he did not imagine the rent moratorium lasting\ntwo years; Council should honor the 60 day notice; Council committed to allowing landlords to\nbank increases; public comment received from landlords and tenants suggests a middle ground\nhas be found; expressed support for the ordinance and ensuring a 60 day notice; stated that he\nwould also like to have a 60 day notice instead of allowing the banked AGA as soon as the\npandemic is over; when the pandemic is over, everyone will know the AGA increases will not be\navailable for another 60 days; if a landlord raises rent 2.7% in June, any other banked AGA\ncannot be used until the following June; the increase being available for use does not mean\nlandlords can release the banked increases; the system and rules are in place to allow the more\nphasing; the faster Council allows the 2.7% increase, the less likely people will wait until\nSeptember 1st when a larger AGA will be in place; the longer Council waits, the more likely\nlandlords will wait until a higher AGA percentage occurs; expressed support for Council acting\ntonight; stated that he is not supportive of delaying the matter.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for the additional 60 day notice before banked\nincreases can occur; expressed concern about payment shock; stated the current situation is\ndifferent than two years ago; there are vaccines.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she prefers an effective date of May 1st; she\nagrees with the comments provided by Councilmember Knox White; inquired whether there is a\ncap on how much landlords can use for banked rent increases.\nThe Interim Base Reuse Manager responded landlords can bank up to 8% and can implement\nincreases that are based on the current year AGA plus up to 3%.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer expressed concern over how large the CPI will be with an\nadditional 3%; stated it is appropriate to begin loosening the restriction; she is concerned about\nthe increases since she is a renter; the increases will hit hard if the City does not allow for slow\nand gradual increases; it is appropriate to approve 2.7% now; staff's report is balanced and\nincludes a lot analysis to try to figure out how to unwind the matter without hitting tenants with a\ndifficult increase.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated a number of renters and landlords are hurting during the\npandemic; the staff recommendation is a middle-ground approach and is reasonable; the\nrecommendation takes into consideration the concerns of renters and landlords; Council should\nbegin to move forward with the matter; many other cities that have rent control have realized\nlandlords cannot be hindered from performing economically; landlords and renters must cover\ncosts.\nCouncilmember Daysog moved approval of staff's recommendation [introduction of the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMarch 1, 2022\n20", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-03-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-03-01", "page": 23, "text": "ordinance], including the associated technical corrections.\nCouncilmember Knox White proposed a friendly amendment which includes a 60 day notice for\nbanked AGA after the end of the local emergency.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the notice is not currently included in the staff recommendation;\nexpressed support for hearing from other Councilmembers.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether the 60 day notice would mean landlords have to wait 60 days\nto use the banked increase; whether a landlord waiting until the end of the local emergency\ncould increase by 2.7% plus the next banked increase.\nCouncilmember Knox White responded landlords would bank the 2.7% and use the next AGA,\nplus up to 3% of the bank; the 2.7% would not be added to the increase and would go into the\nbank.\nThe City Attorney concurred with Councilmember Knox White.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether the total amount able to increase would be the 3% plus AGA,\nto which Councilmember Knox white responded in the affirmative.\nMr. Katz stated the most a landlord could impose at any given time would be the AGA at the\ntime, plus 3% banked increase.\nCouncilmember Daysog outlined Councilmember Knox White's proposed motion amendment;\ninquired whether the process of the banked amount does not happen simultaneously, that the\namount is increased 60 days later if there is an AGA rent increase, to which Councilmember\nKnox White responded in the negative.\nThe City Attorney stated there are a number of banking rules which remain in effect and create\nlimitations on rent increases; one limitation is that there can only be a rent increase every 12\nmonths; a landlord increasing rent in July prior to the pandemic ending, cannot increase rent\nagain within 60 days of the pandemic ending; a landlord cannot increase rent twice within 12\nmonths; landlords will have to wait until the 12 months is up before implementing another rent\nincrease plus AGA.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired the reason for having the 60 day notice for banked increases.\nCouncilmember Knox White responded a 60 day notice starts putting the use of the AGA out far\nenough that there is encouragement for landlords to use the 2.7% rent increase rather than\nsitting on a rent increase for months to utilize 5% plus 3%; the proposal encourages a phased in\napproach.\nIn response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry regarding banked increases, Councilmember\nKnox White stated the 60 day notice pushes the increase out and banking still cannot be used\nuntil the end of the emergency.\nCouncilmember Daysog moved approval of staff's recommendation [introduction of the\nordinance].\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMarch 1, 2022\n21", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-03-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-03-01", "page": 24, "text": "Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for the proposed 60 day notice.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether staff considered the 60 day notice proposed\nby Councilmember Knox White.\nThe Interim Base Reuse Manager responded not exactly; stated that she is unclear whether the\nexisting emergency ordinance includes the 60 day notice; the proposed change is new.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated if Council approves the proposal from Councilmember Knox\nWhite, staff will need to add language to the ordinance clarifying the 60 day notice and delay of\nbanked increases; the original ordinance does not have the language coupled with banked rent\nincreases; the original ordinance 60 day notice applies to all rent increases; the new ordinance\nonly addresses AGA rent increases and leaves out the proposed 60 day notice of banked rent\nincreases.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council has worked hard trying to keep people housed; she would\nlike to ensure the City is continuing along those lines; she understands that it is time to move\nforward.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer seconded the motion.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried 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.\nCouncilmember Knox White moved approval of the staff recommendation [introduction of the\nordinance] with amendment that the use of banked AGA will not be available until 60 days after\nthe rescission of the local emergency.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the May 1st date is part of the motion, to\nwhich Councilmember Knox White responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether the City will be sending notifications and\nhow the City will notify tenants about the changes to ensure timelines are understood.\nMr. Katz responded staff will provide a variety of outreach on the matter; stated staff will send\nout an e-newsletter to subscribers announcing the change and will put out a headline on the\nrent program website; staff will send out new maximum allowable rent increase letters to\nlandlords and tenants.\nVice Mayor Vella expressed support for staff providing as much as possible to make it clear;\nstated multiple websites are available, which can be updated with information; she would like\nstaff to streamline and find ways to clarify and provide an insert; expressed concern about staff\nonly relying on the internet or emails; stated that she would like the information provided with\nenough time so that people do not scramble.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for staff including information about how\nrenters can qualify or sign up for assistance.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMarch 1, 2022\n22", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-03-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-03-01", "page": 25, "text": "Councilmember Daysog stated that he will support the motion; the motion is in line with trying to\nwork things out with different perspectives of landlords and tenants; two years of no rent\nincreases is not sustainable for many; the proposed motion is reasonable and has middle-\nground.\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(22-147) Introduction of Ordinance Authorizing the City Manager or Designee to Execute a First\nAmendment to the Lease with Park Street Wine Cellars, Inc., a California Corporation, for\nApproximately 700 Square Feet of Retail Space in the Historic Alameda Theatre Located at\n2315 Central Avenue, Suite 122, to Provide Six Months of Rent Deferral with a Three-Year\nRepayment Period. Continued to March 15, 2022.\n(22-148) Introduction of Ordinance Authorizing the City Manager or Designee to Execute a First\nAmendment to the Lease with Play House, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, Doing\nBusiness as Director's Cut, for Approximately 1,850 Square Feet of Retail Space in the Historic\nAlameda Theatre Complex, Located at 2319 Central Avenue, to Provide a Six-Month Rent\nCredit and a Rent Reduction. Withdrawn and not heard.\n(22-149) Adoption of Resolution Amending the Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget; and\n(22-149 A) Adoption of Resolution Amending the Alameda City Employees Association (ACEA)\nSalary Schedule to Add the Classification of Street Light Maintenance Technician; Amending\nThe International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Salary Schedule to Remove the\nStreetlight Technician; Upgrading Two Maintenance Worker Il Positions To Streetlight\nTechnicians, Effective March 12, 2022. Continued to March 15, 2022.\n(22-150) Recommendation to Accept the Annual Report on the Climate Action and Resiliency\nPlan (CARP) and the Annual Report on Transportation. Withdrawn and not heard.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\n(22-151) The City Manager discussed the removal of the indoor mask mandate, the City's 4th of\nJuly parade and the Point in Time Count.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\n(22-152) Consider Having the City Council Address the Zoning of the Harbor Bay Club.\n(Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard.\n(22-153) Consider Having the City Council Review Recreation and Parks Department\nCommunity Events. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMarch 1, 2022\n23", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-03-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-03-01", "page": 26, "text": "(22-154) Consider Directing Staff to Bring the Rent Program \"In-House\" to the City Attorney's\nOffice. (Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft and Vice Mayor Vella) Not heard.\n(22-155) Consider Adoption of Resolution Expressing Support for the \"Brand-Huang-Mendoza\nTripartisan Land Use Initiative\" to Amend Article XI of the Constitution of the State of California\nto Make Zoning and Land Use Community Affairs, and Not of State Interest. Withdrawn and not\nheard.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(22-156) Councilmember Herrera Spencer discussed the Point in Time Count.\n(22-157) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft discussed the Point in Time Count, a Bay Conservation and\nDevelopment Commission (BCDC) Enforcement Committee meeting discussion related to\nabandoned vessels in the estuary, a joint meeting of the Alameda County Mayors and the Board\nof Supervisors to address homelessness, an interview held with consultants working on the\nthree year strategic plan for Alameda Health Systems and a meeting of the City Council and\nAlameda Health Care District subcommittee.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 11:54 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\nMarch 1, 2022\n24", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-03-01.pdf"}