{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-07-06", "page": 1, "text": "MIUTES OF THE CONTINUED JUNE 15, 2021 CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY--JULY 6, 2021--5:00 - P.M.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 5:10 p.m. Councilmember Daysog led\nthe Pledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Knox\nWhite, Vella, and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note:\nThe meeting was conducted via Zoom]\nAbsent:\nNone.\nCONTINUED AGENDA ITEMS\n(21-437) Recommendation to Accept Update on Progress To Date Addressing Police\nReform and Racial Equity; Provide Direction on a Pilot Mental Health Response\nProgram; and Consideration of a Draft Work Plan for the Remaining Topics.\nThe City Clerk announced public comment was previously closed; the matter is a\ncontinuation of the June 15th Council discussion; noted a motion by Councilmember\nHerrera Spencer to approve Option 1 and seconded by Councilmember Knox White is\non the floor; noted the remaining Council time has been continued.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the vote is important; the matter goes back one year when\nSubcommittees on Police Reform and Racial Equity were formed; Council directed the\nCity Manager to return with a proposal for alternative mental health response to calls for\nservice; noted a Request for Proposals (RFP) was not done; however, one can be\nissued at later date; stated the City Manager provided proposals from the Felton\nInstitute and the Alameda Fire Department (AFD); expressed support for the City\nworking with the Felton Institute; stated the City is looking for an alternative to Police\nresponse with mental health expertise and behavioral health experience; cultural\ncompetency is an important portion of the recommendation; noted problematic calls for\nservice within the City have involved people of color encountering the Alameda Police\nDepartment (APD); stated the Felton Institute has a track record of 70 years working in\nthe behavioral and mental health field; Felton Institute is proposing to offer mental\nhealth outreach during the day where needed in order to reduce the number of mental\nhealth related calls and allow for better outcomes for struggling individuals; Felton\nInstitute has experience working with people in encampments; some Felton Institute\nstaff members have lived experience; outlined a forum held in Oakland for alternatives\nto mental health crises that emphasized public safety staff are trained to perform life-\nsaving emergency response; mental health response can take hours in time spent with\nan individual; outlined an instance with mental health response having a peaceful\noutcome; stated that she is very impressed with the proposal from Felton Institute and\nwould like to see the Felton Institute selected for the pilot program; while the pilot\nprogram is running, the City Manager can put together an RFP; in contrast, AFD\nprovides wonderful emergency response and mutual aid; the AFD proposal is one page\nContinued June 15, 2021 Regular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 6, 2021\n1", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-07-06", "page": 2, "text": "long and includes an emphasis on staffing and equipment; the proposal calls for a\nManagement Analyst, Firefighter/Paramedic, a vehicle with specific needs, two work\nstation desktops and includes a two sentence remark for mental health response\nservices; the proposal includes a 100-hour mental health training for Alameda\nEmergency Medical Services (EMS) with a sentence referring to a follow-up crisis\nmanagement unit; the City will be better served selecting an experienced provider.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she agrees the matter is an important\ndecision; she is familiar with mental health and cultural competency; she made the\nmotion to support AFD in hopes for a first responder option; she would like an\nopportunity given to AFD to explain their proposal.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted the City Manager provided contact information for both\nFelton Institute and AFD; stated both have provided input in response to questions from\nCouncil.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would like clarification on the\nCommunity Paramedicine Program and additional details brought to the table by AFD;\nAFD is the best choice for the pilot program.\nThe Interim Fire Chief stated AFD has set out to provide a solution to problem; AFD's\nproposal is 5 pages long; AFD has been part of first response for over 40 years and has\nhad ambulance transport program for 37 years; AFD has responded to a variety of\nmedical service calls for a variety of services, including mental health crises; AFD has\nbeen an integral part of responses over the years having transported people to\nauthorized facilities, including local emergency departments and the County mental\nhealth hospital; the Community Paramedicine Program includes one Community\nParamedic providing community outreach 40 hours per week; the program services\nhomeless people in the community; first responders are the first to arrive on the scene\nwhen someone calls 911; AFD responds to medical emergency service and mental\nhealth crisis calls; the AFD program is designed to meet community concerns including\na 24-hour operation and a lowered Police presence in response to calls for service; AFD\ndeveloped a program response without Police assistance when appropriate; the\nprogram developed includes a trained paramedic and Emergency Medical Technician\n(EMT) being available at all times; an alternate phone number for emergency response\ncould be considered in the future; most people have been trained to dial 911 in an\nemergency; in instances where AFD responds to calls for service, the scene and patient\nare evaluated; AFD's program has been designed to utilize existing resources within the\nCity.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification about the additional training.\nThe Interim Fire Chief stated there are three components to the training: crisis\nintervention training which includes de-escalation, specific behavioral health training,\nand the laws surrounding 5150 holds; if AFD is provided with 5150 training, the\ndepartment will be able to provide services where needed allowing Police not to be\nContinued March 16, 2021 Regular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nJuly 6, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-07-06", "page": 3, "text": "called out to the scene; the 5150 training is critical; very few Fire Departments within the\nState are allowed to provide the service outside of Police Departments; the training\nwould allow AFD to take over 5150 calls; the County EMS agency is working with the\nCounty Mental Health Department to give approval and training through the Mental\nHealth Department.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether AFD would respond to service calls which are\nconsidered non-violent and non-combative or whether APD would respond.\nThe Interim Fire Chief responded if callers are be violent or presenting the potential for\nviolence toward themselves or another, APD would be needed; stated AFD would\nrespond to non-medical and non-violent calls for service; medical units are a radio call\naway if the need arises.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated there are times where dispatch does not know\nthe full situation when providing service call information; inquired whether AFD is able to\nadminister Naloxone in instances of an overdose.\nThe Interim Fire Chief responded in the affirmative; stated if calls have a medical need\nassociated with a drug related problem, a medical need will be determined and a first\nresponder with ambulance transport will be involved.\nIn response to Councilmember Herrera Spencer's inquiry, the Deputy Fire Chief stated\nmany times when a call is responded to, the situation is evaluated and a determination\nis made whether there is a medical component needing treatment; outlined various\nmedical ailments which need treatment; stated the Police determine whether or not to\ncall a 5150 hold; Officers have the choice between calling in a 5150 hold or taking\nindividuals to a hospital for treatment; the proposed program will allow the current\nprocess to expand evaluation and look at alternate destinations for individuals;\nsituations may call for different approaches depending on the individual; the proposal\nincludes a mental health professional offering follow-up care and will allow AFD to\nevaluate the situation to offer the best care; the proposal is currently in use by the San\nFrancisco Fire Department with 11 crisis mobile units; San Mateo County also uses\nparamedic EMT responses to mental health crisis calls; the proposal does not stipulate\ntreating an individual on-site; however, AFD will be able to deescalate situations and\nevaluate the proper destination for individuals.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated the City currently has meetings with AFD and\nAlameda Hospital; the meetings allow the public to participate; inquired whether adding\nthe proposed pilot program to the quarterly meetings would be appropriate in order to\nallow for public participation.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the discussion must remain on the topic of mental health\nresponse as an alternative to Police.\nContinued June 15, 2021 Regular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 6, 2021\n3", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-07-06", "page": 4, "text": "Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she believes the quarterly meetings are\npart of the reason behind AFD's program being the best choice.\nVice Mayor Vella requested clarification about AFD's proposed approach to dispatch;\nstated that she would like to focus on the non-emergency line versus 911.\nThe Interim Fire Chief stated calls will likely come in through 911; another number can\nbe opened as an alternate to 911 for non-emergencies; having calls triaged through the\ndispatch center is important; callers are not able to evaluate situations the same as a\ntrained professional; dispatchers are trained to extract information from callers; AFD will\nprovide additional support and training where needed; the first step in the process is to\nreceive the call for service and triage for dispatch of service.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether AFD can work with Police and dispatch for non-\nemergency calls to ensure calls are directed to the pilot program unit, to which the\nInterim Fire Chief responded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired who decides whether or not an individual is being combative;\nquestioned whether the matter will be triaged by personnel in the; inquired how the\ndecision is made to engage with an individual and how to provide relative clarity.\nThe Police Chief responded the information received by dispatch is key; stated APD\nmust look at those actively engaged with violence; if the goal is to minimize Police\nresponse, the information coming in from dispatch must be critically analyzed; outlined\nresponse to a hypothetical report of an active shooter appropriately having Police\nresponse; stated someone previously involved with a violent act which is no longer\nactively engaged could be looked at outside of Police.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the Police Chief will direct the chosen pilot\nprogram provider to appropriate calls for service.\nThe Police Chief responded if active violence is not present, the chosen responder will\nbe in the best position to respond to the call; the provider could arrive and determine\nactive violence is occurring and can request Police response; training will be key for the\nprogram provider.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether training will occur with both AFD and APD to ensure\nall providers are on the same page, to which the Police Chief responded in the\naffirmative.\nThe Interim Fire Chief responded in the affirmative; stated staff has already been\nmeeting on related matters.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired the startup timeline; questioned the timeline and process for\nboth San Francisco and San Mateo locations in hiring a clinician for the program.\nContinued March 16, 2021 Regular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nJuly 6, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-07-06", "page": 5, "text": "The Deputy Fire Chief responded San Francisco is unique in having multiple social\nworkers; stated that he is unsure of the recruitment process; currently, Alameda would\nneed one social worker at 40 hours per week; the training timeline will start with training\nparamedics through the clinician portion of the program; those eligible for de-escalation\ntraining will receive the training; the timeline will fall closer to December or January in\nhaving people up and running with a staffed unit; training will continue as people enter\nthe department; the timeline is reasonable.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether the City will be working simultaneously with the\nCounty to get alternative transports and approvals.\nThe Deputy Fire Chief responded staff has been working with the County; stated the\nCounty is ready to go and has been waiting on Council's decision; the County is ready\nto provide training including tentative 5150 training.\nAl Gilbert, Felton Institute, stated the Felton Institute is the largest provider of 5150\nservices in San Francisco and is the only agency that provides the service for\ntransitional age youth, adults and older adults; Felton responded to 71,000 calls in the\nlast year due to running the suicide hotline for San Francisco County; Felton Institute\nhas the contract in Alameda County to work with those coming out of jail with mental\nillnesses; Felton Institute will work to train the Police and Fire Departments; training in\n5150 does not equate mental health professional status; Felton Institute will treat people\nwhile out in the field and can be operating within 60 days.\nCurtis Penn, Felton Institute, stated providing response to non-medical calls would be a\nwaste of AFD resources; the training received by Firefighters tends to be\ncounterintuitive to the training required for mental health services; outlined the need for\ntrainings in harm reduction modalities, wellness recovery action plans and\nunderstanding cognitive behavioral intervention.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated that he is interested in understanding what the\nFelton Institute has to offer.\nMr. Penn stated the Felton Institute is offering the antithesis of the Fire Department and\nwill be engaging with people in the community; the Felton Institute will not be a triage\nunit and will not respond to merely take vitals and leave; assessments and plans of care\nwill be provided while connecting people with mental health providers in Alameda\nCounty to further understand and provide proper care; team members will not be on the\nscene to triage, instead de-escalation tactics will be used.\nVice Mayor Vella expressed support for responses being provided as soon as possible;\nstated there are existing frameworks to build from; expressed concern about the\nclinician position; stated the City does not have social workers to pull and hire from; the\nproposal received from AFD has been innovative and works within an existing\nframework; inquired how the City will fill the clinician position and what the position\nentails during the pilot program; stated the position is not traditional for the City; the goal\nContinued June 15, 2021 Regular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 6, 2021\n5", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-07-06", "page": 6, "text": "is to make changes as the program progresses; expressed concern about the clinician\nposition.\nThe City Manager responded if Council decides to proceed with AFD's proposal, a\nmental health professional will perform follow-up work at some point in the future; stated\nthe position does not currently exist and can be competitive; the best route to take is to\ncontract for the clinician position during the first year of the pilot program; a contract can\nbe made with another agency to provide follow-up work in coordination with AFD rather\nthan having a staff member fill the position.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether the recommendation is a change from the proposal\nor whether the recommendation is included within the framework.\nThe City Manager responded the recommendation is within the proposed framework;\nstated the recommendation is to have the clinician not be City staff, rather it would be a\ncontracted position.\nVice Mayor Vella requested further clarification from AFD.\nThe Interim Fire Chief stated the contracted position is a good idea due to the position\nbeing competitive and difficult to fill.\nVice Mayor Vella stated her goal is to have something start as soon as possible;\nexpressed support for City staff working behind the scenes; inquired whether an\namendment to the motion needs to be provided in order to provide contract services;\nexpressed support for the clinician position not holding up the process and for\nconsideration of ways to incorporate the Felton Institute in providing services.\nThe City Manager responded the service being provided is specific and will meet the\nintent of the position; stated the motion can be amended or clarified; the pilot program\nwill create lead time and the clinician position could possibly be subject to layoffs at the\nend if the City decides to move in a different direction; the recommendation provides a\nfaster implementation.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated the matter is the first step of many in the process;\nthe City has an embarrassment of riches; the City needs many things due to cuts over\nthe years; both proposals could be considered in a perfect world; the discussion\nconsists of agreement in the goal to reduce Police response to non-crime and non-\nviolent prevention calls; expressed support for consideration of protocols and decisions\nto engage being outside of Police; stated mistakes will be made within process and\nstructure; the City should be ready to change as it moves quickly; expressed support for\nOption 1 with strong Council direction to start working on the mental health professional\npiece added into the response; the need for someone to be on staff is present; the City\ncan consider options as the program moves forward; Option 1 allows the City to find a\nprogram which exists and does not need to be set up from scratch; the process of\nfiguring out how to integrate will be long; the pilot program will allow for the conversation\nContinued March 16, 2021 Regular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nJuly 6, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-07-06", "page": 7, "text": "to decide which program the City should have that included any contracted mental\nhealth services; he does not think the contracting process will slow the process down\nmuch; expressed support for monthly reporting on the change in calls and the related\nprotocols and for discussions on how to better serve the community; stated the matter is\na simple win due to agreement in allowing people to perform jobs better; requested\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer provide direction in iterating and bringing the Felton\nInstitute and other community players into thinking about how to bring the mental health\ndirect response into the pilot program; stated the budget for the year has been approved\nand includes mental health funding; the question for the City is how to engage with the\nFelton Institute; the goal is for other cities to engage in the same system as Alameda;\nthere is an opportunity to start the journey.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the aftermath of incidents involving dancing in the street\nhave been calling for a reform of the way policing of non-violent calls are conducted;\ntwo programs are before Council which represent the reform sought; the most important\nportion of the reform has to do with the delivery of mental health professionals to an\nevent which is happening in real-time and the ability of mental health professionals to\ncall on their experience to perform a range of things in order to de-escalate situations\nand understand and communicate with individuals; professionals must also transmit\nindividuals to the appropriate service or set of mental health services; both entities\npresent for the matter represent the reform being sought; he is of the opinion that the\nFelton Institute is the best represented entity for reform; the Felton Institute performs\nservices at all times and has the comparative advantage of dealing with mental health\nissues; staff members in AFD have the capacity and can train-up to ultimately deal with\nmental health issues; the level and depth of experience with the Felton Institute, when\ncompared to AFD, is provided in lived experience; either choice will reform City Hall in\nregards to delivery of Police services; the Felton Institute does represent more of the\nreform desired by citizens and is more in line with the Crisis Assistance Helping Out On\nThe Streets (CAHOOTS) model; the Felton Institute is a non-City entity that would\nprovide a set of services to improve the way in which Police and the City handle non-\nemergency calls for service; he has no doubt that AFD will be able to train-up quickly\nover the future months; the edge is given to the Felton Institute based on field\nindividuals responding to calls at 2:00 a.m. that know the proper questions to ask as\nopposed to providing the answers which need to be delivered; the residents of Alameda\nwill be served with reforming Police in regard to non-violent emergency situations;\nexpressed support for the Felton Institute and the possibility of having contracts being\nprovided to the Felton Institute in order to provide clinical services in conjunction with\nAFD.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she appreciates the Felton Institute\napplying for the program; she is hopeful that the City Manager looks at other agencies\nas well; Alameda Family Services has provided counseling at multiple levels for over 50\nyears; other agencies within Alameda could be well qualified for the program; inquired\nwhether other agencies will be allowed to apply to the RFP.\nContinued June 15, 2021 Regular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 6, 2021\n7", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-07-06", "page": 8, "text": "The City Manager responded an RFP will be issued during the pilot program which will\nallow other agencies to provide proposals for a long-term solution; stated the\nrecommendation for the mental health component would be to allow any entity the\nopportunity to provide proposal; currently, the Felton Institute has been the only agency\nwith the capacity to provide proposal on the full program; other entities might be able to\nprovide proposal on partial programs.\nVice Mayor Vella expressed concern about going out for bids delaying the process.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether a substitute motion is being made.\nVice Mayor Vella stated that she would like to give direction to staff to work and move\nforward with entities which have previously applied and provided proposals, such as the\nFelton Institute; expediency is important and other groups have not put in for the\nprogram; noted the program is a pilot.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she can support a program which has the Felton\nInstitute providing mental health component of AFD responses.\nVice Mayor Vella stated the recommendation encapsulates what has been directed.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification about the motion on the table.\nThe City Clerk stated the motion is to approve Option 1; noted Vice Mayor Vella has\nproposed a friendly amendment to the motion to give additional direction for the City\nManager to work with the Felton Institute; stated the amendment has not yet been\naccepted by the maker of the motion.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested Option 1 be restated.\nThe City Clerk stated Option 1 is the \"Fire Forward\" proposal from AFD; the amendment\nincludes incorporation of the Felton Institute to provide additional services.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that the amendment is not her preference; she\nwould prefer being able to put out an RFP; inquired whether the City Manager envisions\nsupporting AFD or whether other organizations would be interested in submitting bids.\nThe City Manager responded the ask is different; stated other organizations could be\ninterested; however, the time period would be longer than a direct contract program\nbetween AFD and the Felton Institute.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired how much longer the process will take to put\nout an RFP.\nThe City Manager responded there will be a minimum 90-day delay in process; stated\nthe timeline is not definitive; putting together an RFP does take a longer period of time.\nContinued March 16, 2021 Regular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nJuly 6, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-07-06", "page": 9, "text": "Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the response received from the\nFelton Institute is appropriate for the proposed alternate role.\nThe City Manager responded the Felton Institute's role would change if they provide\nmental health services under the AFD proposal; stated the change will need to be\nnegotiated.\nMr. Gilbert stated the Felton Institute is trained to provide mental health work required\nby the City; the scope of work will need to be determined; noted the Felton Institute is\nready to provide support to the City.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired the potential timeline delay to negotiate with\nthe Felton Institute versus putting out an RFP for other agencies.\nThe City Manager responded limiting negotiations to one agency allows for a\nstraightforward conclusion to be met between AFD and the Felton Institute; an RFP\nconsists of putting a document together, receiving bids and establishing scoring.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification for the timeline in processes.\nThe City Manager stated the process will take less than 90-days, roughly half the time is\nneeded.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that his votes will be with the Felton Institute at all\nstages.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the friendly amendment is accepted by the maker\nof the motion.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer questioned whether the Vice Mayor is interested in\nopening the process through an RFP.\n(21-438) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would entertain a motion allowing all\nmembers to have up to three minutes of speaking time.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of allowing the additional time.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call\nvote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella:\nAye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.\n***\nVice Mayor Vella stated the City provided an opportunity for other groups to apply and\nno other agencies applied; expressed concern about the timeframe; stated AFD is\nContinued June 15, 2021 Regular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 6, 2021\n9", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-07-06", "page": 10, "text": "working hard to get the program up to speed; expressed support for AFD beginning\nnegotiations with the Felton Institute as soon as possible; stated that she would like the\nprocess to begin streamlined due to multiple agencies being involved; the program is a\npilot and the City should determine what the program will look like; the recommendation\ndoes not exclude Alameda Family Services or any other agency from applying; she\nwould like to act with expediency and many Councilmembers have voiced a preference\nfor the Felton Institute to be engaged with the program relative to providing mental\nhealth services; an RFP does not need to be issued and would cause unnecessary\ndelays at this point; expressed concern for engaging in hypothetical scenarios to end up\nwith what is currently being proposed.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the Felton Institute currently has\npatients in the City of Alameda.\nMr. Gilbert responded in Felton Institute currently serves clients within Alameda County;\nstated the office holds a separate clinic where mental health professionals deal with\nemergency crises in Alameda County; an early psychosis program is housed in the\nAlameda office.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether everyone in Alameda would be able\nto receive services within the City of Alameda.\nMr. Gilbert responded in the affirmative; stated the Felton Institute does not currently\nhave staff working outside of a contract; the Felton Institute is an agency working with\nAlameda and other counties; staff can be allocated based on the funding.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated it is critical to offer mental health services\nwithin the City of Alameda; it is not appropriate to ask those seeking mental health\nservices to travel to different cities for service; it is important to offer mental health\nservices within the City of Alameda.\nMr. Gilbert stated if the City pays for services, the services can be provided; clinical staff\nis working at the Atlantic Avenue office location on an early psychosis program, which\nrequires additional professionals; a training center is also available at the Alameda\nlocation; the Felton Institute is not currently contracted nor funded with the City of\nAlameda to provide clinical support services.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would like the information kept in mind\nby Councilmembers; expressed concern about negotiating with one agency that does\nnot appear to have current services within Alameda; questioned the cost for choosing\none agency.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated none of the locations referenced by AFD are within\nAlameda; outlined the CAHOOTS model; stated that she is working on a proposal to\nuse a floor or two of Alameda Hospital for other mental health uses similar to the\nCAHOOTS model.\nContinued March 16, 2021 Regular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nJuly 6, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-07-06", "page": 11, "text": "Councilmember Knox White expressed concern about requiring an RFP; questioned\nwhether a date can be set for the program to be up and running; stated Council has\nprovided issues of importance; expressed support for giving the City Manager flexibility\nin making a decision about whether or not to put out an RFP and for having a program\nup and running by the end of the year; stated the program process should not be\ndelayed due to the City Manager being required to issue an RFP; RFPs typically are a\nlonger process than anticipated; expressed support for the pilot program allowing the\nCity to learn and decide what topics to include in a future RFP.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for the comments provided by\nCouncilmember Knox White; stated if the City Manager feel the direction provided is\nsufficient, then she is supportive; she can accept the comments provided as a friendly\namendment.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she cannot support a proposal that does not include\nthe Felton Institute stepping in during the pilot program; the Felton Institute has the\nexperience needed and Alameda Family Services does not; Alameda Family Services\nperforms group counselling sessions well; the mental health services needed for the\npilot program are more specialized; the Felton Institute is prepared to step in and begin\nas soon as possible; expressed support for the program being up and running by the\nfall; stated that she can support the friendly amendment previously made.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated the City Manager can choose the Felton\nInstitute under the direction given from Councilmember Knox White; she would prefer\nkeeping the option open with the proposed amendment language from Councilmember\nKnox White.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the direction includes an RFP being issued.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated that his friendly amendment includes having the\nprogram up and running by September; neither of the organizations have the program\nready to go and likely will not be running by September; expressed support for giving\nthe City Manager until the end of December to have a program up and running; stated\nthe City Manager can decide which process to use in order to ensure mental health\ngoals set by Council are met; an RFP will not work in the same way; expressed concern\nabout using County resources; stated that he supports allowing the City Manager the\nflexibility in identifying the program partners.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated it is important to note that the City Manager has indicated\nhe can have an agreement between the Felton Institute and AFD in half the time of an\nRFP.\nThe City Manager stated the 90-day timeline for an RFP; he will have to return to\nCouncil after issuing the RFP; the timeline will likely be longer than 90-days if Council\nContinued June 15, 2021 Regular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 6, 2021\n11", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-07-06", "page": 12, "text": "desires an RFP be issued; not issuing an RFP and contracting with the Felton Institute\ncan be implemented in half the time of issuing a standard RFP.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how long an agreement between the Felton Institute and\nAFD would take.\nThe City Manager responded an agreement could be in place by the end of August or\nearly September; stated having the resources and staff in place will likely be by the end\nof fall.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the broader picture includes a reform process using a\npilot program; Council should not lose sight of the process; if the Felton Institute\nprovides back-end services through an agreement struck with AFD, the program is still\nbeing conducted on a pilot basis and should move forward; expressed support in\nmoving forward with the Felton Institute providing back-end services under a contract\nwith AFD; stated Council is trying to move forward and respond professionally to the\nconcerns raised by Alameda residents.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Felton Institute staff should accompany AFD\nmembers on calls for service.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the decision should be made based on a discussion\nbetween AFD, Felton Institute and the City Manager; his understanding of the\ndiscussion is that the Felton Institute would be providing the back-end services;\nexpressed support if AFD and the City Manager contract for the Felton Institute to\nprovide additional services on calls.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the City Manager is proposing to\nwork with the Felton Institute to provide services in the cleanest and easiest way; stated\nthat she would like AFD to be the lead entity for calls; AFD will determine who will\nperform additional services when needed.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Councilmember Herrera Spencer is looking for\nthe City Manager to create an agreement between AFD and the Felton Institute.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer responded in the affirmative; stated the Felton\nInstitute is not her preferred choice and that she would not be limiting her selection;\nnoted her decision is based on Council input; expressed support for AFD working as the\nlead entity; stated the ask is different from the original proposal and is unfortunate.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification of the motion.\nThe City Clerk stated neither of the two friendly amendments have been accepted; the\noriginal motion is to approve Option 1 \"Fire Forward\" proposal from AFD; the friendly\namendment proposed by Vice Mayor Vella is to give direction to supplement the motion\nwith mental health services being provided by the Felton Institute; the second proposed\nContinued March 16, 2021 Regular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nJuly 6, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-07-06", "page": 13, "text": "friendly amendment from Councilmember Knox White is to have the City Manager make\nthe determination about which company to contract with in the most expedient way\npossible.\nThe City Manager stated that he can work within the direction provided.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether the first amendment could be voted on with\nthe second amendment to follow.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification on the action to be taken by Council.\nThe City Attorney stated the amendments are not necessarily compatible; the maker\nand seconder of the motion will need to either accept or reject each of the amendments\nin turn, then Council may conduct a vote.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the amendments should be considered in the\norder proposed.\nThe City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated Council should determine\nwhether the maker and seconder of the motion accept or reject the first amendment\nproposed by Vice Mayor Vella and if the amendment is not accepted, the second\namendment should be considered in the same way.\nCouncilmember Knox White expressed support for either friendly amendment.\nCouncilmember Knox White withdrew his friendly amendment.\nThe City Attorney stated there is a friendly amendment remaining from Vice Mayor\nVella; noted Councilmember Herrera Spencer may provide a thumbs up or down to\nindicate agreement with the amendment due to having zero speaking time remaining.\n(21-439) Vice Mayor Vella moved approval of allowing Councilmember Herrera Spencer\none minute of speaking time to state her motion.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call\nvote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella:\nAye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that her preference is to modify her motion to\ninclude comments provided by Councilmember Knox White in allowing the City\nManager to decide whether or not he would like to work with the Felton Institute.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer modified her motion to approve Option 1 and give the\nCity Manager the opportunity to work with whomever in order to expeditiously create a\nContinued June 15, 2021 Regular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 6, 2021\n13", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-07-06", "page": 14, "text": "deal with whichever provider can have the program up and running as soon as possible,\nbut no later than the end of the year.\nCouncilmember Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call\nvote: Councilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye;\nand Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: No. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired when the City Manager will return to Council for an\nupdate.\nThe City Manager responded an interim report back to Council can be provided at the\nfirst meeting in September; noted an off-agenda report can be provided sooner if\ndesired.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated time is of the essence and she is not willing to wait until\nSeptember for a report; inquired whether a report can be provided before Council goes\non break in August, to which the City Manager responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated there are other points regarding timelines in the\nstaff report not addressed in the matter; questioned whether the additional points are to\nbe discussed.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the discussion had been centered on mental health\nresponse.\nThe City Manager stated the other discussion points are a status report and are not time\ncritical in the same sense as the alternate mental health response; noted staff can bring\nthe matter forth a the September Council meeting.\n(21-440) Public Hearing to Consider a Call for Review of the Historical Advisory Board's\nDecision to Approve Certificate of Approval No. PLN20-0431 to Allow the Demolition of\nTwo Main Buildings and Four Accessory Buildings at 620 Central Avenue (the \"McKay\nWellness Center Project\"); and\n(21-440A) Resolution No. 15792, \"Approving Certificate of Approval Application No.\nPLN20-0431 to Allow the Demolition of Two Main Buildings and Four Accessory\nBuildings at 620 Central Avenue (The \"McKay Wellness Center\" Project). Adopted\nThe City Planner gave a Power Point presentation.\nDoug Biggs, Alameda Point Collaborative, gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he signed on to the call for review due to the ballot\nstatement reading: \"shall an ordinance confirming the City Council's action to permit\nreuse of vacant Federal buildings on a 3.65 acre parcel on McKay Avenue and allow for\nthe development of a wellness center. ;\" the statement refers to reuse of the site; the\nContinued March 16, 2021 Regular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n14\nJuly 6, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-07-06", "page": 15, "text": "ballot statement does not reference any kind of demolition; inquired the legal constraints\nin using the term \"reuse\" on a ballot; whether there is a limit to the range of activities\nand reuse permitted on the site.\nThe City Attorney responded two previous ballot measures, Measures A and B, went to\nthe voters; Measure B was prepared by the voters to overturn Council's decision to\nrezone the property; Measure A was a Council proposed measure to compete with\nMeasure B and affirm Council's rezoning decision; the underlying decision was related\nto zoning and was not project-specific; the voters decided to support Measure A, with\nthe legal meaning being a defeat to Measure B; Measure A's principal and only legal\nfunction was to compete with and defeat Measure B; Measure A did not have the\neffective of constraining Council action and did not add additional limitations to the\nCharter or City laws; Measure A confirmed that Council's rezoning decision had been\ncorrect; the ballot measure language provided a lot of information as background,\nincluding reuse; it is possible that voters casted votes based on the background\ninformation; however, the legal significance for Measure A was to compete with\nMeasure B and to allow the Council decision to move forward; the result does not\nrestrict future Council decisions and despite the vote which took place, the result does\nnot limit Council's action.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification about Measure B in relation to rezoning.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated Measure B was a citizen's initiative to rezone the\nsame parcel open space following Council's action to rezone the property, remove the\nG overlay and maintain the administrative professional underlying zoning.\n***\n(21-441) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Council would like to lower public\ncomment speaking time.\nVice Mayor Vella moved approval of limiting speaking time to 1:00 per speaker.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which failed by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: No; Vella: Aye; and\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 2. Noes: 3.\nUrged Council deny the certificate of approval to demolish the historic property on\nMcKay Avenue; discussed ballot information about Building 2 being structurally sound\nand reused; stated numerous community tours have been conducted; ballot measure\nlanguage was specific about reuse of existing federal buildings; the matter should be\nsubmitted to the voters: Lis Cox, Alameda.\nUrged Council to support the Historical Advisory Board (HAB) decision; stated the\nmatter is an attempt to stop the wellness center; the site is important for historical\npurposes; however, the buildings have lost their historic integrity; she agrees the ballot\nContinued June 15, 2021 Regular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 6, 2021\n15", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-07-06", "page": 16, "text": "measures state the buildings will be reused; she would like more information on the cost\ndifferences; the matter should not come back to the voters: Theresa Rude, Alameda.\nStated that she feels the matter is a bait and switch; discussed ballot language; urged\nCouncil not to approve the demolition of buildings: Karen Miller, Alameda.\nExpressed support for HAB; stated that he is saddened by the attempts to stop the\nwellness center; offered an apology to the Merchant Marine veterans which were misled\ninto signing a petition under false pretenses and claims; outlined his experience\nwitnessing the petition process; stated it is disheartening to see people used for projects\nwhich will help many homeless elders and veterans; expressed support for the project:\nZac Bowling, Alameda.\nStated that she strongly objects to the proposed demolition at McKay Avenue; urged\nCouncil to deny the request; discussed the history of the property and Page and\nTurnbull reports; stated there is a case to be argued that the architect fulfils the\ndescription of a master architect; outlined project designs by Bruno on the National List\nof Historic Places; urged Council wait until the documents are fully reviewed by National\nHistorians before erasing the past; stated it is irresponsible to take action without full\nconsideration of historic importance and economic value; outlined nearby historic\nrestorations: Carmen Reid, Alameda.\nStated that he is opposed to demolition of the buildings; he believes Councilmember\nKnox White has a conflict of interest; discussed the uses allowed under the lease: Jay\nGarfinkle, Alameda.\nDiscussed correspondence; stated the City has plenty of monuments to war and should\nnot put buildings before helping people in the community; the opponents of the project\nare not only fighting for preservation; urged Council stop catering to the anti-progress,\nchange-averse and privileged people of the City and allow the wellness center to\nproceed as approved by HAB: Jenice Anderson, Alameda.\nUrged Council to deny the effort to demolish an important architectural and historic\nbuilding; discussed the American Merchant Marine service; stated tearing down the\nbuildings prematurely erases the history of America; expressed support for the space\nbeing used as an interpretive center that documents the history of the site; stated\nAlameda has a strong history of supporting military armed forces: Christian Yuhas,\nAmerican Merchant Marine.\nStated that he is a veteran with 21 years in the Navy; discussed Merchant Marine ships\ndelivering troops during the Korean and Vietnam wars; stated the role for Merchant\nMarines was vital near dangerous waters; discussed the history of World War II; stated\nit is the duty of Councilmembers to follow instructions and proceed to allow a thorough\nevaluation of the property: Felix Fortuna, Alameda.\nContinued March 16, 2021 Regular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n16\nJuly 6, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-07-06", "page": 17, "text": "Stated the surplus facilities were to be repurposed for homeless services; the buildings\nhad been certified for reuse there has been a misleading intent; discussed alternate\nlocations for the facility and ballot measure language; stated a vote to demolish the\nbuilding is a betrayal of the voters' will: Harvey Rosenthal, Alameda.\nStated that she opposes demolition; the HAB holds a position that the project site has\nsignificant historic value; the historic value is supported by the local and national\ncommunities; the option to demolish the building contradicts the City's commitments to\nprotection of the environment and preservation of unique historic character; demolition\nreleases toxins into the environment and marine life is particularly sensitive; expressed\nconcern about the developer circumventing an Environmental Impact Report (EIR)\nprocess; urged Councilmember Knox White to recuse himself from the discussion due\nto association with the developer causing a conflict of interest: Fey Adelstein, Alameda.\nStated many of the public speakers are living history; he takes issue around whether or\nnot Municipal Code Section 12-21.3 applies to the matter; discussed the process to\nobtain a Certificate of Approval; noted processes and discussions have not happened\nfor a Certificate of Approval; urged the process and procedures be completed properly:\nMatt Reid, Alameda.\nDiscussed a Commission on Persons With Disabilities meeting related to the HAB\napproval of the permit for demolition for the wellness center; stated the wellness center\nwill provide desperately needed housing and services for seniors and unhoused people,\nincluding people being discharged from the hospital; a large percentage of people in\nAlameda are people with disabilities; each delay in the project is a delay to housing and\nnecessary follow-up care for medically fragile people; delaying the center has life and\ndeath consequences; expressed concern about opponents of the wellness center using\nthe historic preservation process to dismiss the conclusions of preservation experts;\nurged Council to uphold the HAB's decision and allow the center to meet the needs of\nthe community and for Council to take reasonable measures to ensure the McKay\nAvenue project becomes operational without further delay: Beth Kenny, Commission on\nPersons with Disabilities.\nStated the opposition is not a fight against the homeless and services for people in\nneed; expressed concern about how the matter is being handled; stated the matter\nshould follow the letter or spirit of the law; the legal analysis presented by staff is not\nsupported; facts which are in dispute have been presented; the analysis provided by\nPage and Turnbull was made by evaluation only; the information falls beyond the\ntimelines provided by State and federal guidelines; the project will not pass scrutiny\nbefore a State or federal court; questioned whether the scope of the project has been\nchanged; discussed the project developer and Assembly Bill 1486; stated the premise\nof environmental quality has been thwarted; urged Council slow down and re-examine\nthe process to complete a proper EIR: John Healy, Appellant.\nStated the Alameda Municipal Code defines which structures can qualify as Alameda\nHistorical Monuments; the Code is the only authority needed to verify the Merchant\nContinued June 15, 2021 Regular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 6, 2021\n17", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-07-06", "page": 18, "text": "Marine buildings on McKay Avenue qualify as monuments; the Code states a\nmonument can be any size or group of structures of a particular historic significance to\nthe City; the buildings on McKay qualify and are the last World War Il Merchant Marine\nbuildings standing in the country; discussed training officers at the site; stated the\nbuildings are designed by a notable East Bay architect and have received strong public\nsupport in the form of over 1,000 signatures on a petition and nearly 100 e-mails to the\nHAB; discussed staff presenting information to the HAB; urged Council to deny the\ndemolition of the McKay Avenue historical monument site: Mike Van Dine, Alameda.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed concern about inaccurate remarks related about the\nCity Planner.\nDiscussed his experience in removing the G overlay for the site; stated Council set\nvalues for wanting homeless services in Alameda; the opponents have battled to stop\nthe center; discussed the special election; expressed support for Council leadership;\nstated the City and its voters believe in the valuable services the site can provide;\njustice for the homeless delayed is justice for the homeless denied; urged Council to\nuphold the HAB's decision and ensure the services are provided: Former\nCouncilmember Jim Oddie, Alameda.\nUrged Council deny the Certificate of Approval to demolish the historic buildings; stated\nthe developer has reversed the plan to reuse the buildings that the voters approved in\n2019 as Measure A; the ballot language is not arbitrary; a new election is needed for the\ndeveloper to take a new approach to the project; urged Council to count those that have\nsubmitted comments opposing demolition; expressed support for a new site to be\nconsidered; discussed purchase of the Marina Village Inn Hotel; stated the demolition of\nhistoric buildings is irresponsible; the buildings should be preserved and restored: Maria\nPerales, Alameda.\nStated that her understanding of Measure A would permit the reuse and rehabilitation of\nvacant Federal buildings to ensure development of a senior assisted living and wellness\ncenter for unhoused individuals in Alameda; there had been no indication that the\nbuildings might not be rehabbed; the reuse of buildings had been touted as part of the\nappeal in voting yes; the project can now only go forward if the buildings are\ndemolished; expressed concern for the about face; stated that she has a distrust in the\nintentions and voracity of the developer; Council should delay any decisions regarding\nMcKay Avenue until suitability for rehabilitation and reuse can be further established\nin\nan independent manner: Dolores Kelleher, Alameda.\nUrged Council allow the wellness center to proceed; stated there is irony in the defense\nof history being cherry-picked; she is tired of the actions of opposition; Alameda has a\nracist history and many of the comments arguing for history do not seem to care;\nexpressed support for helping the present community: Alexia Arocha, Alameda.\nStated discussed the latest Page and Turnbull report; stated opponents to the wellness\ncenter forced a Special Election in an attempt to stop a project which will help many of\nContinued March 16, 2021 Regular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n18\nJuly 6, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-07-06", "page": 19, "text": "the most vulnerable community members; opponents have tried to propose tearing\ndown the same buildings in order to build a park; opponents are trying to overturn the\nHAB's decision to allow the buildings to be torn down; the hypocrisy is appalling and\ntransparent; urged Council end the hypocrisy, help those in need and uphold the HAB's\ndecision: Browyn Harris, Alameda.\nStated that he is not opposed to the wellness center; he is opposed to destruction of the\nbuildings due to family members serving in World War Il and the Korean War;\nexpressed support for keeping the historical aspect of the site; discussed family\nmembers' military experience in Alameda; the Measure statement noted the buildings\nwould be reused: Dan Tuazon, Alameda.\nStated that he is a champion for the homeless, but not for the project; he objects to the\ncertification of demolition; substantial changes have been made to the wellness center\nscope and size; an EIR should be initiated by the developer at once; urged Council to\ndemand an EIR be obtained prior to demolition of the historic buildings; discussed the\nstaff report addendum; stated there will be a significant impact and effect to 620 Central\nAvenue; an EIR is required for any project with significant effect on the environment; he\nis a proponent for wellness centers: Brenden Sullivan, Alameda.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the HAB decision to approve the Certificate of\nApproval to allow demolition of two main buildings and four accessory buildings at 620\nCentral Avenue and associated resolution.\nCouncilmember Knox White seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated that his concern is that the people of\nAlameda have spoken in favor of having a wellness center at 620 Central Avenue; a\nwellness center must happen at the site; the proposition before the residents was for\nreuse of the buildings; other parts of the ballot referenced using existing facilities; the\ncontext of the language was clear the project would be completed within the existing\nstructure; outlined cost implications for construction projects; stated there may have\nbeen a realization that the project will cost more money; the evaluation should have\nbeen done prior; the perspective of reuse has been set and put before the voters; the\nballot language did not reference demolition; the contents of the materials put before\nvoters is most important; if needed, a discussion should occur related to costs within the\ncontest of reusing the buildings on the site; he respects the City Attorney's assessment\nof the matter; however, the voters voted for something in Measure A which had been\nframed a certain way; the matter does not necessarily constrain City Hall and Council by\nremaining within the framework of reuse.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she filed the appeal because she does not\nthink the City Code section has been followed; a question was posed to the HAB about\nwhether to remove the building from the Historical Building Study List (HBSL); there has\nnot been a discussion in regard to the monument list versus the HBSL; it is incumbent\nupon staff to follow the Code section; expressed support for staff trying to separate\nContinued June 15, 2021 Regular Meeting", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-07-06", "page": 20, "text": "delisting from the HBSL; stated the City's Code section does not have a process for\ndemolition connected to the HBSL; she does not think the process was addressed at\nthe HAB level; the City's Code section speaks to the monument list and the buildings in\nquestion are on the HBSL which differs from the monument list; the HAB did vote not to\ndelist the building and an opportunity should have been provided in order to clarify;\nthere have been two votes from the HAB, including one vote not to delist the building; a\ndiscussion about what to do with the monument list should have occurred after the first\nvote; the City has a Code section related to demolition; the ballot language should also\nbe honored related to reuse of the building; a vote for demolition should not be\nconsidered at this time; outlined comments provided by Christian Yuhas; stated the\nbuildings are to be used in times of war and peace; expressed support for time being\nprovided to work through the process of the buildings being on the National Registry\nprior to demolition, for the buildings not to be demolished and for the Certificate of\nApproval to be withheld until the process has been completed; stated staff can request\ninformation from the National Registry to find the current timeline; noted the City can be\nmore reasonable working with the National Registry to provide an opportunity to decide\nwhether or not the buildings are of historical significance; the EIR is a legitimate\nconcern; there are ways to avoid an EIR; many people care about the environment and\ndemolishing buildings can impact a community; speakers have misrepresented her\nposition in regard to tearing down the buildings; there have been discussions related to\nusing the buildings as part of the park to help provide a facility for student activities; it is\nbetter to protect and reuse existing buildings; expressed concern about a bait and\nswitch; stated ballot language for reuse should be honored; many people have\nsupported the reuse and would not support demolition.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the title of Measure A referenced is: \"The Caring for\nAlameda Act;\" she worked closely on the Measure with others; the focus of the Measure\nwas to provide a facility for vulnerable individuals; she has worked closely to address\nthe housing crisis; people complain about homelessness and fight even benign and\nhumane solutions which provide a respite center to ensure people do not have to live\nand die on the streets; as the problem grows, more people live and die on the street; it\nis well and good to remember the Merchant Marines; a significant percentage of the\nhomeless population are veterans; it is the ultimate insult for veterans to be left\nhomeless; the Veterans Administration (VA) has made some significant headway in\ngetting homeless veterans housed; however, headway has been lost during the\npandemic leaving more veterans to become homeless; she appreciates the voters'\nintention with Measure A and she is ready to move forward with the matter.\nVice Mayor Vella noted that she was at the Alameda County Democratic Central\nCommittee meeting in February of 2019 when Council colleagues made presentations;\nwidening of the street and the addition of parking for Crab Cove was discussed as part\nof Measure B; a number of things were said by various proponents of both measures;\nsome of the talking points in support of Measure B had been to add parking, possibly\nindicating the removal of buildings; there have been numerous opportunities to address\nthe matter; she does not appreciate the arguments against the wellness center are not\nat the same time and instead are attempted at multiple times creating a domino effect;\nContinued March 16, 2021 Regular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n20\nJuly 6, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-07-06", "page": 21, "text": "the approach is disingenuous and is not the finest moment for the community;\nexpressed concern about additional roadblocks being placed in front of providing much\nneeded services to the most vulnerable members of the community; outlined her\nfamily's military service background; stated that she does not want to put buildings in\nfront of people; voters ultimately voted to lead with compassion for the community as a\nwhole and provide needed services in a way which ensures caring for vulnerable\ncommunity members; expressed support for the motion.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft outlined her family's military background; stated reference was\nmade to the Marina Village Inn; expressed support for the City purchasing the property;\nstated the City will be working towards purchasing the property for the purpose of\nproviding transitional housing for families and individuals; many resources are needed\nand roofs are needed above people's heads.\nCouncilmember Knox White expressed support for the HAB members; stated the finding\nmade has been consistent with what has been presented by historic experts; stated\nMeasure A was not an approval for a project; Measure A was created in opposition to\nMeasure B; Measure B is related to a zoning conflict and lost in the election; the people\nvoted not to rezone the property due to the wellness center; the zoning decision stands\nand has been supported by the voters; expressed support for the motion.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Abstain; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye;\nand Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 1. Abstention: 1.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 8:04\np.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nContinued June 15, 2021 Regular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 6, 2021\n21", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-07-06", "page": 22, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY--JULY 6, 2021 - -6:58 P.M.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 8:25 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Knox\nWhite, Vella, and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note:\nThe meeting was conducted via Zoom]\nAbsent:\nNone.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(21-443) Mayor's Nominations for Appointment to the Historical Advisory Board,\nHousing Authority Board of Commissioners, Planning Board, Public Art Commission\nand Public Utilities Board.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft nominated Lynn Jones and Norman Sanchez for reappointment to\nthe Historical Advisory Board; Alan Teague and Xiomara Cisneros for reappointment to\nthe Planning Board; and Christina McKenna for appointment to the Public Utilities\nBoard.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 8:29\np.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nSpecial City Council Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nJuly 6, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-07-06", "page": 23, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND\nSUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE\nCOMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (SACIC)\nTUESDAY- JULY 6, 2021 - -6:59 P.M.\nMayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 8:30 p.m.\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.\nVice Mayor/Commissioner Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll\ncall vote: Councilmembers/Commissioners Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox\nWhite: 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(*21-442 CC/21-16 SACIC) Recommendation to Accept the Third Quarter Financial\nReport for the Period Ending March 31, 2021. Accepted.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at\n8:31 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\n1\nto the Community Improvement Commission\nJuly 6, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-07-06", "page": 24, "text": "longer than 15 minutes.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(21-445) Announcement of the Porch of July Contest Winners.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft announced the winners.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nJuly 6, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-07-06", "page": 25, "text": "ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(21-446) Jay Garfinkle, Alameda, stated it has been three months since a death\noccurred in Police custody; the autopsy had been completed in early May, then passed\non for peer review; any competent peer review of the autopsy findings could have been\ncompleted by this time; the City appears to be stalling; the City declared an emergency\nin the last year; several actions were taken under the emergency declaration; the\nemergency declaration has been extended; discussed parking and traffic on Webster\nStreet and Park Street; Council must review the declaration every 60 days; discussed\nfunding for local businesses; expressed support for a report being provided for the\nfunding.\n(21-447) Aimee Barnes, Alameda, discussed a pedestrian fatality at the intersection of\nWalnut Street and Lincoln Avenue; stated it is frustrating to have a fatality create the\ntraffic priority for the problematic intersection; noted a similar issue exists at the\nintersection of Fifth Street and Haight Avenue; she has repeatedly requested traffic\ncalming measures at the intersection; discussed a collision occurring at the intersection;\nexpressed concern for the intersection's risk to children due to a nearby park; the\nintersection is also a thoroughfare for people speeding between Lincoln Avenue and\nCentral Avenue; expressed concern over an increase in traffic. Urged Council approve a\nfour-way stop or other traffic calming.\n(21-448) Zac Bowling, Alameda, discussed the new Seaplane Lagoon ferry terminal\nopening from July 1st; noted ferry service has reopened across most of the island.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer requested the Council meeting dates [paragraph no.\n21-463 be removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested any items pulled from the Consent Calendar be heard\nat the end of the regular agenda.\nCouncilmember Knox White moved approval of moving the Council meeting date\nresolutions to end of the regular item.\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.\nDiscussed the Amended Employment Agreement [paragraph no. 21-462]; stated that he\nunderstands agreements differ in the public sector from the private sector; noted section\n9 appears unusual; the practice is unorthodox; expressed support for extending the\nprivileges to all City employees; discussed selling of vacation days: Matt Reid, Alameda.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nJuly 6, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-07-06", "page": 26, "text": "Discussed the Amended Employment Agreement; stated that he would like the rules\nwhich have been applied to landlords to be the same as City employees: Jay Garfinkle,\nAlameda.\nThe City Clerk announced the modifications to the City Attorney contract [paragraph no.\n21-462]\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer requested the City Attorney contract be removed from\nthe Consent Calendar for discussion.\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(*21-449) Minutes of the Special Meeting Held on May 20, 2021, the Continued May 18,\n2021 Special Meeting Held on May 25, 2021, and the Regular Meeting Held on June 1,\n2021. Approved.\n(*21-450) Ratified bills in the amount of $4,844,766.59.\n(*21-451) Recommendation to Modify Eligibility Requirements for Non-Profit\nOrganizations Applying for Alameda Strong Community Relief Fund by Including\nPaycheck Protection Program Recipients and Adding a Requirement Related to the\nMaximum Number of Employees Employed by the Non-Profit Organization. Accepted.\n(*21-452) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Two-Year\nAgreement, Substantially in the Form of the Attached Agreement, with the Option of\nThree One-Year Extensions for a Total Five-Year Compensation Amount Not to Exceed\n$420,000 and No More than $90,000 in a Single Fiscal Year with HouseKeys to Provide\nInclusionary Housing Program Management and Compliance Services to the City of\nAlameda. Accepted.\n(*21-453) Resolution No. 15793, \"Approving a Final Map and Authorizing Execution of a\nSubdivision Improvement Agreement for Tract 8591, Bay 37, as a Condition to Final\nMap Approval (Alameda Landing Waterfront Development).' Adopted.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(21-454) Public Hearing to Consider Resolution No. 15794, \"Amending Master Fee\nResolution No. 12191 to Add and Revise Fees.\" Adopted.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would like to keep in mind the options\noffered in the staff report; requested clarification on the options presented.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nJuly 6, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-07-06", "page": 27, "text": "The City Manager inquired whether the clarification needed is in relation to the Fire\nfees.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer responded that she would like clarification on more\nthan just the Fire fees; stated there are alternatives as to when certain fees are put into\neffect; expressed support for clarification provided on the Fire fees.\nThe Finance Director stated there are no increases to the current Master Fee Schedule\nhowever, there are changes to the Schedules for fiscal year 2021-2022; the first change\nare hourly rate increases for City Attorney Office staff and Police; noted Special Events\nhave been adjusted to reflect personnel costs; the second change is associated with the\nRecreation and Parks Department; the third change is the Rent Stabilization Program\nFee study which had been recommended on a tier fee structure; the fourth change is\na\nPlanning, Building and Transportation Department change to no longer impose a fee for\naccessory dwelling units; the fifth change is for a repeal of Alameda Point Development\nFees; and the sixth change are Fire Department fee increase recommendations, both\nfull increases or half increases; noted Council may decide not to increase Fire fees due\nto COVID-19.\nThe City Manager requested the original fee increase to be highlighted as well as the\nhalf increase; noted fees had been increased prior to his arrival at the City in 2019;\nstated the fees are based on a Fee Study and a report of costs for service; the fee\nincrease had previously been delayed due to COVID-19; the reason for the\nrecommendation of a half fee increase is due to the fee increase being substantial; a no\nfee increase due to COVID-19 would also be understandable.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer requested clarification for the fees.\nThe Finance Director stated the fees are highlighted on page 34-38 on the fee\nschedule; staff can either increase as-is or forego the increase and wait until the next\nfiscal year to implement changes.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired the impacts of each option.\nThe Finance Director responded the Fire Department will receive less revenue for\nservices should Council only approve the half increase; stated the department may\nhave to reduce expenditures.\nThe City Manager stated the General Fund currently subsidizes the costs; the proposed\nfees will bring the proposed amounts in line with being full recovered; full cost recovery\nwill take longer should the half increase be approved.\nThe Finance Director stated the increase is about 9%.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the ambulance is included in the fee\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nJuly 6, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-07-06", "page": 28, "text": "schedule.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft responded the ambulance rates are noted as being established by\ncontract with Alameda County Emergency Medical Services (EMS); the City of Alameda\nfollows the County's adopted fee schedule; new rates are anticipated mid-July.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated many people have expressed concern for bills\nwith large amounts after ambulance services have been called; she would like Council\nto look into the issue of ambulance fees; her preference is to postpone fee increases as\nmuch as possible; it is important to recognize that future hardships are unknown.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the ambulance rates are established by a contract with\nAlameda County EMS; inquired whether the contract is housed with Alameda Fire\nDepartment or City of Alameda and how the rate could be changed.\nThe City Manager responded the ambulance fee could be kept at the County rate;\nstated staff can bring back a review of the rates in September; the Fire fees can then be\nbrought back along with the ambulance fees in the fall with the other rates being\napproved.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Councilmember Herrera Spencer is looking for a\nreduction in ambulance fees.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer responded in the affirmative; stated she thinks it is\ninteresting to have the victim billed for someone else calling an ambulance; expressed\nsupport for Council looking at the fees and figuring out a way to address the cost\nconcerns.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for the City Manager's recommendation to\nhave staff take a closer look at the Fire fees and return to Council in September with a\nproposal.\nCouncilmember Daysog moved approval of the Master Fee Schedule, with the Fire fees\nto return to Council in September, including adoption of related resolution.\nCouncilmember Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call\nvote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella:\nAye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.\n(21-455) Public Hearing to Consider Collection of Delinquent Integrated Waste\nManagement Accounts via Property Tax Bills.\nThe Public Works Coordinator gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Knox White moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nJuly 6, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-07-06", "page": 29, "text": "Island City Landscaping and Lighting District 84-2, All Zones.\" Adopted.\nCouncilmember Daysog recused himself and left the dais.\nThe Management Analyst gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Knox White moved approval of adoption of the resolution.\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy\nAshcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. [Absent: Councilmember Daysog - 1.]\n(21-457) Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of Resolution of Intent to Prepare a\nHousing Element Update for the Period 2023-2031 that Maximizes the Use of City-\nOwned Land at Alameda Point and Encinal Terminals and Rezones Certain Sites and\nDistricts to Permit Multifamily Housing and Residential Densities of at Least 30 Units per\nAcre Contrary to City Charter Article 26. Not adopted; and\n(21-457 A) Consider Directing Staff to File an Appeal of the City's Regional Housing\nNeeds Allocation.\nThe Planning, Building, and Transportation Director gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Knox White inquired whether there is a policy for adopting the plan to\nuse Multi-Family (MF) overlay zoning or whether the use is enforced by statement.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded staff understands that\nthe MF overlay must be used in order to comply with state law; stated staff would like to\nknow whether Council would not like to pursue the strategy of using MF overlay, as\nused in the past two Housing Elements; staff cannot wait to adjust the strategy; staff\nwould like to ensure Council understands and agrees that staff should pursue the same\napproach as the previous two cycles.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated that he is not sure he sees the breakdown provided\nby staff in the resolution provided by Councilmember Herrera Spencer.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the City already has an MF overlay; the approach is not\nnew in terms of meeting State obligations; inquired whether the City is contemplating a\nnew zoning code or category; he understands some sites which are currently zoned\nC2PD might be labeled as a new zoning category.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nJuly 6, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-07-06", "page": 30, "text": "The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded the same strategy used\ntwo years ago to meet the regional housing need will need to be applied to additional\nsites; the zoning code will not be new, however, new zoning will be added to sites in\nAlameda; the zoning can be changed to multi-family overlay as an adjustment to C2,\nand both are simple to achieve in removing the multi-family prohibition and allowing at\nleast 30 units per acre; Council may amend the zoning or provide a multi-family overlay;\nthe effect and result will be the same.\nStated that she supports the staff recommendation; urged Council to prepare a\nresolution of intent to begin the Housing Element process consistent with the language\nlisted in the staff report; expressed support for the Housing Element process in Alameda\nover the last two cycles; urged Council continue to submit conforming Housing\nElements; she would like Council to do everything required in order to submit a Housing\nElement consistent with State law including using the multi-family overlay and perform\nzoning changes where necessary; discussed Article 26 being in conflict with State\nHousing Element law; urged Council to not appeal the Regional Housing Needs\nAllocation (RHNA) designation for Alameda: Sophia DeWitt, Alameda Resident and\nEast Bay Housing Organization (EBHO).\nDiscussed Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) requirements concerning the\nside inventory; stated some of the areas are high resources; lawyers and past\nCouncilmembers have stated Article 26 is in conflict with State law; he is favor of\ndeclaring such conflict in the resolution; California Department of Housing and\nCommunity Development (HCD) has not responded to the City's request for comments\nmade by Paul McDougall; it is unique to see such huge MF overlays; questioned the\nreason not to up-zone underlying zoning and codes instead of having large MF\noverlays; expressed concern for issues with the resulting wording; discussed the\nproposed resolution from Councilmember Herrera Spencer; he does not think the\nproposal will meet AFFH rules; urged Council review a presentation from Paul\nMcDougall; RHNA appeals are often a waste of time and staff resources: Zac Bowling,\nAlameda.\nExpressed support for Alameda making a good faith effort to meet the RHNA numbers;\nstated much work is still needed; urged Council to focus City staff time on the work at\nhand and not to waste resources on appealing the City's RHNA numbers to Association\nof Bay Area Governments (ABAG); there is only one way to reduce Alameda's RHNA\nnumbers in forcing the allocation onto other Bay Area cities; the Housing Opportunities\nSite Draft is fascinating to read; noted R1 zoning is not mentioned in the Opportunity\nSite list; urged the City to think of ways to allow all zones contribute to different housing\nsizes over time: Drew Dara-Abrams, Alameda.\nStated the Housing Element for Alameda should be compliant with State law; the\nHousing Element should be aligned with values, equity and justice in the statement\n\"everybody belongs here;\" the City will not know what has been lost in the consequence\nof redlining due to certain housing types being explicitly disallowed; there have been\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nJuly 6, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-07-06", "page": 31, "text": "consequences for families as well as the vibrancy of the community; discussed\nneighbors that have moved away due to displacement; the City has a responsibility to\nthe past to build a better community and ensuring residential zoning results in 5,300\nunits between 2023 and 2031: urged Council adopt the staff resolution: Gaylon\nParsons, Alameda.\nExpressed support for the City staff resolution; stated it is important that affordable and\nmulti-family housing is dispersed around the City and not pressed onto the base; AFFH\nensures the benefits and opportunities of having neighbors of different class statuses\nand ages; urged Council consider the future when investing in creating the needed\ncommunity: Grover Wehman-Brown Alameda.\nDiscussed a letter submitted; expressed support for filing the appealfor the Planning\nBoard recommendation to delete the Article 26 clause; stated alternative language\nshould be included should Council wish to leave the clause,; he would like input from\nthe City Attorney as to the necessity of including a statement; State law only partially\npreempts Article 26; the overall strategy presented in the staff report is good; expressed\nsupport for further promotion of Alameda Point and Encinal Terminal sites, including a\nrequest from the Navy to remove the cap on Alameda Point: Christopher Buckley,\nAlameda Architectural Preservation Society.\nUrged Council to direct staff to develop a comprehensive game plan to successfully\nrenegotiate Alameda Point's residential cap with the United States Navy; stated there is\nagreement in adopting a Housing Element which maximizes the use of City owned land\nat Alameda Point; the space is a tool for meeting the RHNA number; it is clear that the\nCity cannot maximize the use of City owned land at Alameda Point without lifting\nunreasonable and outdated caps on housing units; the effort must begin now and be on\na parallel track with preparing the Housing Element; expressed support for adding\nlanguage to the resolution which acknowledges the City taking action to renegotiate\nobsolete caps; urged Council consider each city having an obligation to address the\nhousing crisis: Donna Fletcher, Alameda.\nExpressed support for filing an appeal; stated the State hands out numbers expecting\ncities to appeal; the process is a negotiation and it is time for the City to take the next\nstep; expressed support for the Navy lifting caps at Alameda Point; stated the\nprojections for growth in California should consider sustained growth over the next 20 to\n30 years by demanding zoning laws be dropped to support multi-family housing;\ndiscussed slowed growth due to the economy: Matt Reid, Alameda.\nExpressed support for appealing the RHNA allocation numbers; urged the City pursue\nthe matter further; stated the issue is simple and Alameda is limited in geography; the\nCity is primarily an island with a peninsula; there are not enough bridges or tunnels to\naccommodate the proposed growth of thousands of units; urged Council have Alameda\njoin other cities in petitioning a reduction in [RHNA] numbers; discussed a study from\nthe Embarcadero Institute: Carmen Reid, Alameda.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nJuly 6, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-07-06", "page": 32, "text": "Discussed California's water shortage; questioned how to solve the water problem for\nthe entire state; whether California has enough resources for everyone to live in the\nstate; urged Council file for the appeal; stated California cannot accommodate\neveryone: Rosalinda Fortuna, Alameda.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Council should first have a discussion and vote\non whether or not to file an appeal of the RHNA allocation.\nThe City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated staff recommends discussing the\nappeal first due to time sensitivity.\nCouncilmember Daysog expressed support for Council discussion time set for fifteen\nminutes; stated there are three to four incredible and meaty topics which could each be\nagenda items of their own; each topic should have an in-depth analysis; nine minutes is\nnot enough speaking time.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is willing to see how far Council can get on the first\ndiscussion topic; she is willing to consider a motion to extend time when the need\narises; Councilmember Herrera Spencer's resolution is titled: \"Resolution of Intent to\nAppeal.. questioned whether a motion is desired.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of filing an appeal of the prescribed\nRHNA numbers.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Knox White inquired whether the appeal will provide\ndirection to staff as to what is being appealed and how.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer responded page two of the resolution lists reasons\nrelated to land mass size.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the previously approved projects resulting in\nconstruction of approximately 1,522 housing units should suffice as the RHNA\nallocation.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer responded in the negative; stated the language had\nbeen pulled from the original resolution; she kept as much of the original resolution, as-\nsupported and added new language.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Councilmember Herrera Spencer is proposing\nany RHNA allocation for Alameda.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer responded in the negative; stated she does not have\na specific number; she can support a discussion of a number to set; she does not know\nwhether Council proposes a number of its own or whether the RHNA allocation is simply\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nJuly 6, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-07-06", "page": 33, "text": "to be appealed.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated a grounds for the appeal is typically provided; requested\nclarification for the process.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated a stronger appeal provides a\nrecommended number; there is a very low chance of success in the appeal; staff is\nlooking for direction toward [appeal] arguments to make and the particular allocation\nnumber desired; staff has a couple days to put together the appeal on behalf of Council.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether an alternative RHNA number around 3,300\nexists to which the Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded in the\nnegative.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated that he plans to support the appeal; he does not\nplan to support the resolution as-written; requested a friendly amendment to the motion\nin listing the following three reasons for the basis of the appeal: 1) 60% of voters\nrecently voted to uphold the adopted Charter provision which prohibits multi-family\nhousing from being built making the RHNA allocation thwarting the will of the Alameda\nvoters, 2) Alameda's uniqueness as an island of the San Francisco Bay is subject to\nsea-level and emerging groundwater issues, liquefaction and loss of access to the\nmainland should an earthquake destroy bridges and [access] tube, and 3) the City's\ntransportation and infrastructure constraints; the City is an island with limited ingress,\negress and water supply transported by pipelines on the mainland; unlike many East\nBay cities, Alameda lacks direct access to Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) within its\nborders; the reasons mirror the comments received from the community in requests for\nan appeal.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer accepted the friendly amendment; stated she is happy\nto include the reasons listed; questioned whether the reasons listed include the\nsignificant geological seismic issues; the language listed in her resolution is broader and\nincludes more points and reasons; she is happy to provide a number for the allocation.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated that he is ok with the methodology; the City's\nuniqueness should call for a proposed adjustment.\nCouncilmember Daysog expressed support for items 2 and 3 raised by Councilmember\nKnox White; stated item 1 is more nuanced in understanding the obligation for multi-\nfamily housing; the City has been meeting the obligation through the housing overlay\nand density bonuses with the context of Measure A.\nVice Mayor Vella stated that she will not be supporting the motion to appeal; she\nappreciates the position from other Councilmembers in upholding the will of the people\nand voters; there have been a number of subsequent presentations from regional\nbodies and other groups about addressing the heart of issues raised; support for the\nappeal is apparent; expressed concern for the lack of success in the appeal process;\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nJuly 6, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-07-06", "page": 34, "text": "staff time will be spent on the matter; she does not like taking frivolous actions however,\nshe understands the need for clarity.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she does not support an appeal; she appreciates the\nuniqueness of the City being an island, however, the \"uniqueness club\" is not an\nexclusive one, and there are cities up and down the state arguing a different\nuniqueness; the reason HCD has rules put forth is due to cities not meeting obligations\nto provide housing; the housing crisis continues to worsen; outlined housing project\ndelays and expenses; she would prefer Council look for solutions; HCD will not let the\nhousing allocations slide; HCD will take the unused portion of housing allocation and\nplace it upon another city; allocation appeals can be made from other cities onto\nAlameda and can cause a slippery slope; the grounds for an appeal are not strong;\noutlined previous arguments presented by other cities; she is surprised and\ndisappointed in the majority support for filing an appeal.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer questioned whether Councilmember Knox White\nincluded portions of the City being infilled by the San Francisco Bay and are more\nvulnerable to seismic events and liquefaction.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the appeal will be strengthened with a number included\nfor the allocation; the last few allocations have been set at roughly 1,730 units; the new\nallocation is set at roughly 5,300; expressed support for splitting the difference and\nsetting the units at 2,650 which is substantially above previous the 1,733 allocation;\nexpressed support for the allocation appeal request being set at 2,650.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the remaining units will be sent to a named-\nspecific city.\nCouncilmember Daysog responded the remaining units are not his responsibility; stated\nthe state will be responsible for finding where the remaining units will go; his\nresponsibility is to specify a number of units which Alameda can bear; proposed a\nfriendly amendment to the motion of setting the allocation appeal at 2,650 units.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested the motion be re-stated.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that her understanding is a motion to approve\nfiling an appeal, including the grounds proposed by Councilmember Knox White.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested the motion be clarified for the record.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated the three grounds for the appeal are as follows: 1)\n60% of voters recently upheld the voter adopted Charter provision that prohibits\nmultifamily housing from being built. Meeting our RHNA allocation means thwarting the\nwill of Alameda voters; 2) Alameda's uniqueness as an island in San Francisco bay,\nsubject to sea level-rise and emergent groundwater, liquefaction and loss of access to\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nJuly 6, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-07-06", "page": 35, "text": "the mainland in an earthquake should destroy Alameda's bridges and tubes; and 3)\nTransportation & Infrastructure: Alameda is an island with limited ingress and egress\nand water supply transported from pipelines on the mainland. Unlike many East Bay\ncities, Alameda lacks direct access to BART within their borders.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that his friendly amendment to ground 1 is to place a\ncomma at the end while adding:\nrecognizing that the City of Alameda has adopted\nthe Density Bonus law and the multi-family housing overlay to meet State law regarding\nmulti-family housing and RHNA obligations.\"\nCouncilmember Knox White stated Density Bonus should be omitted as it is not allowed\nto be used in the RHNA determinations; mentioning the matter in the appeal will only\nconfuse things and appear like the City does not know what it is doing.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated Density Bonus law is at the heart of modifying Measure\nA; the Density Bonus has two components, one of which is regulatory and allows a\nproject to be free from Measure A, and the second is a quantitative formula; the Density\nBonus allows projects to be free from Measure A.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated Council adopted a multi-family overlay to get around\nthe State regulations; the Density Bonus law allows the City to go above the multi-family\noverlay; RHNA and Housing Element law do not allow the City to use the Density Bonus\nto achieve RHNA numbers; the letter appealing the allocation is not going to look\nsincere or authoritative when including things which show that the law is not\nunderstood.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated every time a project proponent wants to build multi-\nfamily housing project, a Density Bonus trigger must first be pulled; the part of the\nDensity Bonus trigger being pulled speaks to getting relief from the regulatory local\nregimes which constrict affordable housing; the second part consists of a mathematical\nformula which can increase the number of units; the Density Bonus law is a critical part\nof the City meeting the affordable housing obligations; outlined the staff report\ncalculation of Density Bonus law; meeting affordable housing numbers is needed at 36\nunits per acre; the units are already calculated.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council has a couple of choices to make; Council can\ninclude everything included in the matter, or vote on an appeal which includes a\nreference to Density Bonus law and multi-family overlay or vote on an appeal which\ndoes not include either; Council may also choose to include the proposed unit amount.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated it is important for Council to adopt a number to include in\nthe appeal; the number should be 2,650; expressed support for adding the language:\n\"\nrecognizing that the City has employed the State Density Bonus law into its own\nlocal ordinances as well as created a multi-family overlay, in an effort to build multi-\nfamily housing;\" the language strips reference to the RHNA aspect.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nJuly 6, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-07-06", "page": 36, "text": "Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would like to pivot to the Planning,\nBuilding and Transportation Director and see if sense can be made of the Council\ndirection provided.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated clarity to the City-wide\nprohibition related to Measure Z is to be provided in acknowledging that the City does\nallow multi-family housing through the overlay and Density Bonus; staff will need to not\nuse the clarity as an argument as to why the appeal for 2,650 units will be allowed;\nnoted State law states Density Bonus cannot be counted on for RHNA numbers; stated\na developer may take advantage of the Density Bonus however, the Density Bonus\ncannot be counted on; staff can write the appeal to include the clear distinction.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether staff feels as though sufficient\ndirection has been provided from Council, to which the Planning, Building and\nTransportation Director responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there is agreement in including the 2,650 unit\nallocation in the appeal.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for the number.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated that he prefers no number be included however, he\nwill support the 2,650 units being included.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether staff has input on the proposed units.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated staff will include the units as\nrequested and will explain the determination as recommended by Councilmember\nDaysog.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the changes are acceptable to Councilmember\nDaysog as the seconder of the motion, to which Councilmember Daysog responded in\nthe affirmative.\nOn the call for the questions, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: No; and\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft: No. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated there are three different\nresolutions on the table and all three have common denominators in supporting a\nHousing Element which is in compliance with State law, using multi-family housing as\nnecessary to meet the RHNA, and maximizing the use of City land; the resolutions differ\nin how each characterizes between Measure A and the Charter; noted the Planning\nBoard has stripped the language; questioned whether City Council would like to strip the\nlanguage of the resolution as well; the staff resolution can be adopted should Council\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n13\nJuly 6, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-07-06", "page": 37, "text": "not wish to strip the language, a partially stripped resolution has been proposed by\nChristopher Buckley; noted Councilmember Herrera Spencer's resolution adds\nemphasis on the need to renegotiate the Navy housing cap in an attempt to eliminate\nthe cap; stated the staff report outlines the current Navy housing cap allowance of 1,200\nunits; renegotiating the cap will be an attempt to get the maximum amount of units\npossible at Alameda Point; a variety of constraints exist at Alameda Point which will\nhave to be worked through; removing the housing cap is a good idea from staff's\nperspective; there are fair housing aspects of State Housing law; placing all units at\nAlameda Point is not a strategy; Alameda Point does have a lot of vacant land which is\nunderutilized; Alameda Point allows for 25% affordable housing and has a strong case\nfor maximizing the space; staff is looking for direction and confirmation of how Council\nwould like to lead the Housing Element process.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she agrees with removing the Navy housing cap; it\ndoes not make sense to pay a premium for adding more housing at Alameda Point\nhowever, the approach may not be the wisest; signaling the Navy by including language\nin the resolution may not be wise; noted there are Congress members and lobbyists that\ncan help to ensure the negotiations are as successful and effective as possible;\nquestioned whether the same goal can be accomplished by providing clear direction to\nstaff to begin exploring a pursuit of lifting the Navy housing cap; stated there is likely a\nlot of political support for the matter.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated staff can accomplish the task\neither way; Council may provide direction to staff; a successful and quick negation is\ndesired.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she has included language in the proposed\nresolution related to the Navy cap; the $100,000 per unit cost creates difficulty in\nbuilding affordable housing; the goal is to build affordable, workforce housing;\nincreasing the developer costs means increasing the cost to the consumer; she\nincluded the language in order to keep supported language contained in one document;\nexpressed support for striking the Navy cap language in her resolution; she would like\nan understanding of the document; the cap should be changed in order to meet the\nRHNA allocation should a reduction not be granted by HCD.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated there are three items: commitment to Housing Element\ncompliance, adopting multi-family zoning and the use of vacant City-owned land; the\nissue of commitment to Housing Element compliance and adopting multi-family zoning\nare matters in and of themselves; the General Plan is not being addressed in the matter\nof Land Use; an element being designated in the General Plan is called Community\nMixed-Use; the Community Mixed-Use land use will have 30 to 65 units per acre; it is\npossible for Council to not change the zoning; there are inconsistencies between the\ndensities expressed in the General Plan and the zoning; the General Plan land use\ncategory takes precedence; the areas are subject to Density Bonuses, and every\nhousing project will be subject to the Density Bonus; the discussion is richer than a\nsimple vote of the matter and a detailed discussion is needed.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n14\nJuly 6, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-07-06", "page": 38, "text": "The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated the March draft of the\nGeneral Plan put recommendations forward for land use classifications; one is the\nshopping center land use classification referenced by Councilmember Daysog; the draft\nidentified the types of densities and zoning necessary to get to 5,300 units; the Planning\nBoard and a number of speakers on the draft spoke out in opposition of the plan; the\nspeakers supported a general approach to the plan, and a decision of the necessary\nzoning and densities of the various land use classification areas; the decisions can be\nmade when the Housing Element is created; staff released proposed revisions to the\ndraft General Plan and brought the land use classifications more into sync with current\nconditions; staff has eliminated the language which had been recommended to the\nPlanning Board while using the Floor Area Ration (FAR) from the existing zoning of\nshopping centers; staff will be providing a recommendation to Council for approval;\nchanges can be made to the General Plan recommendation prior to being adopted in\nthe fall; the Planning Board will be recommending the Housing Element to Council the\nfollowing fall, with the necessary zoning to meet the RHNA allocation; staff has created\na sequence of steps which allows Council to make decisions in a logical way.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Councilmember Daysog is recommending that\nthe second item does not commit to adopting a Housing Element which is in compliance\nwith State law; stated there will be dire consequences for the City as a result.\nCouncilmember Daysog responded the issue is so complex and convoluted; there are\nother outstanding issues such as categories and densities to come up with in the\nGeneral Plan land use section and the rules which developers can rely on to build at\ndensities sought; the level of discussion is not currently before Council; Council should\nbe discussing the Housing Element compliance and adopting multi-family zoning\nseparately as a standalone discussion.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated there is a deadline for filing the RHNA appeal; the other\nrelated matters can allow for more time; questioned whether the undiscussed matters\ncan occur at a later date.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated staff will be proceeding at the\nassumption of needing multi-family overlays as previously needed; staff is not asking\nCouncil to commit to locations or number of units; staff needs direction on definitive\nmatters; the overall concept will return to Council in the future; staff will be bringing\nmulti-family overlay to Council in order to adopt the Housing Element; there will be no\nscenario in which multi-family overlay is not adopted; staff will need one year to work\nthrough the details of the Housing Element in order to provide Council with a\nrecommendation.\nCouncilmember Knox White expressed concern for the staff recommendation being\nwishy-washy, and the recommendation from Councilmember Herrera Spencer is less\nclear; stated Council should not be spending time on multi-family overlays should there\nbe no support from Council; questioned whether Council can provide staff direction;\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n15\nJuly 6, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-07-06", "page": 39, "text": "expressed concern for members thinking the multi-family overlay is something specific\nwith a set number; stated presentations have indicated the multi-family overlay can\nhave a number of different unit sizes; he does not want staff to spin their wheels\nreturning to Council with an unwanted recommendation; expressed support for policy\ndirection being provided at the current and next Council meeting.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated those not supportive of the multi-family overlay zoning are\nfor single-family residential and suburban sprawl which does not seem to be\nenvironmentally advantageous for a City concerned with sea-level rise and rising\ngroundwater.\nCouncilmember Daysog expressed support for multi-family overlay as currently used;\nstated the amount of density can never be more than 30 units per acre without factoring\nin Density Bonus, or 36 units per acre with Density Bonus; noted multi-family overlay\ndoes not currently allow anything bigger than the stated units; 30 units per acre is\nsufficient in meeting State law.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated in order to get to 5,300 units\nand meet the criteria outlined by Councilmember Daysog, staff will then need to spread\nthe multi-family overlay over much larger areas of the City; there is a benefit in being\nflexible with the matter; noted the multi-family overlay will need to increase above 30\nunits per acre should the City have 5,300 unit allocation; setting a cap of 30 units per\nacre now sets an unintended consequence of applying the overlay to larger areas\nthrough the City; recommended Council remain flexible on the matter and let the\nplanning process play out; stated having 30 units per acre is viable however, the\ncitizens may want to concentrate the units in specific locations.\n***\n(21-458) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Councilmember Daysog is out of speaking time;\nquestioned whether Councilmembers should be set back at nine minutes of speaking\ntime; noted those that have held time will not receive an increase, the time set will be at\nnine minutes.\nCouncilmember Knox White moved approval of adding five minutes of speaking time to\nall Councilmembers.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call\nvote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella:\nAye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft questioned whether Council wants to commit to adopting a\nHousing Element in compliance with State law with the understanding that the matter\nwill return for fine tuning at a later date.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired the potential density for multi-family overlay\nshould the units surpass 30 per acre.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n16\nJuly 6, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-07-06", "page": 40, "text": "The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded the City needs to remain\nflexible; outlined a two story building having 80 units per acre with small workforce units;\nthe units are small and affordable; noted 80 units per acre at a larger site, such as\nSouth Shore, is not necessary; 30 units at South Shore will be plenty; outlined support\nfor projects from West Alameda Business Association; stated the unit fluctuation is a\ngood discussion to have while planning; the appropriate number of units for Webster\nStreet might not be appropriate for the South Shore area or Alameda Point; Council\nshould let the community decide how many units to get out of the allocation at each\nproject site location; noted massing diagrams will be provided in order to identify the\ndensity needed.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she shares the belief of units needing to be affordable\nby design which are smaller and command a lower price; a range of units are needed;\nexpressed support for smaller units.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated Council should lead by the type of community which fits\nin the built environment; Alameda has a homogenizing built environment; outlined\nShoreline Avenue's design; stated a uniform density exists throughout Alameda; 30\nunits per acre is not an arbitrary number, the number is required and eligible by State\nlaw; it is wrong to allocate 5,300 units and a regime should not be set in place which\naccommodates 5,300 units; the regime should accommodate 2,650 units and he\nsuspects the current 30 units per acre will work; should Council lean on the side of\nbeing flexible, the City will be accommodating 5,300 units; expressed concern for being\nflexible.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated it is premature to decide the\ndensities; the City does not yet know the RHNA allocation due to the appeal and should\nnot be deciding the density until the allocation is known; a year-long planning process is\nneeded in order to make some of the recommended decisions; the one thing driving the\nissue is staff cannot afford to have disagreements at the end of the Housing Element\nprocess; should the State deadline be missed, penalties are immediately paid; Council\nmust be convinced over the coming year that the City has a good plan to accommodate\nthe RHNA allocation; Council is currently going beyond where is needed; a Housing\nElement will be adopted; judgement should be reserved for where and how high the\ndensities should be until the numbers can be presented; should Council wish to set an\nabsolute cap and constrain the process over the coming year, staff will work with the will\nof Council however, the action is not recommended.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she cannot imagine Council will vote to adopt a\nHousing Element which does not comply with State law; the penalties are steep for non-\ncompliance.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she does not know the density of The\nWillows housing; expressed support for comparative density being shared as the\nprocess moves along; stated that she does agree with Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's comments\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n17\nJuly 6, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-07-06", "page": 41, "text": "in providing housing units which are affordable by design; expressed concern for the\nprice of housing at Alameda Point; she does not think the pricing supports the majority\nof Alamedans; many people cannot write a check for one million dollars; most of the\nhousing at Alameda Point is worth over one million dollars; Council needs to come up\nwith a way to build housing so people can buy property and not have to pay rent for life;\nthe problem is serious; questioned how small a unit has to be in order to bring the price\npoint lower; outlined the pricing for smaller homes; there is a problem with smaller units\nhaving a high price tag; the City must work with a developer that can build housing to\nbuy for a price which is significantly under one million dollars; the City is performing\ngentrification; outlined turn of the century housing prices; stated that she is a long-term\nrenter in Alameda and she cannot pay one million dollars for a home; she is interested\nin looking at different densities; the densities must be reflected in the price point to\npurchase; expressed support for being flexible; stated that she would like to strike the\nreference to Encinal Terminals from the document; she has yet to put her name on the\nproject and she might not do so; she is still negotiating the project and including Encinal\nTerminals is not appropriate; a plan has been approved without the swap; outlined\nproject viability and costs per unit; she does not know how much revenue developers\nactually make on projects; a plan has been approved for Encinal Terminals, should the\ndeveloper want a swap, negotiations will need to occur; any reference to Encinal\nTerminals in the resolution document alludes to an already Council-approved project\nswap.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated there is a difference between properties which require four-\naffirmative Council votes and properties which require three-affirmative Council votes to\napprove; should the City be told by the State to build housing units at either 2,650 or\n5,300, the units must be placed somewhere; the City will look elsewhere if it is not able\nto use the Encinal Terminals site,; the question to Council is whether or not to approve\nvacant City-owned land.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated that he has not heard a broad commitment for what\na\nmulti-family overlay will look like; he understands flexibility is needed; expressed\nconcern for moving forward with a flexible multi-family overlay; he wants to be clear in\nhis agreement with housing comments provided by Councilmember Herrera Spencer\nhowever, the housing policies being pushed including the approval to file an appeal, are\nthe reason why housing costs are so high; the Housing Authority is spending one million\ndollars per unit to build housing units; 200-square foot homes can be built in Alameda\nhowever, they will not sell for $400,000; smaller units will still be extremely expensive;\nnew houses are never cheap; Alameda is not building new houses so the costs cannot\nfilter down the housing costs as traditionally done; the City will continue to ensure the\nhigh cost of housing should units not be built; he is lucky to own his home in Alameda\nand could not afford to live in Alameda in today's rates; his goal is to try to stop the\nproblem occurring to allow others the privilege of living in Alameda; he would like to\nknow there is more; the voters have clearly stated the want for housing to be limited to\nthe greatest extent possible in Alameda; voters want Council to honor the Charter;\nnoted that he is in a difficult place should he vote to violate the Charter and ignore the\ncommunity which voted; he will be honoring the voters which may cause the City to be\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n18\nJuly 6, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-07-06", "page": 42, "text": "non-compliant; it is ok for the City to end up in Court; a long-term answer to the question\nwill result; the multi-family overlay is not a magic concept to duck State allocations; staff\ncame up with the multi-family overlay in order to sell and ignore the Charter based on\nState laws and calculations; the concept had been pitched to Council and was not\nfought by Councilmembers; Measure A is illegal and the multi-family overlay is a way for\nthe City to pretend the matter is being addressed; now the City must address the matter\nin having a multi-family overlay which is placed at well over 30 units per acre; the\nhousing units will need to be everywhere; he does not feel comfortable being one of the\nCouncil votes to ignore the will of the voters; expressed support for Council votes being\nflexible and an understanding that the multi-family overlay will be more than 30 units per\nacre in some places; for encouraging staff to work on the matter; expressed concern for\nwhat will occur in six months' time; expressed concern for proposed units on Park Street\nbeing small and over 30 units per project and non-compliant; stated that he is ok with\nbeing non-compliant should it mean the ability to be ethically aligned with the previous\nquestion posed at the election; he will not be part of a majority which rams through\nmulti-family overlays; the full Council needs to be the adult in the room.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the discussion can be tabled for the time being due to there\nbeing no majority vote on anything.\nVice Mayor Vella stated Councilmembers are City fiduciaries; one of the biggest\nproblems with the State of California is the previous allowing of zoning via the ballot\nbox; the result is the current housing conundrum being faced; the majority of people that\nturned out to vote cast the winning ballots; the resulting decisions have shown the City\nof Alameda does not want to comply with regulations and will limit the ability to have\nlocal control and project-by-project decision making; Council and many jurisdictions\nhave allowed for limiting local control through different measures; Alameda is not unique\nin the issues being faced; outlined uniqueness arguments from cities across the state;\nstated many different jurisdictions have exclusionary zoning provisions or limits on\namounts of density and construction types; expressed concern for Council having\nconflicting obligations; she would like to hear the options for Council; noted the\nresolution is before Council for consideration however, a decision does not have to be\nmade at the current meeting; it is important to have a discussion about available\noptions; she does not want to cause or push a lawsuit to be filed against the City one\nway or another; the elephant in the room must be addressed; expressed concern for the\nlegacy of zoning by the ballot box which has caused current limitations.\n(21-459) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated a vote is needed to consider new items after 11\np.m.\nCouncilmember Knox White moved approval of hearing all of the remaining agenda\nitems that can be heard before midnight.\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\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n19\nJuly 6, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-07-06", "page": 43, "text": "Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.\nVice Mayor Vella stated that she would like to hear from the City Attorney on the\nfiduciary obligations for Council; she agrees that an attempt at unanimity relative to the\nmulti-family overlay is needed; expressed support for City staff providing possible\napproaches to the matter.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for staff providing implications of having a\nHousing Element which is not in compliance with State law.\nThe City Attorney stated there is no pressing deadline due to the approval of appealing\nthe allocation; the Housing Element does not need to be certified until the end of next\nyear; Council has time and the matter will return with updates; one option for Council is\nto continue the matter and allow the Planning, Building and Transportation Director to\nbring back new information based on the appeal process; the new information can\ninform the Council discussion; recommended allowing the Planning, Building and\nTransportation Director to perform work with the community; Council may also take a\nnumber of other actions including making commitments about allowing multi-family\noverlays, prioritizing City-owned land or Council may decide not to take action; staff\nrecommends any Council direction for litigation be brought forth in Closed Session;\nCouncil has a wide range of options with a lot of time.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired when Council can anticipate an update on the appeal\nprocess.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded that an update on the\nappeal should be available by the end of the calendar year; an e-mail follow up to\nCouncil with a more definitive date will be sent in the coming days.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft outlined the timeline for the anticipated appeals schedule; noted\nthe Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) will adopt the final RHNA plan in\nDecember.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated staff will approach the work\nas a series of steps which will play out over the next nine months; staff understands\nroughly 1,500 units have already been approved in projects; outlined Encinal Terminals\nproject timeline; staff plans to be back to Council in the near future for Encinal Terminals\ndiscussion and evaluation; should Council vote to approve the project, 589 units will be\nadded to the 1,500 already approved units; staff plans to come before Council in\nSeptember for a project at Alameda Point to gain a better understanding of the\nallowable units for the space; by the end of the year, staff will know how many units to\nanticipate between Encinal Terminals, Alameda Point and others; staff will know the\nfinal RHNA allocation by the end of the year and will be able to determine the gap to fill\nwith the multi-family overlay; staff will then be able to get into specifics with Council;\nnoted updates on locations for multi-family overlays and densities will be provided;\nupdates on overlays and density will be difficult to provide until the final RHNA allocation\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n20\nJuly 6, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-07-06", "page": 44, "text": "is provided; staff anticipates a series of meetings with Council over the following nine\nmonths; the process allows staff to keep moving and informing Council; emphasized the\nneed for smoothness at the end of the process.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Measure Z ballot measure elections results have been a\nresounding no; the campaign was not well-run and educating voters was not adequately\nperformed; expressed support for an informative public process; Council decided late in\nthe game to place the measure on the ballot; answers to public questions were not\ngiven enough of a chance; the City fell short in communicating and now has a second\nchance at bringing the public along; Council cannot pretend as though there is no\nhousing crisis; Council must solve housing problems realistically; expressed support for\nCouncil providing clear direction on what to include in the returning report; questioned\nthe matters which Council would like addressed.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he will need to know the final RHNA allocation\nbefore he signs off on the Housing Element and multi-family zoning strategies; he will\nneed to determine whether or not the allocation is fair to the island; the public and\nCouncil will need a thorough analysis regarding densities of new General Plan land use\ncategories and the relationship to multi-family overlays; he will find it difficult to support\nany kind of Housing Element or zoning overlay change should there be no reduction in\nthe RHNA allocation; the City is unique and is one of two California islands; the City\ncannot support any allocation near the 5,300 units; he will put out more of his thoughts\nbetween now and the returning report.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Councilmember Daysog prefers the matter not\nreturn to Council until after the November or December determination of the RHNA\nallocation, to which Councilmember Daysog responded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor Vella stated it makes sense to wait until the final RHNA allocation is\nprovided; there are a number of questions that will need to be answered by Council; the\nanticipated response will not be in agreement to the appeal, and larger Council\ndecisions will need to be made; a decision will need to be made for multi-family overlays\nand densities; other cities are grappling with similar matters; noted the City of Berkeley\nis also looking at exclusionary housing provisions and the resulting impacts; a robust\nconversation with the public needs to occur; the matter can be confusing and the\ndensity should be visualized; there are many high opportunity neighborhoods in\nAlameda; expressed support for the decision of the Housing Element being centered on\nCouncil priorities which address housing needs and equity; she will approach\ndiscussions on the topic from the lens of equity; expressed support for a Housing\nElement which is compliant.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification on the repercussions of a non-compliant\nHousing Element.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated should the City miss the\ndeadline for submitting a compliant Housing Element, the City will automatically and\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n21\nJuly 6, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-07-06", "page": 45, "text": "immediately be cut-off from a range of State funding sources; the funding applies to\ntransportation, open space, affordable housing and homeless project money; the City\nrelies on all the related funding which could be cut-off.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired the due date, to which the Planning, Building and\nTransportation Director responded January 2023.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated that he would like to come\nback to Council in the fall with projects related to the Housing Element; the projects may\nbe voted up or down; staff will be clear and inform Council of the projects in relation to\nthe Housing Element; the General Plan will be coming to Council in the fall; noted the\nGeneral Plan is designed to support a Housing Element however, the General Plan\ndoes not predetermine the RHNA allocation; stated the General Plan represents the\ncoming 20 years; noted three Housing Elements will occur in the General Plan time\nframe; the General Plan will allow decisions for multi-family overlay and densities; by\nthe end of the fall, staff will find out the RHNA allocation; he will continue to work with\nthe Planning Board and the community on the multi-family overlays and will return to\nCouncil for a study session style update report on the final RHNA allocation plans; the\nreport will come to Council between January and February providing time to continue\nworking; Council may provide feedback and fine tuning on the plan but will not need to\nmake a final determination.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for workshops taking place in different parts of\nthe City with access for all and for conducting walking tours; noted the matter will return\nin the future.\n(21-460) Recommendation to Authorize the Chief of Police to Update the Existing\nAlameda Police Department Policy Manual to be Current with Existing Best Practices\nand Statutory Requirements. Not heard.\n(21-461) Introduction of Ordinance Approving a Third Amendment to the Greenway Golf\nLease Agreement for Operation of the Corica Park Golf Complex. Introduced; and\n(21-461 A) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute the Third\nAmendment to the Jim's on the Course Concession Agreement for Food and Beverage\nServices at the Corica Park Golf Complex.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Daysog expressed concern for the reference to open-ended\nrestaurants; stated Council should consider language which places parameters\nensuring Council will always have the final say on restaurant numbers; expressed\nsupport for the language to state \"14. Reservation of City Rights: The additional uses\npotentially contemplated by this Third Amendment, including but not limited to snack\nshacks, take-out Food and Beverage Service facilities, new Golf Complex restaurants,\nand event center facilities, are each subject to future City review and approvals both in\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n22\nJuly 6, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-07-06", "page": 46, "text": "its regulatory and proprietary capacities. This Third Amendment shall not be construed\nto limit the City's future discretion to approve, conditionally approve, or deny such uses;\"\nstated the language indicates Council will review items as they arise.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the language is to be included in the settlement\nagreement.\nCouncilmember Daysog responded the language will be inserted as section 14.\nThe City Attorney stated Councilmember Daysog is recommending an additional\nprovision to the third amendment to Greenway Golf lease.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the recommended language has been discussed\nwith Greenway Golf, to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer requested clarification on the claim against the City\nfrom Greenway Golf; stated that she would like to know the monetary risk to those\nnamed in the claim.\nThe City Attorney stated the claim in a nutshell states that Greenway Golf has alleged\nJim's on the Course has breached its obligations to build an event center, and that the\nCity has been complicit in the breach with Greenway Golf and has incurred damages in\nthe range of tens of millions of dollars.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated the amount of the claim is tens of millions of\ndollars; inquired whether Jim's on the Course has filed a claim against the City of\nAlameda, to which the City Attorney responded in the negative.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated the response has confirmed that Greenway\nGolf has filed a claim for tens of millions of dollars against the City and Jims on the\nCourse; noted Jims on the Course has not filed a claim against the City.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired the proposed location of the referenced restaurant at the\ngolf course.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director responded the location has yet to be determined;\nstated there are a number of City requirements to be worked through on Greenway\nGolf's part, including Gold Commission, Planning Board and City Council.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the event center tent could be sold at a\nreasonable price; stated there is a rent structure which allows the $315,000 losses to be\nwhole again; she wants to be fair however, she does not want the City to be providing\nfinancial windfall.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director responded sale of the tent has been attempted;\nstated the pandemic has created additional issues; she is confident Mr. Tom Geanekos\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n23\nJuly 6, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-07-06", "page": 47, "text": "will continue attempting to sell the tent; Mr. Geanekos might not be able to recoup the\ncosts.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired what will happen should the costs be able to be\nrecovered.\nThe Chief Assistant City Attorney responded Council may request staff to draft a\nprovision to stagger the rent recovery provision outlined in option B should Jims on the\nCourse be able to sell back the event tent.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for a provision to stagger rent recovery.\nExpressed support for the third amendment; stated that he is excited to continue\npartnering with the City to improve the golf course; city staff, Jim's on the Course and\nGreenway Golf have worked hard to find a path forward that works for all parties; he\nand Mr. Geanekos are committed to working together in a manner which is mutually\nbeneficial and in turn, benefits the City; having more food and beverage options at the\ncourse will bring more patrons thus increasing business for both Greenway Golf and\nJim's on the Course; having expanded offerings will provide an opportunity to bring in\nother Alameda food vendors during tournaments; the amendment will allow Greenway\nGolf to bring larger tournaments to Corica Park; outlined a ranking of 12th best course\nprovided by Golf Magazine; discussed the annual golf tournament; stated having more\nchoices at Corica Park will enable the annual tournament to come home to the City's\ngolf course; discussed letters of support; stated that he hopes the amendment will allow\nGreenway Golf to host bigger tournaments in the coming years; urged Council support\nthe amendment: Umesh Patel, Greenway Golf.\nDiscussed operations of locations; stated many first job opportunities are provided at\nJim's; the golf course has undergone many transformations since 2006 and the only\nstable factor has been Jim's on the Course; prior to 2006, a food and beverage cart\nprovided limited service to golfers only; he has since invested large sums of money to\nimprove kitchen facilities and dining areas; the full service restaurant can serve\nhundreds of customers per day; the revenues paid to the City since 2006 have\nquadrupled to roughly $100,000 per year; Jim's has been a stable revenue stream to\nthe City with zero City investment; Jim's has done everything in its power to fulfil\ncontractual obligations to the City related to the events center; the City, Greenway Golf\nand Jim's have come to an agreement to bring closure to the matter; Jim's has agreed\nto relinquish a portion of the food and beverage exclusivity in exchange for contractual\nstability and needed rent relief; urged Council bring the chapter to a final closure, and\nvote for option B; discussed the event tent structure: Tom Geanekos, Jim's on the\nCourse.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft outlined the matter; stated the Golf Commission had unanimously\nsupported option B.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of accepting option B for both\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n24\nJuly 6, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-07-06", "page": 48, "text": "support for the restaurant and long-term tenants are good for the City; she feels as\nthough she does not have a choice in the matter; expressed support for an operator that\nis focused on golfing; stated Greenway Golf is not set up to be a restauranteur; she\nhopes for a golf course operator that is willing to honor working together with Jim's on\nthe Course; expressed support for the motion; expressed concern for Greenway Golf as\nan operator; stated that she will be looking at Greenway Golf closely moving forward;\nshe has heard complaints about the golf course; it is important that both parties be held\nto honor the original agreement as much as possible; she expects the operator to be\ngood within the community.\nOn the call for the questions, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.\nCONSENT CALENDAR (CONTINUED)\n(21-462) Recommendation to Approve Amended Employment Agreement for the City\nAttorney.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n25\nJuly 6, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-07-06", "page": 49, "text": "Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated public comment has raised the issue of\nwhether or not the contract is similar to other City staff; her understanding is that the\ncontract is similar; requested clarification for the contract details.\nThe Human Resources Director stated the provisions in the City Attorney's contract\nallow for employees to cash out vacation, up to two weeks, after being with the City for\n15 years; not all employees have the provision; the provision is negotiated; vacation\naccruals are different based on years of service; the accruals allowed are higher than\nother City employees however, the amount is nothing higher than seen at other\norganizations.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether any other City employees have the\nsame level of vacation cash-out.\nThe Human Resources Director responded other employees have the 80 hours of cash-\nout option after 15 years of service.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of the employment agreement.\nCouncilmember Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call\nvote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Ayes; Knox White: Aye; Vella:\nAye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.\n(21-463) Adoption of Resolution Amending Resolution Nos. 15728 and 15739\nAmending the 2021 Regular City Council Meeting Dates. [Continued to 7/20 at 6:59\np.m.]\nThe City Clerk gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated moving the dates back would be problematic;\nexpressed support for the September meeting dates being the 8th and the 22nd\nMayor Ezzy Aschraft requested clarification on selecting certain religious holidays to re-\nschedule.\nThe City Attorney stated Council has a wide range of discretion on when to meet;\nshould Council choose to meet, the reasons would not be due to favoring one religion\nover another.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated no meetings are scheduled for December 25th which\nis a Christian holiday; Council can make a determination that meetings can be moved\nbased on conflicts for a large portion of the community; expressed support for not\nmoving the Council meeting dates back; stated that he would like the dates to be\nSeptember 8th and 22nd to ensure no conflict.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n26\nJuly 6, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-07-06", "page": 50, "text": "Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she has an issue with the September 22nd\nmeeting date; the date is posed for a League of California Cities conference in\nSacramento and she plans to attend; noted September 14th is not a holiday; expressed\nsupport for the meeting dates being September 1st and 14th\nVice Mayor Vella stated that she has a work commitment on September 14th; schedules\nare created far in advance due to meeting dates; inquired whether there has been an\ninstance where Christmas has landed on a scheduled Council meeting.\nThe City Clerk responded in the negative; stated the date is a holiday where City Hall is\nclosed and meetings would not be scheduled.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the current September meeting\ndates are the 1st and the 15th\nThe City Clerk responded in the affirmative; stated the dates had been adopted in\nJanuary; noted the proposed dates revert back to the original meeting schedule; stated\na Transportation Commission meeting is scheduled for September 22nd\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that her preference is to keep the dates already\nvoted on by Council which would be September 1st and 15th\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she has trouble selecting one religion to move Council\nmeetings for; a survey should be provided through the Social Services Human Relations\nBoard (SSHRB); there are many different dates which are important to different religious\ngroups; Council should not favor one religion over another; expressed support for\nsticking to the regular schedule of the 1st and 3rd Tuesday of each month; SSHRB is\nlikely the most appropriate Board for the matter.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of continuing the matter to July 20, 2021 at 6:59\np.m.\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;\nand Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\nNot heard.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNot heard.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n27\nJuly 6, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-07-06", "page": 51, "text": "(21-464) Consider Adoption of Resolution Supporting the Goal of Reaching 100% Zero\nEmission Vehicle Sales in California by 2030. (Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft) Not heard.\n(21-465) Considering Having an Introduction and Update from the New Police Chief\nregarding Strategies to Address Crimes. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard.\n(21-466) Considering Directing Staff to Provide an Update on License Plate Readers.\n(Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard.\n(21-467) Consider Directing Staff to Publicly Share Information on Parking Recreational\nVehicles. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard.\n(21-468) Consider Directing Staff to Address Representation for Below Market Rate\nHomeowners on Homeowner Association (HOA) Boards and with Property\nManagement. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\nNot heard.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 12:01\na.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n28\nJuly 6, 2021", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf"}