{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-05-03", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- MAY 3, 2022--5:00 P.M.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 5:04 p.m.\nRoll Call - Present:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Knox White,\nand Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note: Vice Mayor Vella\narrived at 5:19 p.m. and left at 6:50 p.m. The meeting was\nheld via Zoom.]\nAbsent:\nNone.\nPublic Comment Read into the Record:\nExpressed support for Greenway Golf: Chris Iglesias, Unity Council; Mark Swartz,\nAlameda; Nick Wolf, Alameda High School; and Christ Tam, All Good Living\nFoundation.\nThe meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(22-285) 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): Greenway Golf\nAssociates, Inc.\n(22-286) Public Employee Appointment/Hiring (Pursuant to Government Code Section\n54957); Title/Description of Positions to be Filled: City Manager\n(22-287) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (Pursuant to Government\nCode Section 54956.9); Case Name: Mario Gonzalez et. al. V. City of Alameda et. al.;\nCourt: United States District Court, Northern District of California; Case Number: 4:21-\nCV-09733-DMR; and Case Name: Edith Arenales V. City of Alameda et. al.; Court:\nUnited States District Court, Northern District of California; Case Number: e 4:22-cv-\n00718.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and the City Clerk\nannounced that regarding the Potential Litigation, staff provided information and Council\nprovided direction by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera\nSpencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 5;\nregarding Employee Appointment/Hiring, Council provided direction to staff to return\nwith an Interim City Manager agreement at the next regular Council Meeting on May 17,\n2022 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; and\nregarding Existing Litigation, Council provided direction to staff by the following roll call\nvote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; and\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 4. [Absent: Vice Mayor Vella - 1].\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 3, 2022\n1", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-05-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-05-03", "page": 2, "text": "Adjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 6:56\np.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\n2", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-05-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-05-03", "page": 3, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND\nSUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE\nCOMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (SACIC)\nTUESDAY-MAY 3, 2022- -6:59 P.M.\nMayor/Chair\nEzzy\nAshcraft\nconvened\nthe\nmeeting\nat\n7:15\np.m.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Herrera Spencer led the Pledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers/Commissioners Daysog, Herrera\nSpencer, Knox White, and Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft\n- 4. [Note: The meeting was held via Zoom.]\nAbsent:\nVice Mayor/Commissioner Vella - 1.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nCommissioner Knox White moved approval of the Consent Calendar.\nCommissioner Herrera Spencer seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll\ncall vote: Councilmembers/Commissioners Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Spencer:\nAye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. [Items so enacted or\nadopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]\n(*22-05 SACIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council/SACIC Meeting Held on\nMarch 1, 2022. Approved.\nAGENDA ITEM\n(22-06\nSACIC) Adoption of Resolution Declaring That the Property Located at 2350\nFifth Street is Exempt Surplus Land Pursuant to Government Code Section\n54221(f)(1)(D);\n(22-06 SACIC A) Adoption of Resolution Authorizing the Conveyance of the Property\nLocated at 2350 Fifth Street to the City of Alameda in Accordance with the Terms of a\nPurchase and Sale Agreement Between the City and the Successor Agency; and\nAuthorizing the Interim City Manager, as Executive Director of the Successor Agency, to\nExecute the Purchase and Sale Agreement and to Take Other Actions Necessary to\nComplete Conveyance of the Property;\n(22-288 ( CC) Amending the General Fund Budget to Appropriate an Additional $250,000\nfor Purchase of 2350 Fifth Street; and\n(22-289 CC) Introduction of Ordinance Authorizing Acceptance of the Property Located\nat 2350 Fifth Street from the Successor Agency to the Community Improvement\nCommission of City of Alameda in Accordance with the Terms of a Purchase and Sale\nAgreement Between the City and the Successor Agency; and Authorizing the Interim\nCity Manager to Execute a Purchase and Sale Agreement with the Successor Agency\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and Successor Agency\n1\nto the Community Improvement Commission\nMay 3, 2022", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-05-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-05-03", "page": 4, "text": "and to Take Such Other Actions Necessary to Complete the Conveyance of the\nProperty. Not heard.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at\n7:16 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger, City Clerk\nSecretary, SACIC\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and Successor Agency\nto the Community Improvement Commission\n2\nMay 3, 2022", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-05-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-05-03", "page": 5, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY - - MAY 3, 2022--7:00 - P.M.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:16 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Knox\nWhite, Vella, and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note:\nVice Mayor Vella arrived at 7:29 p.m. and left the\nmeeting at 11:39 p.m. The meeting was conducted\nvia Zoom.]\nAbsent:\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\nNone.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(22-290) Proclamation in Support of the People of Ukraine.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft read the proclamation.\n(22-291) Proclamation Declaring May 2022 as Asian American Pacific Islander Heritage\nMonth.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft read the proclamation.\n(22-292) Proclamation Declaring May 2022 as East Bay Affordable Housing Month.\n(22-293) Proclamation Declaring May 2022 as Older American's Month.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(22-294) Zac Bowling, Alameda Democratic Club, made an announcement regarding an\nupcoming meeting.\n(22-295) Josh Altieri, Alameda Housing Authority, provided an update on the Housing\nAuthority.\n(22-296) Rosalinda Fortuna Corvi, Alameda, expressed concern over the Maritime\nMarine Officers Training Center being pulled from the State Historical Resources\nCommission agenda.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 3, 2022\n1", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-05-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-05-03", "page": 6, "text": "The City Clerk read the title of the two Public Hearings [paragraph nos. 22-310 and 22-\n311] and indicated public comment would be accepted.\nStated the Military Equipment Policy [paragraph no. 22-300] matter should be pulled\nfrom the Consent Calendar for discussion; the armored vehicle has been used three\ntimes; military riot equipment is not likely needed; the equipment is expensive and\nuseless: Marilyn Rothman, Alameda.\nUrged Council pull the Military Equipment Policy from Consent; stated the California\nlegislature has directed local governments to fully vet the equipment and explore\nalternatives; the City needs to stop preparing for riots and prepare for the emergencies\nwhich do occur in Alameda; the policy does not include Council as the governing body:\nJennifer Rakowski, Alameda.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer requested the teleconference findings [paragraph no.\n22-299 be removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion and recorded a note\nvote on the Alameda Fire Chief Association (AFCA) MOU [paragraph no. 22-306 and\nCFD 22-2 ordinance [paragraph no. 22-309].\nCouncilmember Knox White requested the Military Equipment Policy be removed from\nthe Consent Calendar for discussion.\nCouncilmember Daysog recorded no votes on Final Map 8610 [paragraph no. 22-304],\nTentative Map 8468 [paragraph no. 22-305], the AFCA MOU and CFD 22-1 ordinance\n[paragraph no. 22-308 and recused himself from the Webster Street BIA [paragraph no.\n22-311].\nCouncilmember Knox White moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer seconded the motion, which carried by the following\nroll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Ayes; Knox White: Aye;\nVella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are\nindicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]\n(*22-297) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings Held on April 4,\n2022. Approved.\n(*22-298) Ratified bills in the amount of $3,167,850.58.\n(22-299) Recommendation to Approve Findings to Allow City Meetings to be Conducted\nvia Teleconference.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated there is correspondence attached to the report;\nnoted the Alameda, Albany, Berkeley, Emeryville, Fremont, Oakland and Union City are\nstill closed for public meetings; Dublin, Hayward, Livermore, Newark, Piedmont,\nPleasanton and San Leandro are offering hybrid meetings; stated more cities are\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 3, 2022\n2", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-05-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-05-03", "page": 7, "text": "opening meetings to the public; she has voted not to continue the current\nteleconference method; expressed support for following the approach in other cities;\ninquired the progress made on the City's efforts for a hybrid meeting model.\nThe City Clerk responded staff has an agreement with a company to come in an\nintegrate Zoom to the Council Chambers system; stated a project team has been\nassigned and a kick-off meeting is being scheduled soon; the estimated timeline is\nabout six weeks from the kick-off meeting; noted the necessary equipment is likely in\nstock; however, other cities have experienced equipment delays due to supply chain\nshortages.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated there is another way to integrate Zoom and still\nhave in-person meetings which does not require the six week delay.\nThe City Clerk stated staff remains flexible and able to move on a dime; there is a\npatchwork workaround approach where the Council Chambers can be shot with the\nsame web camera used by most staff at a wide angle.\nCouncilmember Knox White 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\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.\n(22-300) Recommendation to Accept Transmittal of the Police Department Military\nEquipment Use Policy.\nThe Police Captain gave a Power Point presentation.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated the matter is an unfortunate missed opportunity for\nCouncil to have a discussion with the community about issues; the matter being placed\non the Consent Calendar shows that the issue is being taken lighter than meant;\nexpressed support for the matter returning to Council as a regular agenda items in order\nto have a presentation and public comment; stated the presentation could have\naddressed how most of the items are being used; while there are crowd control uses for\nsome items, other tactical uses are also intended, which may be helpful in tricky\nsituations; the discussion could center around how infrequently the items have been\nused; there is typically no desire to use the devices; expressed support for setting\ncareful and thoughtful boundaries for use; if Council does not do anything to limit the\nuse of the devices, the commitment to the community and subcommittees is not being\nmet; stated that he is supportive of the policies as-written; he would like the matter to\nreturn to Council with a report centered on reporting requirements; frequent reporting\nrequirements would help people understand what is happening with the equipment;\naggregated reporting loses context; it would be beneficial to inform people that they will\nhear about item use, which could decrease concerns; the reporting will help the annual\ndiscussion and commits to checks and balances for the community; he trusts that the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 3, 2022\n3", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-05-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-05-03", "page": 8, "text": "current Police Chief and Captain will not use the items; however, future staff might have\ndifferent ideas about how to interact with the public; the community should be aware if\nuse of the items changes significantly; expressed support for language related to\nfrequent reporting.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether more frequent reporting requirements means\nhaving a report whenever a particular item is used as opposed to six month or annual\nreporting, to which Councilmember Knox White responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired where the annual reporting frequency came\nfrom and how more frequent reporting would affect the Police Department.\nVic Mayor Vella inquired whether the proposed reporting could fall under the policy for\nsignificant incidents; stated significant incident information (Sig Info) reporting\nimmediately comes to Council; noted the information is broad.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification about Sign Info reporting and criteria.\nThe Police Chief stated a policy requires notification within 60 days of use of any of the\nitems during crowd control; staff can provide a Sig Info notification.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested the Sig Info policy be paraphrased.\nThe Police Captain stated Policy 468.13 is derived from Assembly Bill (AB) 48 and\nstates anytime staff uses chemical agents or kinetic energy projectiles during any crowd\ncontrol purpose, staff must provide a summary and report on the website within 60 days\nof each incident, unless there are exemptions as defined by law.\nVice Mayor Vella stated notifications which come to the Council; the usage could fall\nunder the notification to Council; the reporting would not be public and would be\ninternal.\nThe Police Chief stated staff can use the Sig Info process to make notifications; the only\ncause for pause would be staff initiating an internal investigation associated with the use\nof equipment.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the Council discussion is still within the purview\nof the agenda item or whether Council should provide direction to staff to return with an\namended policy.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded the purpose for presenting the matter to Council\nis to obtain Council direction and instruction on the proposed final policy; the final policy\nwill come back to Council pursuant to AB 481, presented as an ordinance; Council is\nwithin its rights to express preferences and discuss how to tailor the policy to City\nneeds.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 3, 2022\n4", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-05-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-05-03", "page": 9, "text": "Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the policy could be accepted as-is; Council\nalready receives notification within 60 days.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of accepting the use policy as-\npresented.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether two additional minutes of\nspeaking time is desired.\nVice Mayor Vella noted there have been comments provided by the public related to\namendments to the proposed policy language; expressed support for including the\namended language and reporting being built-in, including the 60 day reporting.\n***\n(22-301) Vice Mayor Vella moved approval of adding a minute for Councilmembers.\nThere was no second to the motion.\n***\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated the policy states: \"governing body, elected or\nappointed body that oversees the department;\" inquired whether the language should\nreference Alameda City Council.\nVice Mayor Vella responded in the affirmative; stated that she would also support the\npolicy referencing required reporting for the crowd control policy.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Vice Mayor Vella accepts the changes proposed\nby Councilmember Knox White, to which Vice Mayor Vella responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated Councilmember Knox White's proposed\ninclusion is already being performed by the Police Chief within 60 days of use.\nVice Mayor Vella stated the reference is solely for crowd control, not for any use.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer requested clarification from staff on the proposed\nchanges.\nVice Mayor Vella stated that she has inquired whether the changes can be performed\nand added as another box to check on Sig Info alerts; if a Councilmember wishes to\nraise an issue, Council will know that one of the items were used in the incident; the\nchanges elevate the incident to Council-level.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft staff can incorporate the comments provided by Council and return\nwith a final policy for approval.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 3, 2022\n5", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-05-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-05-03", "page": 10, "text": "Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she is looking for more information; there\nis a lot of law related to the matter; expressed support for ensuring the requests from\nCouncilmembers are not conflicting with the charges from the State of reporting and that\nthe proposed changes work for the Department.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is confident staff can carry out the duties.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated AB 481 sets a floor in policies and reporting\nrequirements; the Department has discretion to exceed the floor; Council may\nimplement policies and direct staff to exceed the floor established by AB 481.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether Council receives a separate notice\nany time the equipment is used.\nThe Interim City Manager responded Sig Info updates happen in real-time; expressed\nconcern for setting the Department up to fail if staff inadvertently fails to check a box;\nexpressed support for having the 60 day window to allow the information to flow\nnaturally and not make mistakes; stated Sig Info updates are designed to get to elected\nofficials within a few hours or sooner; recommended the policy remain as presented by\nthe Police Chief and Captain leaving the 60 day window; stated the window allows staff\nto roll out the information and annual reporting.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested the information related to equipment uses beyond\nchemical agents and projectiles be expanded.\nThe Interim City Manager stated there is a more limited list in the policy referenced; staff\ncan link the policy to AB 481.\nThe Police Chief expressed support for the proposed policy; stated the 60 day notice\nallows staff a window to expand beyond crowd control incidents and allows time to be\ncomprehensive; the check box for Sig Info updates might not be as informative as a 60\nday report; expressed support for any follow up investigation being assessed to\nconsider the information being put out; stated staff would like to include whether the\nequipment had been used and associated dates at a minimum; additional information\nshould not be provided during open investigations.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer amended her motion to approve including the 60 day\nreporting notification, with the exception noted by the Police Chief related to ongoing\ninvestigations.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the amended motion, which carried by the following\nroll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye;\nVella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 3, 2022\n6", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-05-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-05-03", "page": 11, "text": "(*22-302) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim City Manager, or Designee, to\nAccept the Improvements Completed by Alameda Marina, LLC for Tract 8500, Alameda\nMarina Clement Avenue Improvement Plans. Accepted.\n(*22-303) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim City Manager to Execute Two\nWater Line Easements to the East Bay Municipal Utility District Across City Tidelands\nProperty at Alameda Marina and Any and All Ancillary Documents, and Direct the\nRecording of the Grant of Easements for the Development Projects Related to Tract\n8500. Accepted.\n(*22-304) Resolution No. 15899, \"Approving a Final Map and Authorize the Interim City\nManager to Execute a Subdivision Improvement Agreement for Tract 8610, Alameda\nMarina Townhomes.\" Adopted.\nNote: Councilmember Daysog recorded a no vote, so the motion carried by the\nfollowing vote: Councilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye;\nVella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.\n(*22-305) Resolution No. 15900, \"Approving Tentative Tract Map No. 8468 and a\nCondominium Plan (PLN21-0587) to Subdivide 2350 Saratoga Street into Three\nCommercial Condominium Units.\" Adopted.\nNote: Councilmember Daysog recorded a no vote, so the motion carried by the\nfollowing vote: Councilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye;\nVella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.\n(*22-306) Resolution No. 15901, \"Approving a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)\nBetween the Alameda Fire Chiefs Association (AFCA) and the City of Alameda for a\nForty-Eight Month Term Commencing December 19, 2021 and Ending December 31,\n2025.\" Adopted.\nNote: Councilmembers Daysog and Herrera Spencer recorded no votes, so the motion\ncarried by the following vote: Councilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox\nWhite: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.\n(*22-307) Ordinance No. 3318, \"Amending Alameda Municipal Code Chapter 8 and\nChapter 12 Authorizing Public Works Enforcement of Parking Provisions and Ensuring\nConsistency with California Vehicle Code.\" Finally passed.\n(*22-308) Ordinance No. 3319, \"Levying Special Taxes within the City of Alameda\nCommunity Facilities District No. 22-1 (Alameda Marina). Finally passed.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer recorded a no vote, so the motion carried by the\nfollowing vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye;\nVella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 3, 2022\n7", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-05-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-05-03", "page": 12, "text": "(*22-309) Ordinance No. 3320, \"Levying Special Taxes within the City of Alameda\nCommunity Facilities District No. 22-2 (Alameda Marina - Shoreline Improvements\nMaintenance and Adaptive Measures).' Finally passed.\nNote: Councilmember Daysog recorded a no vote, so the motion carried by the\nfollowing vote: Councilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye;\nVella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.\n(*22-310) Public Hearing to Consider Resolution No. 15902, \"Confirming the Park Street\nBusiness Improvement Area Annual Assessment Report for Fiscal Year 2022-23 and\nLevying an Annual Assessment on the Park Street Business Improvement Area.\"\nFinally passed.\n(*22-311) Public Hearing to Consider Resolution No. 15903, \"Confirming the Webster\nStreet Business Improvement Area Assessment Report for Fiscal Year 2022-23 and\nLevying an Annual Assessment on the Webster Street Business Improvement Area.\nFinally passed.\nNote: Councilmember Daysog recused himself, so the motion carried by the following\nvote: Councilmembers Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor\nEzzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. [Absent: Councilmember Daysog - 1.\nCONTINUED AGENDA ITEMS\n(22-312) Recommendation to Provide Direction to City Staff on Emergency Supportive\nHousing for Three City-Owned Vacant Homes at Alameda Point.\nThe Economic Development Manager gave a Power Point presentation.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer outlined identification needs for the program; inquired\nwhether individuals would be housed prior to being identified and screened through\nMegan's Law.\nThe Community Development Director responded people would be screened based on\nidentification provided; individuals would be supported in obtaining a license or other\nform of identification and would be screened again.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would like to ensure no one would be\nhoused until being identified and screened by staff.\nThe Community Development Director stated staff will house and screen individuals\nbased on the information provided; staff will verify the information provided and will\nassist in obtaining official identification for additional screening when needed.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification about the issue related to Megan's Law.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 3, 2022\n8", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-05-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-05-03", "page": 13, "text": "The Community Development Director stated staff will screen individuals through the\nMegan's Law database based on information received; some people do not have official\nidentification and only have other forms or documentation; staff will re-screen with\nofficial documentation.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the initial screening could solely be verbal\nidentification.\nThe Community Development Director responded staff would take whatever\ndocumentation the individual has; stated a membership card or other documentation\ncould be utilized; staff will attempt to verify identity using other resources, such as social\nservices.\nThe Economic Development Manager stated in housing first, staff takes people as they\nare; staff will take whatever identification is held at the time and address any issues.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would like to confirm people can be\nhoused without actually verifying identity and confirming Megan's Law status; the\npriority is housing first and verification screening will happen at some point in the future.\nThe Community Development Director stated Megan's Law is very important and staff\nwill attempt to screen individuals based on the information provided; staff will try to\nobtain additional information and re-screen.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the program model provides housing\nfirst and later determines identity and screens for Megan's Law issues.\nThe Community Development Director responded the assessment could be correct if an\nindividual does not have an official California identification at the time of entering the\nhome.\nThe Interim City Manager stated the characterization for the program by\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer is possible, but not likely due to the identification\nprovided being screened; people may end up with identification that is not their own;\nhowever, the stolen or found identification will be noted during screening; the goal is to\nget people fully screened as soon as possible; pre-screening will allow people to prove\nwho they are, but could also uncover falsified information.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether it is possible for people to stay at the Day Center\nuntil identification is verified.\nThe Economic Development Manager responded Village of Love will bring in familiar\npeople.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she is looking for an affirmative or negative\nresponse to whether people will be screened for Megan's Law prior to being placed in\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 3, 2022\n9", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-05-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-05-03", "page": 14, "text": "homes.\nCouncilmember Knox White inquired whether individuals are picked up off the street\nand offered housing; stated that he believes there is a process and individuals are\ngenerally well assessed and known; he understands that people will be screened with\nthe information provided; the likelihood of unknown people moving into the house is\nvery unlikely.\nThe Community Development Director concurred with Councilmember Knox White;\nstated the amount of unhoused people in the City is such that staff typically does have\ninformation and almost a relationship with each person through various service\nproviders; the City will hopefully be partnering with Village of Love; people have the\nopportunity to come through the program via Village of Love; the goal for staff is to\nensure people receive supportive housing; people should be housing ready and able to\nco-house with other individuals.\nCouncilmember Knox White requested clarification about the process of certifying\npeople for compliance with Megan's Law while living in the community, not housed and\nliving in an encampment.\nThe Community Development Director stated there is not a certification process unless\nthe individual participates in a City program.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated moving into the house would require a higher\nprocess; the greatest need for this type of housing is not families; he is concerned the\nnumber of people able to be served could be cut in half; it is easy to work with families\nand seniors while leaving the people who need the most help off to the side; requested\nprogram details being shared.\nThe Community Development Director stated staff is responding to community\ncomments and concerns; the staff report indicates the program could be slightly\nmodified for an opportunity to house additional individuals in two of the homes and a\nfamily in another; concurred the highest need is for individuals; stated medically\nvulnerable seniors have been prioritized and other individuals would be housing using a\nprioritization system; two families can be housed.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested an explanation of the population being served at the\nDignity Village development.\nThe Community Development Director stated the development is a combination which\nwill house individual unhoused people and serve the top priority of those who are\nchronically unhoused; there will be an effort to house individuals that are considered re-\nhoused.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether any families with children will be included.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 3, 2022\n10", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-05-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-05-03", "page": 15, "text": "The Community Development Director responded there is potential for families to be\nserved by the program; staff has reserved five rooms for transitional-age youth.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated transitional-aged youth are not families with children; the\nyouths are exiting the foster care system; inquired whether Dignity Village is designed to\nhouse families that are living out of their car or utilizing hotel vouchers.\nThe Community Development Director responded in the negative; stated Dignity Village\nis not designed to house families.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Dignity Village is designed for adults, including people\naging out of the foster care system.\nThe Community Development Director stated staff will not exclude families under\nDignity Village.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the need for individuals to be housed is a good point; the\narea of Alameda Point is not the only area being looked at for services.\nStated demonizing homelessness is appalling; candidates will have been actively\nengaged with outreach workers and the Community Assessment Response &\nEngagement (CARE) team; discussed low barrier housing; expressed support for the\nVillage of Love: Doug Biggs, Alameda.\nStated that her opposition is well documented and due to the program not helping with\nthe Main Street encampment; discussed hotel vouchers; expressed concern over\nfeasibility issues, permit delays and information being vague; stated the neighborhood is\nchronically neglected; urged Council take accountability for substandard conditions:\nShelby Sheehan, Alameda.\nExpressed support for families occupying the three homes and for hotel vouchers;\nexpressed concern for the neighborhood being a dumping ground and for minimizing\nthe opposition: Alan Tubbs, Alameda.\nStated that he is impressed with Village of Love; he cannot support single families in the\nproposed homes due to concerns related to Megan's Law; people need to be vetted\nprior to obtaining housing; discussed fake identification; expressed concern over health\nconditions and public indecency: Craig Miott, Alameda.\nDiscussed identification being required for Alameda Food Bank services; stated there\nshould not be a mystery related to where people come from; expressed support for\nrequiring a birth certificate: Rosalinda Fortuna Corvi, Alameda.\nStated others comments related to people experiencing homelessness is appalling and\noffensive; the community must do better in showing compassion; the point of housing\nfirst is to get people in houses as the best way to improve the outcome; it is shameful to\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 3, 2022\n11", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-05-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-05-03", "page": 16, "text": "equate homelessness with being a danger to children: Josh Geyer, Alameda.\nStated Village of Love are ideal partners for the program; Village of Love will step up\nand handle any problems that arise; expressed support for a mother with children being\none of the first families in the program housing: Fred Fielding, Twin Towers United\nMethodist Church.\nStated people criticizing the program should walk with someone that is experiencing\nhomelessness; discussed issues related to being homeless; stated people need to be\ntreated with compassion; people running the program know how to handle issues:\nSandra Pilon.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for the program; stated the Village of Love is\nhand selecting people that are ready to transition from the Village of Love to transitional\nhousing; people able to be housed will have the opportunity to avail themselves of wrap\naround services to help get to the next step of permanent housing; programs succeed\none life at a time; the City is starting small and has a lot of potential; expressed concern\nover complaining about problems without taking action; the matter is an opportunity to\ntake action through a reliable model.\nVice Mayor Vella stated the matter is important; expressed concern about the amount of\ntime taken to get to the point of moving forward; stated there is an important statistic:\nmany Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Questioning (LGBTQ) youth end up\nhomeless without beds in Alameda County; when youth transition out of the system,\nthey are left at the mercy of available services; she would like people to consider the\nyouths that are unsafe staying home and do not have support from their family; mental\nhealth issues arise as a result from the stresses of being unhoused; housing first is the\nrecommended model due to the aid in stabilization; many LGBTQ individuals would\nbenefit from transitional housing and a housing first model; expressed support for a\nproposal and model that maximizes the use of space and the populations to be serviced\nby the units; stated the neighborhood concerns are heard; people will be screened;\nobtaining identification is often a barrier and will be taken into account; expressed\nsupport for models which maximize space with more than one family per house as well\nas alternatives to provide supportive housing to individuals and not just being limited to\nfamilies.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Vice Mayor Vella is recommending the housing\nbe used for homeless LGBTQ youth.\nVice Mayor Vella responded in the negative; stated the housing should be used for\nindividuals; it is problematic to state the program will only serve families; many people\nbecome homeless at a young age and transition out; there is a large homeless\npopulation aged from 19 to 25 years and many would benefit from supportive housing.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated many families are opposed to families sharing housing;\nthere are many different issues; families need their own housing unit; expressed support\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 3, 2022\n12", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-05-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-05-03", "page": 17, "text": "for following the lead of providers working with affected groups; providers are adamant\nabout not sharing housing; expressed support for a reasonable framework to\ncontemplate concerns raised by neighbors; stated some concerns are based on\nstereotypes and old-fashioned thinking without knowing much about possibilities or\nservices provided; there is respect for surrounding neighbors; the area has vacant\nhomes which should be used to help other people be neighbors; expressed support for\nmoving forward.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the homes would be rented out if\nplaced on the market.\nThe Community Development Director responded the City has a good track record of\nleasing the homes; staff would not have a problem renting the homes if the program\ndoes not move forward.\nIn response to Councilmember Herrera Spencer's inquiry regarding the price, the\nCommunity Development Director stated the price varies depending on the size of the\nhome; the Big Whites rent ranges from the high $3,000 to low $4,000 per month; the\namount is less for the ranch and town homes.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated explicit house rules were provided at a meeting\nheld at the O'Club; inquired whether the provider would have house rules.\nThe Community Development Director responded in the affirmative; stated the housing\nfirst, low-barrier approach does not mean that inappropriate or poor behavior would be\ntolerated.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated the house rules included not allowing the use\nof drugs or smoking inside the home; noted pets are allowed; questioned whether the\nprovider would have limits or similar rules, to which the Community Development\nDirector responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer noted there are no rules for people outside of the\nhome; inquired whether doing drug outside the house could be allowed and not result in\nsomeone being removed from the home.\nThe Community Development Director responded trespassing in another person's yard\nwould not be permitted; there is an expectation of behaving like other citizens and\nobserving property boundaries; the program does not permit someone conducting\nthemselves illegally or inappropriately similar to other citizens; illegal activities fall under\nAlameda Police Department's (APD) jurisdiction as well as the program director;\nparticipants are expected to be good neighbors.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether there are explicit rules related to\nwhat behavior would result in removal from the house; questioned whether staff has the\nrules and whether rules pertain to behavior outside of the home.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 3, 2022\n13", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-05-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-05-03", "page": 18, "text": "The Community Development Director responded staff has not contracted with a\nprovider yet; however, staff can take Council recommendations; stated there would\nlikely be requirements to be good neighbors and not being disruptive.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated community members have raised concerns; the\nMain Street encampment still exists; inquired whether program residents would reduce\nthe number of people at the Main Street encampment.\nThe Community Development Director responded that she is not certain whether the\nassessment is correct.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested staff to clarify the City efforts to address the Main Street\nencampments.\nThe Interim City Manager stated there is a multi-prong approach to the Main Street\nencampments; the Public Works, Community Development and Police Departments are\nworking to try and manage things that collect in the area, to connect people with social\nservices and to move in the direction of creating transitional and supportive housing; the\nbottle parcel will create the opportunity to unlock options around housing people in the\ncommunity; the project goes beyond the exiting housing stock; the City performs a\ncleanup of the Main Street encampment every two weeks to ensure the site is as\norderly as possible in the interim period.\nThe Community Development Director stated every time the City creates more housing\nopportunities, such as the proposed program, there are more possibilities to get people\noff the streets; staff working with the Village of Love will help transition some of\nindividuals and create a new opportunity for other individuals; the more options\navailable, the more staff can help people flow through various opportunities.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated the Main Street encampments have been\npresent for over one year; she appreciates the multi-prong approach; people in the\nneighborhood submitting concerns are familiar with homeless people; she has not heard\nthat the Main Street encampments will disappear; inquired whether there is a timeline\nfor the Main Street encampment to no longer exist.\nThe Interim City Manager responded the homeless issue in the Bay Area is significant;\nstated that he does not have a timeline for the Main Street encampment to no longer\nexist; opportunities, such as the proposed program, create new services and\nopportunities to have people housed; between the proposed project and the transitional\nhousing site at the bottle parcel, Alameda will be in a much different position one year\nfrom now; the City relies on a few service providers to connect people with resources;\nhowever, there are not many opportunities to put people into a house or shelter.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer requested clarification about the meaning of the term\nsaturation.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 3, 2022\n14", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-05-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-05-03", "page": 19, "text": "The Community Development Director stated the area being saturated means that a\ngreat deal of homeless services are provided at Alameda Point and the West End;\nAlameda does not have the same opportunities elsewhere in the City; expressed\nsupport for creating a similar program in another part of the City with comparable\nopportunities; however, such an area does not exist; if other opportunities present\nthemselves in other areas in the City, staff will look into spreading out services.\nThe Interim City Manager stated the Housing Element provides an opportunity to\ndiscuss housing barriers and opportunities in different parts of the community; there are\nways to shift the policy perspective over-time for the community related to where\nproperties are re-zoned and placed.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she previously voted against the matter;\ndiscussed a community meeting; stated staff has been more forthright with the proposal;\nthe proposed use is not three families being placed in three homes; the program will\nlikely have individuals, which is not what the community members support; there are\nmultiple people at the encampment on Main Street; the City needs to repair the homes\nin the area; the City has received complaints about the state of the properties; it is\nimperative that the City be a good landlord to the current tenants in the area; the homes\ncould be rented out, which would generate rental income for the City; rent revenue\nshould have been used for repairs; house rules must address inside and outside the\nhome; identification needs to be confirmed prior to offering anyone housing; the City is\nhousing people within an established neighborhood; people need to be identified and\nscreened per Megan's Law; expressed support for Village of Love's work as a provider;\nstated that she would like to regularly hear from community members if the program is\napproved.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated Council can find reasons not to support the matter;\nhe hopes to move the matter forward and is enthusiastic about building housing in\nAlameda; expressed support for the staff recommendation; stated that he would like one\nsupportive housing unit to be used for up to 50% seniors and medically vulnerable; he\nbelieves Council would be doing the City and community a disservice in creating a\nsystem that de-prioritizes the highest need and largest number; recommended a second\nBig White be held in abeyance for repairs; stated the number of people being served is\nbeing reduced by using two homes for single families; the City will not be collecting rent;\nthe City's job is not to make money, it is to serve the people who live in the City whether\nor not they have a house.\nCouncilmember Knox White moved approval of the staff recommendation with one\nhouse being used for prioritization of up to 50% seniors and medically vulnerable, and\nmaintaining a second Big White house which could be put into effect once the City has\nhad the opportunity to go through the program and judge its effectiveness and impact\non the neighborhood; leaving the decision to staff about renting another existing Big\nWhite if one becomes available.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 3, 2022\n15", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-05-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-05-03", "page": 20, "text": "Councilmember Knox White stated the Carnegie Library is a place the City could be\nlooking at; Council has given staff direction to come back with a plan for addressing the\ngeographic issue; the answer will likely include money; he expects those concerned\nabout the East versus West divide will be supportive of spending money to buy\nexpensive houses and address homelessness; he supports plans to place housing\nthrough the City.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Councilmember Knox White is recommending\nthe City add another Big White to be fixed with City funds and held in abeyance for\nhomeless accommodations, to which Councilmember Knox White responded in the\naffirmative.\nIn response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, Councilmember Knox White stated that\nhe is recommending the City move forward with all three proposed buildings: one\nbuilding for individuals and two for homeless families; the second building can be\nexpanded if the City finds the program to be successful.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated proposing up to 50% senior and medically vulnerable allows\nthe other 50% to be adult individuals; the largest growing segment of the homeless\npopulation is seniors age 55 and older; expressed support for the completion of the\nWellness Center project on McKay Avenue; stated people are trying to stop the project\nfrom moving forward by having the area designated on the National Historic Register.\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated the highest moral obligation the City\nof Alameda has is to try to assist homeless families with children; children have a\ndifficult time handling the situation; there is a variety of reasons for an adult to be\nhomeless; homelessness for children is a tragedy; he supports the two houses being\nset aside for homeless families; the third house prioritizing seniors is a need; however,\nsome of the challenges are being addressed in Alameda through the Wellness Center\non McKay Avenue; proposed the third house be used to house homeless, unwed,\nteenage mothers; there is a tremendous amount of unwed, homeless, teenage mothers\nin the East Bay who need a chance to get back on their feet and get back into school\nwith a safe environment for their newborns; the third house would still be a group home\nsituation targeted at families; the City has reached an understanding with the\nneighborhood; expressed concern about going beyond the three housing units; stated\nthe City should have a more focused and thematic approach involving homeless\nfamilies.\nCouncilmember Daysog made a substitute motion approving the City not pursuing the\nfourth housing unit and the third housing unit being for unwed, teenage mothers from\nthe East Bay.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer seconded the motion, which failed by the following roll\ncall vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Ayes; Knox White: No; Vella:\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 3, 2022\n16", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-05-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-05-03", "page": 21, "text": "No; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: No. Ayes: 2. Noes: 3.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he will vote no on the original motion due to his\ndesire to stick to staff's original recommendation; staff's recommendation is a\nconsidered approach that takes into account the need to work with and provide for\nhomeless families.\nOn the call for the question, the original motion carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like to ensure Council is providing clear\ndirection to City staff; the three homes are to be rehabilitated with City funds and\nbrought to livable conditions in order to house the populations as described with the\nmodifications that 50% seniors and medically vulnerable be housed in one Big White\nand others being held in abeyance for future accommodations; inquired whether staff\nunderstands the direction.\nThe Community Development Director inquired whether staff is being instructed to\nutilize a fourth home once the program is up and running for housing general population\nhomeless individuals.\nCouncilmember Knox White responded there is no expectation that staff should do\nanything with the fourth house other than ensuring that a house is available once there\nhas been a chance to evaluate the first three homes; the matter would return to Council\nfor discussion; the people to be placed in the fourth home should be determined by\nwhat is learned from the initial program; the goal is to have a Big White which can hold\nindividuals where the highest need is present; the fourth house may not end up being\nused; expressed concern about providing specific direction to staff to have the fourth\nhouse for a specified group; stated Council is allowing flexibility; expressed support for\nthe program running for a minimum of one year to evaluate the three houses and make\nnecessary changes.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Council desires to rehabilitate the houses.\nCouncilmember Knox White responded in the affirmative; stated the housing unit should\nbe rehabilitated and ready to be used by the time it is needed.\nVice Mayor Vella stated rehabilitating the houses could take time; the time taken to\nrehabilitate will likely be the same time needed for evaluation; Council needs to know\nprogrammatic needs.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the fourth housing unit could be used for unwed teenage\nmothers.\nThe Community Development Director stated that she would like to verify that the fourth\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 3, 2022\n17", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-05-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-05-03", "page": 22, "text": "house rehabilitation would return to Council for guidance in the future.\nCouncilmember Knox White concurred with the Community Development Director.\n***\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft called a recess at 9:35 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:48\np.m.\n***\n(22-313) Public Hearing to Review and Comment on Annual Report on the General\nPlan and Draft Housing Element Update.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director gave a Power Point presentation.\n***\n(22-314) Councilmember Knox White moved approval of allowing up to 5 additional\nminutes for the presentation.\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: Ayes; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director completed the Power Point\npresentation.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether Government Code Section 65585\nrequires that the proposed draft to come back to Council for review, public comments\nand changes prior to being submitted to the Department of Housing and Community\nDevelopment (HCD) or whether staff will submit the draft after the current Council\nmeeting.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded the Code does not\nrequire Council to approve the draft Housing Element (HE) prior to sending it to HCD;\nthe Code section does require that the City consider all comments received and make\nany necessary changes prior to submitting to HCD; the State requirement has the City\ndraft its HE, provide the public 30 days to review, consider public comments, make any\nnecessary changes, and then submit it to HCD for review; once the HCD review has\noccurred, the HE is brought back to the Planning Board and City Council; Council can\nconsider HCD and Planning Board comments to make a final decision; Council could\ndecide to add a step and have the matter return prior to being sent to HCD; the real\ndiscussion will occur once HCD review is complete and decisions will need to be made;\nthe HCD review is an important part of the process; there is opportunity for public\nhearings and Council decision once HCD review occurs.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired when the last changes were made to the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 3, 2022\n18", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-05-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-05-03", "page": 23, "text": "exhibits attached to the staff report and whether documents are redline.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded the draft HE published\nfor public review on April 5th is the draft before Council; staff released an initial set of\nclarifications and changes for the May 9th Planning Board meeting in order to show\nnecessary clean-up; staff does not have a redline version, but a list of changes has\nbeen started.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated Council has received a number of comments related\nto the height of buildings in the commercial district; inquired whether it is possible for the\nCity to get three story buildings with housing in the commercial districts.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded staff has been speaking\nwith property owners and housing developers about Park and Webster Streets; stated\nstaff is recommending a five story height limit due to feedback from property owners\nand housing developers; the feedback included the extreme difficulty and unlikeliness\nfor housing to be built on Park or Webster Streets; Park Street and Webster Street\nalready have buildings; a three story limit does not make sense economically; if Council\nwants to maintain a three story height limit on Webster Street, it is possible; staff will\nthen have to reduce the real estate capacity and 400 units will not be attained on Park\nand Webster Streets; the units will need to be accommodated in the residential district.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired how density bonus impacts height limits.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded density bonus is typically\na 20% bonus if a property owner or developer proposes additional affordable housing;\nthe Park and Webster Streets proposed five story height limit is best viewed as a four\nstories of residential; if an owner provides affordable housing, they would receive a 20%\ndensity bonus; almost every density bonus project performed in the past has used a\n20% bonus; the bonus provides for an additional story; the past 10 years, every project\nhas been required to provide a density bonus due to the multi-family prohibition; the\nonly way projects could provide multi-family units in Alameda was through density\nbonus; once the multi-family prohibition is removed, staff anticipates there will not be as\nmany density bonus projects; Alameda provides significantly more density bonus\nprojects when compared to other cities in the area.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether a project might have a higher height\nlimit if the owner qualifies for a density bonus, to which the Planning, Building and\nTransportation Director responded in the affirmative.\nIn response to Councilmember Herrera Spencer's further inquiry, the Planning, Building\nand Transportation Director stated Council could decide how many places to allow\nmulti-family by right; other types of housing, such as supportive housing, is allowed by\nright under State law; if Council does not allow multi-family housing, shared housing\nmust still be allowed by right; shared housing cannot be treated differently than single\nfamily homes.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 3, 2022\n19", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-05-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-05-03", "page": 24, "text": "Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the term by right is used multiple times\nthroughout the HE, including low barrier navigation centers; inquired whether the City's\nlegal counsel believes Council is required to include low barrier navigation centers.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded State law requires the City to identify locations\nfor low barrier navigation centers; stated staff has identified various locations.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated every place shown by right is\nrequired by State law; the only exception to the requirement is the R-5 district; the\nrequirement is unclear due to how the R-5 district is structured.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated all projects have used density bonus due to the\nCity's zoning; inquired whether density bonus is not something that can be automatically\ngranted, must be requested and a case has to be made.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded in the affirmative; stated\nState density bonus is structured if a developer voluntarily offers to provide a certain\namount of affordable housing, the developer is eligible for a density bonus and waivers;\nsince the City's existing zoning has a multi-family prohibition, the only way to produce\nmore than two units in a building is by offering additional affordable housing; the offer\ncreates eligibility for waivers to the multi-family prohibition.\nCouncilmember Knox White inquired whether the requirement to have developers show\na financial reason for the density bonus has been removed from density bonus law.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded State density bonus law\nhas been amended over the years; stated the law has become more lenient over the\nyears; there are two aspects to the law; one is the waiver of things, such as height\nlimits; a more rigid requirement used to relate to financial incentives; a developer had to\nshow the financial unviability in order to qualify for a waiver; the burden now falls on the\nCity.\nUrged Council be respectful of the will of the voters; stated upzoning density in\nneighborhoods and increasing heights is clearly counter to the Measure Z vote;\nexpressed support for Alameda complying with State housing law; stated the proposed\nHE is an extreme interpretation; expressed concern about taller buildings; urged Council\ncontinue the hearing to after May 9th: Elizabeth Greene, Alameda.\nStated the West Alameda Business Association (WABA) created a plan to protect the\nintegrity of Webster Street and restrict heights; the plan is viable and speaks to\nprotecting the historical value: Sandra Pilon, WABA\nStated that she has continued to try and be involved with proposals to meet the\nRegional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA); the HE does not include allocations\nwithout undue density increases and by right upzoning; expressed concern about\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 3, 2022\n20", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-05-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-05-03", "page": 25, "text": "residential and commercial zones; urged the matter be seriously considered: Dolores\nKelleher, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS).\nStated her neighborhood is dense and diverse; discussed the capability for more units\nin existing areas; expressed concern about building heights taller than three stories;\nstated the HE has more than enough places to provide housing throughout the City;\nurged Council to decide where new housing should go; questioned why the Bridgeside\nShopping Center is off the list: Betsy Mathison, Alameda.\nDiscussed RHNA numbers; stated any buffer is unnecessary; urged Council to focus on\nthe 5,353 housing units; the amount is attainable through the current Accessory\nDwelling Unit (ADU) process; there is no need to upzone R-2 through R-6 areas; urged\nCouncil to build to the requirement: Matt Reid, Alameda.\nExpressed support for height limits; stated that she supports smaller units in transit\nareas and the request to remove unnecessary blanket upzoning across residential\nneighborhoods; she disagrees with the proposal to include either Lum School or\nThompson Field for future housing; urged Council to consider continuing public\nhearings: Carmen Reid, Alameda.\nDiscussed the HCD letter attached to the staff report; stated the letter provides for a\ncompliant HE which meets the RHNA obligation and fair housing without upzoning the\nR-2 through R-6 areas; questioned whether deletion of upzoning is not in compliance\nwith fair housing law; stated upzoning all districts is overkill and manipulates the HE\nwithout voter approval: Paul Foreman, Alameda.\nQuestioned why staff was not directed to =object to the RHNA numbers while 70 other\ncities submitted letters of objection; expressed support for an initiative prohibiting out of\nState developers from funding campaigns and building new infrastructure before RHNA\nunits; discussed a bike and car bridge and spending State funds on infrastructure:\nRosalinda Fortuna Corvi, Alameda.\nUrged Council to upzone Central Avenue and Webster Street; stated Webster Street is\nfull of parking lots and one story buildings; expressed support for encouraging fa\u00e7ade\nreuse; expressed concern about shopping centers being limited to five stories; stated\nnot building high equals building out: Alex Spher, Alameda.\nExpressed support for the AAPS letter; stated more housing will be built and Alameda\nwill be more dense; questioned how the City will go about adding more housing; stated\nthe current HE overreaches with upzoning residential areas; expressed support for\nadding units, while keeping a livable City and the three story height limit; stated that she\nwould add units to her property to help: Joyce Boyd, AAPS.\nDiscussed Alameda Point; stated that she would like to challenge the position of\nAlameda Point's role in RHNA and urge staff and the Fair Housing Task Force to\nauthenticate the methodology and update where needed; expressed concern about the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 3, 2022\n21", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-05-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-05-03", "page": 26, "text": "methodology being out of date: Donna Fletcher, Alameda.\nDiscussed collective knowledge on the HE being shared; stated many people believe\nthe HE is moving in the right direction and the City is being set up for success;\nexpressed concern about correspondence; stated the City cannot risk entertaining the\nproposed concerns; the State will go after noncompliant cities: Zac Bowling, Alameda.\nExpressed support for the work being done on the HE; stated the City needs the\nnumbers and distribution of housing units across the Island; Article 26 stands out like a\nsore thumb; cities have tried to get out of requirements; doubling down on Article 26 will\nlikely not be effective: Josh Geyer, Alameda.\nExpressed support for a good faith effort in submitting a compliant HE; questioned how\nR-1 through R-6 zones can contribute more; urged Council to modify base zoning;\nexpressed support for tall, modern buildings on Park and Webster Streets: Drew Dara-\nAbrams, Alameda.\n***\n(22-315) Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of continuing the current\nitem and not hearing any more items.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated a motion is not needed to hear the current item.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer withdrew her motion.\nCouncilmember Knox White noted Council has two budget hearings in next week;\nquestioned whether the revenue measures matter [paragraph no 22- ] can be\ncontinued to the budget session; expressed concern about discussing another item.\nCouncilmember Knox White moved approval the revenue measures matter beginning\ncontinued to the May 10th budget session meeting.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired the required vote to move the matter, to which the City\nClerk responded three affirmative votes are needed.\nIn response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry the City Clerk stated the Rules require a\nvote to consider new matters after 11:00 p.m.; Council can complete the current\ndiscussion and address the agenda sections, including Oral Communications, City\nManager Communications, and Council Communications without a vote; there is no\ntime limit for hearing said agenda sections.\nVice Mayor Vella stated that she is not feeling well and supports only hearing the\ncurrent matter.\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 3, 2022\n22", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-05-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-05-03", "page": 27, "text": "Under discussion, the City Attorney stated the motion to move the matter must be time-\nspecific.\nThe City Clerk stated the matter can be continued to 5:59 p.m. on May 10th.\nCouncilmember Knox White and Vice Mayor Vella accepted the amendment to the\nmotion.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she will not support the motion; the matter\nshould return on a Regular Council Agenda.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.\nStated preserve the historic look and feel of Webster Street is important; increasing the\nunits in the area will dramatically change the neighborhood look and feel; discussed an\nalternate WABA proposal; urged a more refined proposal be submitted: Lori Bilella,\nAlameda.\nStated AAPS recommends the City remove the proposed blanket upzoning of R-2\nthrough R-6 from the draft HE; the proposed upzoning is unnecessary and overkill; the\ndraft HE includes a 20% buffer; discussed ADUs; stated targeted upzoning can happen\nin the future: Birgitt Evans, AAPS.\nStated that he is paying attention to neighboring cities since RHNA is regional; it is\nimportant to show leadership across the East Bay; noted Berkeley is considering a 30%\nbuffer to ensure its goal is met; the defense of Article 26 does not go over well; the\nregion is trying to solve a housing problem; it is essential to meet RHNA numbers: Nico\nNagle, Oakland.\nStated that she objects to the proposed upzoning of residential neighborhoods\nthroughout Alameda; upzoning would eliminate Article 26 that was supported by a large\nmajority of voters; Council should support the voters and not indirectly void Article 26 in\nsupporting upzoning; expressed concern about the HE buffer and setbacks: Reyla\nGraber, Alameda.\nShowed a slide; expressed support for staff exploring alternate height strategies;\ndiscussed density bonuses and ADUs; expressed concern about the proposed density\nof north Park Street: Christopher Buckley, AAPS.\nStated adding more units might be a less expensive option versus building from the\nground up; questioned why the draft HE removed adding more units: Karen Miller,\nAlameda.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 3, 2022\n23", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-05-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-05-03", "page": 28, "text": "Expressed support for the staff recommendation; stated creating a fair and expanded\nhousing program is critical; many people are looking for affordable housing; the City has\na chance to address and right structural racism which has been built into the housing\nplan; urged the plan move forward: Jennifer Rakowski, Alameda.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated that he has heard comments not supporting\nrezoning the R-1 through R-6 areas; inquired the process and response if the City\nsubmits a draft HE to HCD that does not include the residential areas.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded HCD would send the\ndraft HE right back to the City; stated the City would essentially state that it is keeping\nMeasure A/Article 26 in-tact for residential areas; HCD has already stated the approach\nis not acceptable; acceptance is not related to numbers or allocation, it is related to fair\nhousing; HCD states the City cannot prohibit multi-family housing in residential densities\nwhich support affordable housing in all residential districts; the approach is unfair to\nthose who need affordable housing by Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH);\nHCD has been consistent in its approach and attitude around what Alameda needs to\ndo; discussed HCD's 2012 letter.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated the AFFH language requires cities to overcome\npatterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers which\nrestrict access to opportunity; inquired the location of the areas referenced in the\nstatement.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded prohibiting multi-family\nhousing and not allowing residential densities that support affordable housing are\nbarriers to AFFH; stated west Alameda has a higher percentage of lower-income\nhouseholds; continuing the trend of placing all affordable housing on the West End does\nnot affirmatively further fair housing.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated most of the patterns of segregation related to\nhousing show up in the residential districts; in order to overcome patterns, the City will\nbe required to do something; expressed support for the number of public hearings being\nheld and the effort to try to balance State requirements; stated information about\neducational opportunities recommends considering encouraging open enrollment in\nAlameda Unified School District (AUSD); inquired whether the City is not taking a\nstance that the schools on the West End are not as good as the East End; stated the\nstaff recommendation is that the City will support AUSD and address educational\noutcomes as opposed to telling people to drive to different schools.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded in the affirmative; stated\nthe clarification will be added as cleanup language to be made by staff before\nsubmitting it to HCD.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated there is a lot of confusion related to AFFH;\nexpressed support for clarification related to the approach not being based on numbers,\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 3, 2022\n24", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-05-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-05-03", "page": 29, "text": "but outcomes; stated that he would like to add direction to staff to develop a\nmemorandum that outlines the meaning and specifics of AFFH in Alameda; many\nsouthern California cities HE were not certified in the first or second round; the bar is set\nhigh; expressed support for the City submitting a certified HE; stated the City can point\nto what is being done to AFFH, rather than forcing HCD and the community to read\nthrough the document and try to pick up what is being done to address fair housing and\nhistorical inequities; many people do not want to leave their home; if failed housing\npolicies continue in California, people who cannot afford to live in the area will be\npushed into other States; people who have grown up in California and have California\nvalues do not necessarily want to live under more stringent and conservative regimes\nwhich do not recognize and honor people the same as California; policy makers are\nresponsible if cities lose people due to unaffordability; the City needs to be looking\ntowards the future, not just at the economy and climate, but in caring for each other and\nmaking sure future generations can live in the area.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated each Councilmember must do their best to represent the\nvalues and visions which are best for the City and its residents; he believes the City\nmust do the minimum amount necessary to meet the State requirements; the City can\ncontinue to do so within the framework of City Charter Article 26 by following through\nand continuing the housing overlay strategy signed off on by HCD in the previous HE;\nhe suspects HCD will sign off on the strategy once again; there are new concerns\nrelated to AFFH; however, the City should figure out how to meet the requirements\nwithin the context of Measure A; discussed the 2020 election results; stated the\nmessage put forth was understood by Alamedans; Alameda is an Island and has limited\ninfrastructure; it is difficult to meet the RHNA requirement of 5,300 units; he would\nrather not be required to produce so many units; he would prefer to produce 3,700 units;\nhowever, the City is required to produce the 5,300 units; he would like the City to do the\nminimum amount necessary in compliance with the Measure Z; upzoning so much of\nAlameda is inconsistent with the will of the voters; expressed concern about having a\nHE that undoes the City Charter; stated the City can meet its HE and HCD obligations\nwhile working within Article 26; expressed concern about elements of the HE; stated the\nmost vital thing is how the City is undermining something that the voters of Alameda\nrecently reaffirmed; the City figured out how to work around limitations, which was\nenough to get through the last HE; acquiesced HCD could sue the City on grounds of\nnoncompliance; stated the City needs to stand its ground; he is not supportive of many\nelements of the HE and undermining Article 26.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she does not agree with upzoning the\nschool properties; one of the schools should be used for open space; she supports the\nminimum; expressed support for the public comments related to the possibility of adding\nhomes within an envelope and challenging the AFFH data related to high and low\nresource areas; stated it is possible for the data to be updated due to Alameda Point\nhousing; discussed home and rent prices; stated the approach is not lowering housing\nprices; she stands by the no on Z vote due to the older housing stock keeping Alameda\naffordable for residents; Berkeley has a higher density than Alameda; Alameda is a\nmajority minority community due to the old housing stock; Berkeley's majority is white;\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 3, 2022\n25", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-05-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-05-03", "page": 30, "text": "the State does not agree with the City's approach to protect old housing stock; many\npeople have been pushed out of other cities with new housing stock; she disagrees with\nthe language in the draft HE stating: \"systemic reduction of the supply of affordable\nhousing in Alameda;\" rent control will not apply to new rental units and condominiums;\ninquired where the condominium development in Alameda is located or whether any\ncondominiums have been built in the past 10 years.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded all of the townhomes\nbeing built and sold are condominiums; stated many developers are not building\ncondominium flats or apartment type buildings due to concerns over lawsuits;\ndevelopers are building multi-family buildings which are held as rentals for at least 10\nyears until a statute runs; the units can potentially change into condominiums after 10\nyears; the City is not getting a lot of condominium multi-family housing that are not\ntownhomes.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired the starting price for the market rate\ntownhomes in Alameda, to which the Planning, Building and Transportation Director\nresponded over $900,000.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated the price is not affordable; it is unfortunate that\nthe State is pretending the housing units are affordable housing; many people do not\nqualify for the units; the housing units lead to gentrification; she will only agree to\nminimal upzoning; expressed support for the draft HE being rejected multiple times;\ninquired whether the City is advocating for permit waivers.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded staff does not want\npeople to waive universal design requirements.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated waivers continued to be provided in Alameda.\nVice Mayor Vella stated that she supports upzoning where needed in order to be\nresponsible; local voters spoke on a measure that causes the City to jump through\nadditional hoops in order to meet its RHNA obligation; the obligation is to the region and\nthe people of Alameda; the obligation is to provide enough housing so that the region\ndoes not continue to lack housing such that the cost of housing continues to rise; the\nmedian house price in Alameda is over $1 million; there is not a lot of housing stock due\nto the lack of building over time; many people are getting priced out of the area and are\nunable to buy starter homes; the City needs to move forward with the draft HE and send\nit to HCD; expressed concern about moving backwards; stated the City can either build\nup or build out and lose the valued open space and parks; staff has tried to address a\nnumber of different concerns and find ways to build fairly throughout the City in a way\nthat is going to ensure housing units being added are well integrated into the existing\nfabric.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she supports complying with State law; there are\npenalties for noncompliance; many funding opportunities for important projects and\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 3, 2022\n26", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-05-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-05-03", "page": 31, "text": "programs require the City to have a certified HE; the City needs to take the HE seriously\nand comply with State law; expressed support for the various options and creative ways\nto provide compliance; stated the City can add a number of different housing units and\nsizes in order to satisfy the affordable by design approach; discussed concerns raised\nby WABA and area residents; stated there is an opportunity to provide form based\nzoning cones similar to Park Street; expressed support for more right-sized residential,\nand doing more in the historic area of Webster Street with corner buildings being\nanchors; stated that she advocates for a walking tour of the area; there is potential to\nadd housing stock in the transit corridors; she supports making the business districts\nmore vital and visited; urged the building of more housing in order to address\nhomelessness; expressed support for the next steps.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated the next steps include staff\nmeeting with the Historical Advisory Board on Thursday and the Planning Board on\nMonday; staff will finish consolidating all comments received and perform additional\ncleanup and adjustments to the draft HE to put the City in the best possible position with\nHCD; the draft HE will be sent to HCD and staff will spend the next three months\nworking with the Planning Board and community to continue to refine the zoning and\nstart getting into the details; staff will hear back from HCD towards the end of August;\nonce staff knows what HCD thinks of the City's HE, the Planning Board and Council will\nhold public hearings and start making tough decisions about what needs to be done in\nresponse to HCD comments to ensure certification; once staff hears back from HCD,\nanother Council workshop will be held; the Planning Board will have the first round of\nheavy lifting; Council may provide direction to the Planning Board; the current schedule\nis to have Council see the HE in November or December; the HE needs to be\ncompleted by January 2023.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she supports the proposed WABA plan;\nexpressed support for the City working with WABA and a better way to evacuate if a\nbicycle and pedestrian bridge is built; stated the developers and builders are making\nmoney off the units; the approach yields unfortunate gentrification.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(22-316) Recommendation to Provide Direction on Potential Revenue Measures to\nSubmit to Voters for the November 8, 2022 Election. Continued to May 10, 2022.\n(22-317) Introduction of Ordinance Authorizing the Interim City Manager to Execute a\nLease with Rhoads Property Holdings, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, dba\nCSI Mini-Storage for Thirty-Six Months for Buildings 338, 608, and 608A-C, Located at\n50 and 51 West Hornet Avenue, at Alameda Point. Not heard.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\n(22-318) The Interim City Manager announced an affordable housing grand opening\nevent for the Starling and Corsair flats and an Earhart Elementary School informative\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 3, 2022\n27", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-05-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2022-05-03", "page": 32, "text": "sign program; discussed improvements to the City's bicycle network; announced an\nAPD swearing in ceremony and Boards and Commissions openings.\nIn response to Councilmember Herrera Spencer, the Interim City Manager stated his\nlast day will be after the May 17th Council meeting.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\n(22-319) Consider Having the City Council Address the Zoning of the Harbor Bay Club.\n(Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard.\n(22-320) Consider Having the City Council Review Recreation and Parks Department\nCommunity Events. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard.\n(22-321) Consider Directing Staff to Develop an Ordinance Setting Fines for Injury-\nCollisions Involving Non-Commercial Vehicles that Do Not Meet Federal Design\nStandards or Have Been Lifted/Altered in a Manner that Increases the Likelihood of\nSevere Injury or Death in Collisions with Pedestrians and Bicyclists. (Councilmember\nKnox White) Not heard.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(22-322) Councilmember Herrera Spencer announced a webinar on the Grand Street\nproject.\n(22-323) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft announced that she attended the Oakland Police\nAcademy graduation; announced Board and Commission openings and encouraged\nresidents to apply.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 11:48\np.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\nMay 3, 2022\n28", "path": "CityCouncil/2022-05-03.pdf"}