Title
Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting, the Special Joint City Council and Successor Agency to the Community Improvement Commission and Regular City Council Meeting Held on June 21, 2022; and the Special and Regular City Council Meetings Held on July 5 and 12, 2022. (City Clerk)
Body
UNAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- -JUNE 21, 2022- -5:15 P.M.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 5:16 p.m.
Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Knox White, Vella and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note: Vice Mayor Vella arrived at 5:21 p.m. The meeting was held via Zoom.]
Absent: None.
Consent Calendar
(22- ) Recommendation to Approve Dirk Brazil, Interim City Manager, Lisa Maxwell, Community Development Director, Len Aslanian, Assistant City Attorney, and Nanette Mocanu, Assistant Community Development Director, as Real Property Negotiators for Building 12, Located at 1050 West Tower Avenue, Alameda, CA. Not heard.
The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(22- ) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation Requests for the City to Participate in as Amicus in Pending Litigations: (Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9); Case Name: 303 Creative LLC, et al. v Aubrey Elenis et al.; Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit; United States Supreme Court; Case Number: 19-1413, 21-476.
(22-__) Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8) Property: 1050 West Tower Avenue, Alameda, CA. Not heard.
(22-__) Conference with Labor Negotiators (Government Code Section: 54957.6); City Negotiators: Nancy Bronstein, Human Resources Director; Nico Procos, General Manager, Alameda Municipal Power; Jessica Romeo, Human Resources Manager; and Steve Woo, Senior Human Resources Analyst; Employee Organizations: Alameda City Employees Association (ACEA); Management and Confidential Employees Association (MCEA); Electric Utility Professionals Association (EUPA); International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW); Alameda Police Officers Non-Sworn (PANS); Alameda Municipal Power Unrepresented Employees (AMPU); Alameda Police Management Association (APMA); Under Negotiation: Salaries, Employee Benefits and Terms of Employment.
(22-__) Public Employee Appointment/Hiring (Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957); Title/Description of Positions to be Filled: City Manager.
Following the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and the City Clerk announced that regarding the Existing Litigation, the City was asked to join numerous other local jurisdictions sign on to an amicus brief to be filed in the case where the United States Supreme Court will consider whether applying a public accommodations law to compel an artist to speak or stay silent violates the Free Speech clause; the 11th Circuit concluded that Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act (“CADA”) is narrowly tailored to Colorado’s interest in ensuring equal access to publicly available goods and services; excepting Plaintiffs from CADA would “necessarily relegate Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) consumers to an inferior market because Plaintiffs’ unique services are, by definition, unavailable elsewhere;” the amicus brief seeks to support the State of Colorado; the Council voted to authorize the City Attorney to sign the amicus brief by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 5; regarding Labor, staff provided information and Council provided direction by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 5, and regarding Employee Appointment/Hiring, staff provided information and Council provided direction with no vote taken.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 6:32 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
****************************************************************************************************
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND
SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (SACIC)
TUESDAY- -JUNE 21, 2022- -6:59 P.M.
Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:10 p.m. Councilmember/Commissioner Daysog led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers/Commissioners Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Knox White, Vella and Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note: The meeting was held via Zoom.]
Absent: None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember/Commissioner Knox White moved approval of the Consent Calendar.
Vice Mayor/Commissioner Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers/Commissioners Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Spencer: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]
(*22- CC/22- SACIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and SACIC Meeting Held on May 17, 2022. Approved.
AGENDA ITEM
(22- CC) Public Hearing to Establish the Proposition 4 (Appropriations) Limit for Fiscal Year 2022-23; and
(22- A CC) Resolution No. 15917, “Establishing the Appropriations Limit for Fiscal Year 2022-23.” Adopted.
The Budget Manager gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired the highest percentage allowable by law.
The Budget Manager responded the City needs to be under 100% of the appropriations limit.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired the amount of the last percentage, to which the Budget Manager responded 69% of the limit.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the staff recommendation [including adoption of the resolution].
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers/Commissioners Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Spencer: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.
(22- CC) Resolution No. 15918, “Approving and Adopting the Budget for Fiscal Year 2022-23.” Adopted; and
(22- SACIC) Resolution No. 22-15, “Approving and Adopting the Budget for Fiscal Year 2022-23.” Adopted; and
(22- A CC) Resolution No. 15919, “Approving Workforce Changes and Amending the Salary Schedules for the Alameda City Employees Association (ACEA) and Management and Confidential Employees Association (MCEA) in Fiscal Year 2022-23, Effective July 3, 2022.” Adopted.
The Budget Manager gave a Power Point presentation.
Councilmember/Commissioner Daysog stated the amount is reasonable; there is a transfer in amount of $9.9 million; inquired the elements of the transfers in which comprise the $9.9 million amount.
The Budget Manager responded the $9.9 million amount are the actuals from fiscal year 2020-2021 and is comprised of $4 million from Alameda Municipal Power’s (AMP) franchise fee, $3.1 million from the capital program closing about a dozen projects.
Councilmember/Commissioner Herrera Spencer stated correspondence has been received from the business districts requesting funding; inquired whether the request is being considered.
The Finance Director responded the request has not been included; Council may add the request to the budget as part of adoption if desired; staff would have to identify a funding source to cover the request; the amount would likely come out of fund balance.
Councilmember/Commissioner Herrera Spencer stated Council should consider funding a City swimming pool; inquired whether there will be funds for a City swimming pool.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the recent Alameda Unified School District (AUSD) bond measure passed; the measure includes funding for half of the amount of a swimming pool.
The Finance Director responded the funding for a City swimming pool is part of a larger question than the current budget; stated the Finance Department will need to work with the Recreation and Parks Department should Council provides direction; staff could return with a study session and proposed funding options.
In response to Councilmember/Commissioner Herrera Spencer, the Budget Manager stated information is included in the presentation under the five-year balancing forecast; the forecast is not an actual budget; forecasts look at what has happened in the past; the current long-term financial model looks back at what has happened in the past 10 years in order to forecast future estimates; staff uses the estimates to increase revenue and expenditure factors; forecasts show higher expenditures than revenues; the forecast does not take into account other potential funding sources or reductions in expenditures; as staff comes back in the future, a balanced budget will be presented.
Councilmember/Commissioner Herrera Spencer stated the five year forecast shows the difference between revenues and expenditures; inquired whether staff has made any modifications in the five year forecast related to a possible recession; stated the net annual activity is a negative amount; inquired whether the City anticipates increasing revenue.
The Budget Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the circumstance can vary; certain revenue sources have more volatility; the City’s largest general revenue source is property tax, which is stable even in a recession; staff expects the revenue source to remain stable or continue to increase modestly; the increase can help offset reductions in other areas that are more volatile during a recession.
Councilmember/Commissioner Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation [including adoption of the resolutions].
Councilmember/Commissioner Knox White seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember/Commissioner Daysog stated there are many things to fix within the budget; he supports the current matter; a bold step is being taken to try to set aside funds for a municipal swimming pool; expressed support for having a municipal swimming pool; stated the location can change.
Councilmember/Commissioner Knox White stated the pool commitment is to hold funds until needed.
Councilmember/Commissioner Herrera Spencer stated the pool item is described as the Emma Hood Swim Center ear mark, not a municipal swim center; she understands the funding is not for a City swimming pool.
Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft requested Councilmember/Commissioner Knox White to provide clarification; stated the Finance Director noted the City swimming pool would be a larger discussion.
Councilmember/Commissioner Knox White stated Council directed a $7.5 million match be ear marked for rebuilding Emma Hood swimming pool, which is an AUSD-owned facility that the City jointly operates and uses; the amount does not include funding for a City-operated pool built in another part of the City.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers/Commissioners Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Spencer: No; Vella: Aye; and Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.
(22- CC) Adoption of Resolution Adopting the One-Time Revenue, Excess Property Transfer Tax, and General Fund Surplus Policy. Not adopted.
The Finance Director gave a Power Point presentation.
Councilmember Daysog stated the idea behind the 2017 formula was spot on; expressed concern about the formula driving too many dollars to help pay down the other post-employment benefits (OPEB) and CalPERS liabilities; stated the City has many challenges; Council must make decisions about how to fund capital and other City improvements and services; Council could have addressed ongoing, annual issues by modifying the 2017 formula; the City has spent roughly $45 million in five years; any time the City spends that amount of money, the citizens should be included and approve the expenditure; he does not have an issue with the 2017 formula; however, there are concerns with the mechanics of the formula driving too much money into paying down OPEB liabilities; a lot of the excess revenues have not been as a result of the revenue windfalls, but are due to the City budgeting a certain amount for municipal services and the actual spending amount being far less than what was budgeted; discussed constant revenues with lower expenditures causing the General Fund balance to be larger; stated $15 million was budgeted for government services and roughly $9 million was spent; underspending has caused excess revenues; eventually, the City will spend the full amount on municipal services; the excess revenues have allowed the City to pay down unfunded OPEB liabilities due to proposed services not being providing; he has put together data from audited statements; expressed support for revenue; stated the City needs to address how to deal with reserves; the City should make an effort to pay down the unfunded liabilities; the City should reign in the formula; he does not think the current formula will result in enough excess revenues to come close to paying the unfunded liabilities; he is not sure revenue adjustments are sufficient; expressed support for the matter returning to Council to determine how to deal with expenditures and excess fund balance.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she agrees with Councilmember Daysog in-part; discussed a 2017 League of California Cities presentation; stated the formula made sense at the time; all City policies should be revisited; she is not wedded to the current formula; she is intrigued by the proposal.
Councilmember Knox White stated the proposal is on the conservative side; expressed support for the Council decision to address the long-term, significant issue; stated Council decided to pay down unfunded liabilities in response to concerns; the current Council has been implementing a policy adopted by a past Council incorrectly; there is a middle ground that is simpler than the proposal; expressed support for 50% of any excess, unspent funds being spent to pay down OPEB liabilities; stated budgeting for 88 Police Officers when all positions are not filled results in a budget savings; the budget savings can help go towards paying down long-term pensions; the original intent of the 2017 formula was to utilize excess budget savings; surplus was added to reserves; the large reserve yielded large OPEB liability payments; expressed support for Council going with an approach that is easier to understand and based on annual budget actuals; stated percentages of the excess and reserve can be put towards wherever Council decides; the formula moved $37 million towards the City’s long-term liability during the first five year; stated the staff proposal would have resulted in $16 million; his proposed approach would have yielded roughly $25 million and is between the current approach and the new proposal.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether the language in labor contracts related to OPEB is a factor f; stated agreements bind the City relative to the liabilities; expressed support for the City going beyond OPEB portion of the matter; stated the agreements touch on ensuring the City is paying down the liability; the City has taken responsible actions; she understands the concept of wanting to ensure the City’s dollars go towards funding different projects; however, OPEB liabilities are an investment in staff who provide the services; the City is already on the hook; actions taken over the years were needed; Council needs to figure out and change the current policy a little; expressed concern about too many changes to the policy; stated the City should continue to pay down the OPEB liability; she would like to see more funding set aside to pay down the liability; the City has been a leader in its approach; other cities have looked towards Alameda; inquired the impact labor agreements have on the policy proposal; stated the information is helpful to provide perspective on constraints.
The Human Resource Director responded in 2016, the City set up the OPEB trust and made an initial deposit of $5 million; stated the agreement includes a contribution of $250,000 per year through 2025; the City will meet with labor in 2025 to discuss continuing the contribution; the City’s public safety group members contribute 4% to the OPEB trust if hired prior to 2011 and anyone hired after 2011, contributes 2%.
Vice Mayor Vella stated that she is supportive of changing the policy; however, she does not want to move too much in the opposite direction where the City is not putting money aside; the City has minimal amounts that must be put into the OPEB trust; the City has been focused on paying down the CalPERS obligations, which saves the City a tremendous amount of money in the long run; the investment is smart; the vote to establish the pay down happened prior to her being on Council; however, she is supportive of the policy; minor adjustments to the policy can be made without getting too technical or convoluted; expressed concern about moving in a direction where the amount would be split by 50%.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Vice Mayor Vella is looking for middle ground between what has previously been done and what is being proposed, to which Vice Mayor Vella responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Daysog stated there appears to be consensus that Council should have greater say in terms of the amount that is set aside for liabilities instead of having a policy that runs on its own; the approach is about changing the policy; expressed support for seeing a better explanation as to what is driving the fund balances; stated the fund balance can either be driven by the revenue side due to gathering more dollars or be driven by the expenditure side due to not spending as much; the public needs to know what the City put $45 million towards and any projects the differential could have funded; ultimately, the public needs to sign-off on funding the liabilities; expressed support for asking the public to vote on the matter.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the staff report shows $204.4 million in unfunded pension liability for public safety and another $92.4 million for miscellaneous and all other employees; there is $296.8 million in unfunded pension liabilities; inquired whether the amount is correct, to which the Finance Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer discussed a League of California Cities meeting indicting Alameda had the highest unfunded pension liabilities on a per capita basis; stated it is important to underscore the total amount of unfunded pension liability, as well as how much liability is accrued on an annual basis; the amount should be required to be disclosed; inquired whether the report shows the amount of unfunded liability.
The Controller responded in the affirmative; stated the amount is shown on financial statements; the amount includes the total OPEB liability and the total liability of pension.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the City owes $296.8 million in unfunded pension liabilities; the five year projection has an ending fund balance that goes down from $65.1 million in 2022 to $50 million; the roughly $300 million is significantly higher than the $50 million in reserves; the reserve amount is not a real number when unfunded pension liabilities are added; inquired whether the liability amount is being subtracted.
The Controller responded the accounting method is different; stated most long-term liabilities and assets are excluded in the fund liability report; staff focuses on the current budget and excludes anything that is over one year away; the long-term assets and liabilities, including OPEB and pensions, are not included in the fund balance amount.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the City would end up with a deficit of about $250 million if staff included the roughly $300 million pension liability amount; the deficit is a problem; she did not vote in favor of the budget; the AUSD swimming pool is not sufficient for the community due to greater demand; discussed correspondence related to high charges for park usage; stated benefits to the people who pay taxes are not able to be enjoyed as much as possible; numbers presented are not real; the City has unfunded pension liabilities; the reports should include a notation about the $300 million unfunded pension liability; expressed concern about continuing to incur additional unfunded pension liabilities; stated the liabilities are a current and long-term problem for the City; expressed support for the City spending money to benefit community members; stated the City does not have enough funding; the City is $250 million short going into a recession; typically, the City has a tax measure every couple of years to try to appear as though the City is bringing in more money; the approach is not fair to many of the community members who cannot afford the increase; it is important to recognize those who pay taxes; expressed support for looking at other formulas; stated that she appreciates the chart showing the City has not been honoring the agreement; it is up to each Council to reflect and figure out the amount to spend on the liabilities; expressed support for Council having flexibility to determine how much to spend; stated that she supports the proposal.
Councilmember Knox White inquired the time period when unfunded liability payments are due and whether the amount is due in the next year.
The Controller responded in the negative; stated the amount is the current value of all future payments to be made to retirees at any given moment.
Councilmember Knox White inquired the time period to pay a $300 million liability.
The Controller responded the current value is to be paid over time.
The Finance Director stated the analysis is actuarial and happens annually; the analysis projects out the current payroll; the $300 million amount will not be due next year; the amount will be due over time as people retire.
Councilmember Knox White stated the City arrived at the $300 million amount as projected 25 to 30 years out; inquired whether the City’s budget includes an annual payment for the liability; stated Council is working on ways to get the $300 million amount decreased quicker than the 30 year time frame; expressed concern about increased interest rates and liability payment amounts.
The Finance Director stated the analysis is correct.
Councilmember Knox White inquired whether there could be an instance of adding the 30 year liability to the annual budget, to which the Controller responded in the negative.
Councilmember Knox White expressed concern about people fearing a $300 million unfunded liability that needs to be paid in the next two years; stated paying down the liability faster and earlier is better; he would like to find a formula that is more ambitious than what has been proposed; expressed support for the proposed formula’s smoothing and reasoning and for Council finding something that brings the City closer to 50% of the annual surplus; stated the simpler the formula, the easier it will be to implement; he would like the matter to come before Council sometime in the fall.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of directing staff to bring back the matter sometime in the fall with additional work to bring the number up, based on the conversation.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she appreciates the comments provided; the liabilities are a problem and a responsibility the City has; the City’s largest expense is personnel; the City needs to expect salary and benefit costs; the City is always concerned about attracting and retaining employees; part of attracting and retaining employees includes salaries and benefits; expressed support for the City looking the problem in the eye; stated the City cannot look the other way and hope that the problem will solve itself; discussed her 2017 proposal that the then Council adopted; expressed support for the motion.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers/Commissioners Daysog: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; Vella: Aye; and Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 8:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk and Secretary, SACIC
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
****************************************************************************************************
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- JUNE 21, 2022- -7:00 P.M.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 8:20 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Knox White, Vella, and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note: The meeting was conducted via Zoom.]
Absent: None.
AGENDA CHANGES
(22- ) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would call Board and Commission nominations [paragraph no. 22- ] next.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(22- ) Mayor’s Nominations for Appointment to the Civil Service Board, Commission on Persons with Disabilities, Golf Commission, Historical Advisory Board, Housing Authority Board of Commissioners, Library Board, Planning Board, Public Utilities Board, Recreation and Parks Commission, Social Services Human Relations Board, and Transportation Commission.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft nominated Adrienne Alexander, Alice Nguyen and Eric Robbins to the Recreation and Park Commission and Tina Yuen, Alisha Natchtigall, Geoffrey Johnson, and Saravana Suthanthira to the Transportation Commission
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
None.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(22- ) Josh Altieri, Housing Authority, provided an update on Housing Authority activities.
(22- ) Catherine Pauling, Alameda, suggested rewarding landlords with below market rents.
CONSENT CALENDAR
The City Clerk announced the terms of the City Attorney employment agreement [paragraph no. 22- ] and called for public speakers for the Public Hearings [paragraph nos. 22- and 22- ].
Discussed the water shuttle program [paragraph no 22- ] and estuary adaptation [paragraph no. 22- ]; stated the matters should be on the regular agenda: Jim Strehlow, Alameda.
Councilmember Daysog noted that he would recuse himself from the Island City Landscaping and Lighting District hearing [paragraph no. 22- ].
Councilmember Herrera Spencer requested the water shuttle, estuary adaptation and Council meeting dates [paragraph no. 22- ] be removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Ayes; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]
(*22- ) Minutes of the Special City Council Meetings and the May 3, 2022 Continued Meeting Held on May 10, 2022; and the Special and Regular City Council Meeting Held on May 17, 2022. Approved.
(*22- ) Ratified bills in the amount of $2,656,182.49.
(*22- ) Recommendation to Approve the City of Alameda Investment Policy. Accepted.
(*22- ) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim City Manager to Execute an Agreement, Substantially in the Form of the Attached Agreement, with the Alameda County Fire Department Regarding the Regional Emergency Communication Center and Fire Dispatch and Radio Services. Accepted.
(*22- ) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim City Manager to Execute an Agreement with the Alameda Sun for the Publication of Legal Notices for Fiscal Year 2022-23. Accepted.
(*22- ) Recommendation to Authorize the City Attorney to Consent to Law Firm Shute, Mihaly and Weinberger LLP’s (SMW) Request to Waive Conflicts of Interest in Connection with SMW’s Legal Representation of the City of Alameda and the Alameda County Waste Management Authority. Accepted.
(*22- ) Recommendation to Approve Amended Agreement for the City Attorney Effective June 19, 2022. Accepted.
(*22- ) Recommendation to Accept the Work of McGuire & Hester for Fire Station No. 2 Pavement Improvements Project, No. PW 05-20-25. Accepted.
(*22- ) Recommendation to Accept the Work of Ranger Pipelines, Inc. for Cyclic Sewer Replacement Project, Phase 17, No. PW 07-20-34. Accepted.
(*22- ) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim City Manager to Execute a Five-Year Agreement with West Coast Arborist for Urban Forest Maintenance Services, Citywide, No. P.W. 07-06-16, in an Amount Not to Exceed $13,119,805. Accepted.
(22- ) Recommendation to Endorse a Grant Application to the Alameda County Transportation Commission’s 2024 Comprehensive Investment Plan Call for Projects for Grant Funds for the Alameda-Oakland Free Public Water Shuttle Pilot Program.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the City has been collecting any money from companies over time.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded every major development along the waterfront contributes money toward transportation; stated the money has been going towards AC Transit Easy Passes to-date; as the City continues to develop transportation programs, there is a desire to expand into water transit; the City would like to provide all City residents and employees access to AC Transit and water transportation; the program is largely funded by new developments; a new water shuttle dock being built at Alameda Landing will be open for public use this summer; Water Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA) operators have stepped in and will run the service.
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Ayes; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.
(*22- ) Recommendation to Receive an Update on Senate Bill 1383 Procurement Compliance and Approve Approach for Fiscal Year 2022-23 Compliance. Accepted; and
(*22- A) Resolution No. 15920, “Amending the Fiscal Year 2022-23 Integrated Waste Fund Budget to Increase Revenue in the Amount of $115,019 and Increase Expenditures in the Amount of $115,019 to Receive and Appropriate Grant Funds from the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CALRECYCLE) for Senate Bill 1383 Implementation.” Adopted.
(22- ) Resolution No. 15921, “Authorizing the Interim City Manager to Execute All Necessary Documents with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to Complete the Oakland-Alameda Estuary Adaptation Project for $500,000 to Develop an Adaptation Concept.” Adopted.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the staff recommendation [including adoption of the resolution].
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Ayes; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.
(*22- ) Resolution No. 15922, “Approving the Pavement Management Project be Funded through the State of California’s Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account for Fiscal Year 2022-23.” Adopted.
(22- ) Resolution No. 15923, “Amending Resolution No. 15851 Amending the 2022 Regular City Council Meeting Dates.” Adopted.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated Council meets twice in July, then takes a break in August; the original meeting dates were July 5th and 19th; there are two Councilmembers that are unable to make the July 19th meeting; the proposed meeting dates are July 5th and 12th; questioned why July 26th was not a proposed option; noted Council typically does not meet on consecutive Tuesdays and meetings are staggered to ensure staff is prepared.
The Interim City Manager stated staff is able to deliver agendas for the proposed meeting dates; nothing is harmed by moving the meeting dates up by one week; agenda items have been approved for the July 5th meeting and the agenda items for the July 12th meeting are working through the approval process.
Councilmember Daysog inquired the reason for moving the July 19th meeting to July 12th; stated Council sets meeting dates in December; Council has an extensive holiday period in August.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated two Council meetings in July will still occur; extenuating circumstances arise which are not always able to be controlled; urged grace and understanding be provided from all Councilmembers.
Vice Mayor Vella discussed being unable to attend the July 19th Council meeting due to a family matter.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the staff recommendation [including adoption of the resolution].
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Ayes; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.
(*22- ) Public Hearing to Consider Resolution No. 15924, “Approving the Engineer’s Report, Confirming Diagram and Assessment, and Ordering the Levy of Assessments, Maintenance Assessment District 01-1 (Marina Cove).” Adopted.
(*22- ) Public Hearing to Consider Resolution No. 15925, “Approving the Engineer’s Report, Confirming Diagram and Assessment, and Ordering the Levy of Assessments, Island City Landscaping and Lighting District 84-2, All Zones.” Adopted.
Note: Councilmember Daysog recused himself, so the matter carried by the following vote: Councilmembers Herrera Spencer: Ayes; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. [Absent: Councilmember Daysog - 1.]
CONTINUED AGENDA ITEMS
None.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(22- ) Public Hearing to Consider Introduction of Ordinance Amending Alameda Municipal Code Section 30-10 (Cannabis) to Add the North Park Street Maritime Manufacturing (MM-NP) District as a Location Where Cannabis Industry (Manufacturing) is Conditionally Permitted, as Recommended by the Planning Board. Introduced.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director and City Planner gave a brief presentation.
In response to Councilmember Herrera Spencer’s inquiry, the Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated odor control is a standard operating condition of approval.
Expressed his support for Council approval; stated the use will help generate revenue and jobs: Zac Bowling, Alameda.
Expressed concern about crime and safety: Jason.
In response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft’s inquiry, the City Planner stated Kiva Confections, the intended user of the space, makes confections with cannabis as an ingredient; staff does not expect the operation to be any different from other candy manufacturers; the Use Permit, as well as the cannabis operators permit, process will be reviewed by the Alameda Police Department (APD) for any safety concerns; prior to the business commencing operations, a security plan will be in place if APD believes it is necessary.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the staff recommendation for the zoning change [introduction of the ordinance].
Councilmember Herrera Spencer seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog discussed a marijuana manufacturing district in Oakland; noted odors from the district sporadically waft over to the City of Alameda; inquired whether the proposed type of operation would generate odors above and beyond allowable limits; further inquired the City’s available recourse to rein in the process.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded facilities growing cannabis are typically the ones causing odor concerns; stated cannabis will be coming to the facility pre-processed in this case and is being used as an ingredient in the manufacturing process; cannabis regulations set by Council require the facility to be consistent with zoning and have a Use Permit establishing conditions of approval; the conditions run with the land; the proposed user also needs an operators permit issued by APD, which is valid for one year; if a cannabis business in Alameda is not following the established rules, the business loses the right to continue having its permit re-issued each year; the City has a lot of leverage with cannabis businesses; staff will be dealing with odor issues as a condition of approval as required by ordinance.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the Planning Board would host a public hearing.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded a Zoning Administrator meeting will be publically noticed for interested people to attend; matters can be heard at the Council or Planning Board level if needed; staff can automatically bump the hearing to Planning Board if there is increased concern.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired who receives the hearing notices, to which the Planning, Building, and Transportation Director responded everyone within a 300-foot radius.
Councilmember Daysog stated a nearby business owner has raised concerns; inquired whether the concerns have been addressed.
The Planning, Building, and Transportation Director responded anyone concerned about operations should contact the Planning, Building, and Transportation Department; stated staff will be able to relay when public hearings are planned and provide information on the process; any Use Permit can be elevated to the City Council level; specific operation questions can be addressed in the Use Permit process; the question of the current matter relates to allowing the use within the zoning area.
Vice Mayor Vella stated the matter is a tremendous opportunity for the City; expressed support for expanding the current zoning in order to allow the business; stated the use is consistent and Council is merely extending the concept of zoning nearby to include the potential business; it is manufacturing, not a retail business; she hopes the community will help work through the permitting process to address any concerns; cannabis is one of the most over-regulated businesses; the City has the process and ability to address concerns being raised; people should voice concerns during the process and work with City staff and the business to ensure concerns are addressed.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer noted that she visited a Kiva facility in Oakland; stated the facility was non-descript, clean and professional; she is unaware of any safety issues at the facility; expressed support for the business being allowed to manufacture in Alameda; the use will be great for the building and will bring additional revenue and jobs for the community; staff will work on the safety issue; crime tends to decrease in areas with high security.
Councilmember Daysog outlined correspondence received; stated the submitter is concerned about policing.
The Planning, Building, and Transportation Director stated the correspondence alludes to retail use of the property; the proposed use is a manufacturing facility, not retail; staff can reach out to provide more information; the use will not be a dispensary where customers will purchase products; the City has two dispensaries that have not had any serious problems; many people will not know what is being made inside the facility; Kiva will not advertise what is being made inside; he is confident the proposed use will work for the space; Council previously established that four manufacturing companies would be allowed in Alameda; manufacturing has not been created since the adoption of the ordinance five years ago; Kiva will be the first manufacturing company in Alameda; Kiva is a successful company; Kiva would like to bring all of its operations to Alameda.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support; stated a couple of armed invasion robberies have occurred at dispensaries; noted Kiva will provide its own private security; APD will review the security plan; expressed concern over diminishing public concerns.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he is satisfied with the information provided by staff; outlined dispensary break-ins; stated there are challenges with cannabis retailers; expressed support for APD being looped into the process.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.
***
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft called a recess at 9:19 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:31 p.m.
***
(22- ) Public Hearing to Consider Resolution No. 15926, “Authorizing the Interim City Manager to Proceed with the Grand Street Resurfacing and Safety Improvement Project Final Concept and Adoption of Environmental Findings.” Adopted.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director and Deputy Public Works Director gave a Power Point presentation.
***
(22- ) Councilmember Knox White moved approval of allowing 3 more minutes for the presentation.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Ayes; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.
***
The Deputy Public Works Director completed the presentation.
Councilmember Knox White inquired whether the matter increases Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) access to the neighborhood, to which the Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Knox White further inquired whether the matter increases safety for all road users and not just certain road users, to which the Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded in the affirmative; stated the staff recommendation is designed to increase safety for all users.
Councilmember Knox White inquired whether the matter increases non-automobile use along the corridor without impacting the access of people using the road for driving.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded in the affirmative; stated staff is trying to make biking feel more comfortable and safe so people will choose to bike; there will still be two lanes of traffic in either direction.
Councilmember Knox White inquired whether there are any City policies that are not consistent with the staff recommendation, to which the Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded in the negative.
Councilmember Knox White stated Council does not typically approve striping plans; inquired the reason staff brought the matter to Council for approval.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded the next steps for the project are to get approval from Caltrans and return to Council with a construction contract; stated staff did not want to pursue one of the proposed options without Council approval; staff will return for Council approval after spending time and effort is spent and did want to return with something Council would not support.
Councilmember Knox White stated a staff recommendation and an alternative were presented; inquired whether the options are the same in terms of increasing safety, active mode uses and meeting the climate and livability goals.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded staff believes the staff recommendation provides a higher level of safety and will encourage people to ride their bikes due to increased comfort; stated mode share changes will increase.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how the proposed alternative increases ADA access.
The Deputy Public Works Director responded the proposed plan includes an enhanced bus stop within a bus island to provide a fully accessible bus stop; there are designated, accessible parking spaces in the area along with the separated bike lane; noted consultants are preparing grading plans to reduce the slope of the intersections and replace the existing curb ramps to create fully accessible ramps which meet Caltrans standards.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether staff has had the chance to present the proposal to a disability consultant.
The Deputy Public Works Director responded in the affirmative; stated the consultant has not had the chance to review the plan yet; however, staff is prepared to work with the consultant and receive additional accessibility suggestions.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired when staff anticipates hearing from the disability consultant.
The Deputy Public Works Director responded staff will work along-side the consultants as staff develops the final plans; stated staff will be developing the final plans over the coming months; staff will likely work with the consultants during the months of July and August.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether a consultant has been chosen.
The Deputy Public Works Director responded Council will be approving the consultant for a Citywide ADA assessment contract; stated that he has reached out to see whether the consultant can advise on the current project as well.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the bike project along Otis Drive has a protected bike lane from Westline Drive to Grand Street and Willow Street.
The Deputy Public Works Director responded in the affirmative; stated the City has a protected intersection at Grand Street and Otis Drive; the rest is a striped bike lane with a buffer that provides more separation between the bike lane and moving traffic.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the alternative is similar to the Otis Drive conditions.
The Deputy Public Works Director responded the proposed street is not as wide; stated the design could not include the same buffered area as Otis Drive; stated the design will likely have a five to six-foot bike land between vehicle lanes and parked cars.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there is a cycle track style separated bike lane configuration on one side of the street near Wood Middle School with regular bike lanes on the opposite side of the street, to which the Deputy Public Works Director responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired the reason for the bike lane design.
The Deputy Public Works Director responded additional space was needed for access to Wood Middle School; stated based on circulation patterns, there is a center turning lane to allow vehicles to access Wood Middle School; the design does not leave enough room to have the separated facility on both sides of the street.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated even though the separated facility is the safest for school children riding to school, the proposed design is to only have the design included on one side of Grand Street and the Wood Middle School lot; discussed Walk and Ride to School Day at Wood Middle School; stated watching bicyclists make the left turn was harrowing; inquired how the design will be improved.
The Deputy Public Works Director inquired whether the bicyclists were making a left turn from the sidewalk.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft responded cyclists were riding in the bike lane on Grand Street, crossed the intersection at Otis Drive and turned left between cars; stated that she feels as though there should be a better design to ensure kids riding to school are not going to collide with a car.
The Deputy Public Works Director stated one of the safety features being added is a rapid flashing beacon for the mid-block crossing at Wood Middle School.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for staff working with the School District on available safety options.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the ADA improvements are included from Otis Drive south to Shoreline Drive.
The Deputy Public Works Director responded other ADA improvements are north of Otis Drive; stated the plan includes re-grading the crosswalks and replacing the existing curb ramps.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the improvements are different or the same for each proposal, to which the Deputy Public Works Director responded the same.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether there are any differences in the ADA access or improvements from the two proposals.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded in the negative; stated there are differences in lane configuration and parking; staff’s proposals for the two concepts regarding ADA are similar; whichever concept Council chooses, staff will then begin a detailed design process to create construction drawings; the ADA consultant will be advising staff on anything else that should be done in order to maximize access for people with disabilities; staff will not bring forward a construction design that does not improve access for people with disabilities.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she receives many questions related to what is being done by the City to make the intersection of Grand Street and Shoreline Drive safer; requested staff to provide further clarification.
The Deputy Public Works Director stated staff has a contract for a paving and restriping project for the west side of Alameda; the project will address the intersection of Grand Street and Shoreline Drive; staff is bringing the contract to Council at the July 12th meeting; the intersection will be restriped to eliminate the existing left turn lane and better align the east-west bound traffic; the project will also add a high-visibility cross walk.
Expressed support for the staff recommendation; discussed emissions; urged the City to take actions to encourage people to get out of vehicles and reduce greenhouse gas emissions: Joyce Mercado, Community Action for a Sustainable Alameda (CASA).
Discussed parents dropping kids off at school; expressed support for kids being able to safely ride bikes and protective bike lanes: Don Porteous, Alameda.
Stated that she supports pedestrian and bike safety, but does not support the current proposal; expressed concern about safety and delivery trucks; suggested four way stops or traffic circles; expressed support for flashing crosswalks, bike lanes and enforcement: Beth Foote, Alameda.
Expressed support of the staff recommendation; discussed protected bike lanes: Pat Potter, Alameda.
Expressed support for dedicated bike lanes; expressed concern about unprotected bike lanes; urged Council approval: Marisa Johnson, Alameda.
Discussed his use of bike lanes and feeling safe; expressed support for the staff recommendation: Joshua Hawn, Alameda.
Expressed support for the staff recommendation; discussed the benefits of safe bike lanes: Nick Cawthon, Alameda.
Expressed support for the matter; outlined the safety goals of the Transportation and Vision Zero Plans; urged Council to approve the recommendation: Ezra Denney, Alameda.
Expressed support for the staff recommendation with changes outlined in a letter from BikeWalk Alameda; discussed benefits of protected bike lanes; outlined support: Cyndy Johnsen, BikeWalk Alameda.
Questioned residential parking being removed; expressed support for safety; expressed concern about being able to complete home construction: Marsha Broquedis, Alameda.
Expressed support for safety; discussed benefits, cycling and parking spaces: Shiantel Fields, Alameda.
Discussed his experience biking; stated removing parking is a small price to pay for the plan; expressed support for the staff recommendation: Alex Matevish, Alameda.
Outlined efforts to increase safety, including the Vision Zero Plan; stated Grand Street does not have any feasibility issues; urged approval: Heather Little, Alameda.
Expressed support for separated bike lanes and increased safety for children biking to school; suggested additional flashing beacons at crosswalks between Otis Drive and Encinal Avenue: M J, Alameda.
Expressed support; outlined similar changes in Alameda County; encouraged Council support: Dave Campbell, Bike Easy Bay.
Stated that he submitted a neighborhood petition to develop a better plan; suggested alternate options: John Brennan, Alameda.
Stated that he opposes the matter; expressed concern about cyclists not complying with the law: Jason, Alameda.
Read his 12-year-old son’s statement supporting the protected bike lane proposal: Erik Purins, Alameda.
Expressed concern about the current plan; discussed pedestrian safety; urged proposal redesign: Karen Miller, Alameda.
Discussed cycling in Alameda with his sons; expressed support for the protect bike lanes: Kevin Venkiteswaran, Alameda.
Stated that she does not support the current plan; expressed concern about traffic congestion, gridlock, accidents and space for trucks; urged development of a different plan: Margaret Weber, Alameda.
Urged Council to approve the staff recommendation; discussed benefits of the plan; expressed support for a connection to Clement Avenue and the Cross-Alameda trail: Zac Bowling, Alameda.
Expressed concern about deliveries and traffic; suggested a different plan be developed: Efrem Williams, Alameda.
Urged adoption of the staff recommendation; discussed protected bike lanes increasing property values: Alex Spehr, Alameda.
Expressed support for the staff recommendation; urged Council to approve the recommended plan; stated advantages of the plan apply to all users of the street: Drew Dara-Abrams, Alameda.
Expressed support for separated bike lanes; stated the whole City will enjoy the plan; discussed the desires of the homeowners: Josh Geyer, Alameda.
Discussed improvements in the City that have allowed younger children to bike safely; expressed support for protected bike lanes: Bonnie Wehmann, Easy Street Cycling.
Stated that he opposes the recommendation; outlined concerns: Hale Foote, Alameda.
Outlined ADA concerns; discussed case law: Carol Gottstein, Alameda.
***
(22- ) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated a vote is needed to hear any new items after 11:00 p.m.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of concluding the meeting after the current agenda item.
Councilmember Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.
***
Discussed the Grand Street being the best option for a north-south protected bikeway network; urged Council to show leadership: Denyse Trepanier, BikeWalk Alameda.
Expressed support for the protected bike lane; urged Council to uphold its policies and vote for the safest option: Savanna Cheer, Alameda.
Expressed concern about speeding on Grant Street; urged additional stop signs be considered: Janine Shafer, Alameda.
Discussed schools providing safe routes to school maps to students; urged approval of the staff recommendation: Jon Spangler, Alameda.
Expressed support for the protected bike lane proposal; outlined her experience biking with her family; urged Council approval: Jacy Gaige, Alameda.
Expressed support for the staff recommendation; stated that she avoids Grand Street in its current configuration; the alternative proposals do not appear as safe as the recommendation: Jennifer Rakowski, Alameda.
Expressed concern over the proposed changes potentially causing head on collisions; encouraged other options: Brendan Macaulay, Alameda.
Expressed support for the staff recommendation; discussed being hit while riding his bike: Vinny Camarillo, Alameda.
Expressed support for changes being deployed on streets where Councilmembers live prior to changes on other streets; expressed concern about bike protection at intersections: Jim Strehlow, Alameda.
Expressed support for separated bike lanes; expressed concerns about safety for his children bicycling: Mason Curry, Alameda.
Expressed support for the staff recommendation; questioned the purpose of infrastructure in proposed systems for the future: Brian Piper, Alameda.
Expressed support for the staff recommendation of protected bike lanes; discussed dangerous driving and parking; urged Council approval: Michael Sullivan, Alameda.
Expressed support for protected bike lanes; discussed the death of Lily Grace; expressed concern about painted bike lanes: Morgan Bellinger, Alameda.
Showed a video of a road rage driver on Shoreline Drive; expressed support for a protected bike lane: Jonathan Lau, Alameda.
Councilmember Knox White requested clarification about Council direction on the Otis Street bike lanes; stated Council provided direction during the project as to what should be provided in future projects.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated the direction was provided later in the process; staff was running out of time due to funding; Council allowed staff to move ahead with the direction that future projects should have protected bike lanes; the action led to many Council policies and decisions that were included in the Vision Zero plan.
Councilmember Knox White expressed his appreciation for the work on matter and related correspondence; stated letters indicate people are considering concerning trade-offs; many neighbors have expressed concern over loss of parking; loss of parking changes the use of the street; work has been done in order to understand how the City can reach its Vision Zero goals of safer streets and climate goals of increasing active transportation; the goals require trade-offs and policies that indicate street parking is not the number one, two or three priority; the City needs to prioritize increasing active transportation and safety; it is necessary to ask for trade-offs; expressed concern over people not supporting safety for bicyclists; stated re-painting bike lanes in the City makes no change in the safety and will not encourage additional people to bike instead of drive; he is proud of the work done by the Council majority to spend years working on policies and ensuring staff comes back with projects that meet City goals; expressed support for staff’s solid work; stated Council needs to be clear and will send a clear message if the matter is not approved; Grand Street is one of the easiest streets for Council to address; other streets in Alameda will have a more difficult discussion; expressed concern over de-prioritizing safety and climate in order to maintain on-street parking within the neighborhood.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the staff recommendation [including adoption of the resolution].
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Herrera Spencer discussed the Vision Zero web page attachment data titled “Traffic Fatalities and Serious Injuries;” stated that she appreciates the passion revolving around safety; however, the data shows deaths have been increasing in the last two years in almost all categories after the City has spent a lot of time adding protected bike lanes, slow streets and road diets; safer streets is the goal; she will not support the protected bike lanes; inquired the distance between Otis Street and Encinal Avenue, to which the Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded the distance is seven tenths of a mile.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated another section of Otis Drive is similar in length and does not have the same protected bike lanes opposite the school; students will ride bikes on the street without protected bike lanes and will have to be careful; drivers will have to slow down; the City needs to take actions which result in drivers slowing down; expressed support for speed bumps, additional stop signs and more Police presence; stated the matter is not a magic pill and will not solve Citywide issues; the data does not support that the actions taken by the City over the past two years have reduced deaths and shows the opposite; road rage is a problem and is the result of some of the modifications to streets; discussed City vehicle traffic during commute times; expressed concern over Versailles being a slow street and not able to be traveled, which causes traffic diversion to narrow streets; discussed a decrease in public transportation use; stated the matter is well intended; however, the data does not support the outcomes; she finds the intersection improvements of Grand Street and Otis Drive confusing; traffic slowed when Police enforced speeding; expressed concern over people not being able to park their car in front of their house on Grand Street.
Councilmember Daysog expressed support for public comment and correspondence; stated it is important to receive community input in order to understand the range of perspectives on the matter; discussed driving on Otis Drive; stated a tremendous amount of people use Otis Drive; traffic seems to have slowed between Westline Drive and Willow Street; people have indicated that bicyclists might not use Grand Street if the alternative is adopted; the Otis Drive project is not precisely the same as the Grand Street alternative; however, it is similar and would achieve the goals of getting more people to ride their bikes and slowing down traffic; the staff recommended protected bike lane option is safer; the proposed alternative is not unsafe; Council should not discount the proposed alternative; crossing Grand Street is a safety issue; both the staff recommendation and the proposed alternative implement strategies for increasing the safety of crossing Grand Street; expressed support for the proposed alternative; stated discussed long-term options for unprotected bike lanes using bollards; stated Councilmembers are working to strike a balance between competing concerns.
Vice Mayor Vella stated that she would support adding protected bikes lanes between Otis Drive and Shoreline Drive in the southbound direction; Council has had discussions on the concept of having connected, fluid and safe routes across the Island; the approach of having segments which are safe as possible is not as effective as the goal of having fluid, connected, routes that people can take to get to and from school, as well as across the Island; kids tend to be active and want to be outside; she often walks or bikes through town; expressed concern about looking at only 150 signatures versus the amount of support shown over-time of having connected and safe alternatives to driving with bike routes throughout Alameda; stated it is important for Councilmembers to vote for important matters even near their residence; expressed support for the City achieving optimal safety in having connectivity throughout the City and for expanding the direction to staff to add the southbound connection having protected bike lanes if Council so desires; stated safety is paramount; Council must think about the future, look at the safest possible outcomes and vote based off those goals.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested recusal regulations for the matter be provided by the City Attorney.
The City Attorney stated that he has discussed any potential conflicts with Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft with respect to the matter; it is clear under State law and Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) the Limited Neighborhood Effects Exception for the Public Generally Exception applies because this is a project that affects over 50 parcels and is a road improvement project; State law does not preclude Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft from participating; noted Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft has assured staff that she is able to be fair and objective in reviewing and voting for the matter.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that this project has the potential to be great with protected bike lanes; expressed concern over the impacts on people with disabilities; stated that she has heard concerns from elderly and disabled neighbors about not having access to parking in front of their house; not everyone is able-bodied with the ability to bike through the neighborhood; policy makers must look through the lens of all community needs; she would have preferred the disability consultant to have reviewed the plans as they were being formulated; the City is moving fast and has deadlines that need to be met in order to procure funding; the Commission on Persons with Disabilities (CPD) was consulted as an afterthought and the vote was not unanimous; the CPD expressed concern about how paratransit will pick up riders; expressed support for having the disability consultant weigh-in prior to the Council vote; stated the project will eventually involve Grand Street to Clement Avenue; expressed support for understanding the implications on the disabled community and those who would like to age in place; urged the disability consultant be brought in; stated the matter can return to Council at the first meeting in September; expressed concern over safety due to the zig-zag design; stated the configuration can cause more accidents; Botts’ Dots can be installed to help; expressed support for a public safety consultant being brought in to make the design as safe as possible; stated not enough is being done for the intersections; expressed support for flashing beacons at more than San Antonio Avenue; stated speed bumps are needed; she would like protected bike lanes for Wood Middle School on both sides of Grand Street; expressed support for a roundabout at Otis Drive and Grand Street and for providing staff direction to come back with feedback from disability and traffic safety consultants by the first meeting in September.
Councilmember Knox White expressed support for amending the motion; stated the City is on a fast-track; inquired whether Council could provide direction to have the matter return while moving forward with protected bike lanes and the ADA consultant report, and also direct staff to provide speed bumps and additional flashing beacons or signs as soon as possible, but possibly not as part of the first phase, to ensure the City does not miss the original paving and re-striping; stated Council would approve the staff proposal with a protected bike lane and added amenities would follow shortly after; the ADA consultants will provide a report back as part of the contract approval; protected bike lanes would be added on the west side of Otis Drive.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she wants to hear from the entities before voting.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director requested the Deputy Public Works Director to clarify the schedule and funding timeline.
The Deputy Public Works Director stated there is a hard November 1st deadline for Caltrans to provide grant funds; Caltrans will need to see the plans submitted as soon as possible and as early as August 1st; the more clear direction staff can provide the design consultants, the better chance the City will have to meet the deadlines and finish plans on-time, while being able to answer questions or concerns from Caltrans.
Ryan Shafer, NCE, stated September is quickly approaching; NCE needs to be done with designs and wrap up by September in order to be ready by the November 1 deadline; NCE will need a full two months to finalize the designs.
Councilmember Knox White inquired whether Council direction to return at the September 6th meeting with final designs for final review would be enough time.
Mr. Shafer responded in the affirmative; stated NCE can proceed with one or both alternatives with enough time; if the City goes down the path of performing the design on one alternative and decides on a change in September, there will not be enough time.
Councilmember Knox White amended the motion to approval of directing staff to move forward with the staff recommendation, with the following amendments: the ADA consultant review and identify how ADA needs would be addressed as a part of the plan that comes back on September 6th; staff identify how and where speed bumps can be installed, being extremely broad as it could be speed cushions or whatever right thing the Fire Department needs and approves; additional signs and flashing signs be looked into; the west side of Grand Street between Otis and Shoreline Drives include a southbound protected bike lane; and the Police Department be available to answer any questions about traffic operations; although the Police Department does not typically know how traffic design works, they should do a review and ensure concerns are not being raised.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the motion includes the public safety consultant, or whoever, addressing the meandering design.
Councilmember Knox White responded in the affirmative; stated it could be a trained public safety consultant or traffic engineer.
Vice Mayor Vella agreed to second the amended motion.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: No. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated that he would like clarification that the motion includes the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in the resolution.
Councilmember Knox White responded in the affirmative; stated the amendments to the original motion do not change the CEQA clearing.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the staff recommended CEQA exemptions.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.
Councilmember Knox White expressed concern about comments alluding to recently implemented street design being the cause for fatalities on streets; discussed the four fatalities last year; stated the issues are not related to street design.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed concern over continued comments; stated the data speaks for itself.
(22- ) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Article XV (Rent Control, Limitations on Evictions and Relocation Payments to Certain Displaced Tenants) to Adopt and Incorporate Provisions Concerning Capital Improvement Plans (CIP) for Rental Units in the City of Alameda. Not heard.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
Not heard.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
Not heard.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
(22- ) Consider Directing Staff to Reform the Fee Towing Companies Require Alameda Residents to Pay to Retrieve Towed Vehicles. (Councilmember Daysog) Not heard.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
Not heard.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 12:05 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
****************************************************************************************************
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- -JULY 5, 2022- -5:15 P.M.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 5:04 p.m.
Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Knox White, Vella and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note: The meeting was held via Zoom.]
Absent: Vice Mayor Vella.
Public Comment Read into the Record
Dani Gomes, Astra, provided information on the Astra lease, Project Stabilization Agreement (PSA) and the business; requested Council provide direction regarding the PSA.
Consent Calendar
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 4. [Absent: Vice Mayor Vella - 1.] [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]
(*22- ) Recommendation to Approve Dirk Brazil, Interim City Manager, Lisa Maxwell, Community Development Director, Len Aslanian, Assistant City Attorney, and Nanette Mocanu, Assistant Community Development Director, as Real Property Negotiators for Building 12, Located at 1050 West Tower Avenue, Alameda, CA. Accepted.
The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(22-__) Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8) Property: 1900 Skyhawk Street (Building 360), Alameda Point, Alameda, CA; City Negotiators: Interim City Manager Dirk Brazil, Community Development Director Lisa Maxwell, Assistant Community Development Director Nanette Mocanu, and Assistant City Attorney Len Aslanian; Negotiating Parties: City of Alameda and Astra Space, Inc.; Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Lease.
(22- ) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9); Case Name: Mario Gonzalez et. al. v. City of Alameda et. al.; Court: United States District Court, Northern District of California; Case Number: 4:21-cv-09733-DMR; Case Name: Edith Arenales v. City of Alameda, et al.; Court: United States District Court, Northern District of California; Case Number: e 4:22-cv-00718.
(22-__) Conference with Labor Negotiators (Government Code Section: 54957.6); City Negotiators: Nancy Bronstein, Human Resources Director; Nico Procos, General Manager, Alameda Municipal Power; Jessica Romeo, Human Resources Manager; and Steve Woo, Senior Human Resources Analyst; Employee Organizations: Alameda City Employees Association (ACEA); Management and Confidential Employees Association (MCEA); Electric Utility Professionals Association (EUPA); International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW); Alameda Police Officers Non-Sworn (PANS); Alameda Municipal Power Unrepresented Employees (AMPU); Alameda Police Management Association (APMA); Under Negotiation: Salaries, Employee Benefits and Terms of Employment. Not heard.
Following the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and the City Clerk announced that regarding the Real Property, staff provided information and Council provided direction by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 3, Noes: 1, [Absent: Vice Mayor Vella - 1]; and regarding Existing Litigation, staff provided information and Council provided direction by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 4. [Absent: Vice Mayor Vella - 1.]
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 5:56 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
****************************************************************************************************
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - JULY 5, 2022- -7:00 P.M.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:03 p.m. Councilmember Daysog led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Knox White, Vella, and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note: The meeting was conducted via Zoom.]
Absent: None.
AGENDA CHANGES
(22- ) The City Clerk announced the Darktrace agreement [paragraph no. 22- ] and the design concept for Mecartney Road/Island Drive [paragraph no. 22- ] were withdrawn and would not be heard.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would call her nominations [paragraph no. 22- ] and the League of California Cities voting delegates [paragraph no. 22- ] next.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(22- ) Mayor’s Nominations for Appointment to the Civil Service Board, Commission on Persons with Disabilities, Golf Commission, Historical Advisory Board, Housing Authority Board of Commissioners, Library Board, Planning Board, Public Utilities Board and Social Services Human Relations Board (SSHRB).
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft nominated Asheshh Saheba and Diana Ariza for appointment to the Planning Board and Michelle Buchholz, Bernard Wolf, Samantha Green and Scott Means for appointment to the SSHRB.
(22- ) Designation of Voting Delegates and Alternates for the League of California Cities Annual Conference.
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of continuing to have Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft and Vice Mayor Vella serve as the voting delegate and alternate, respectively, for the League of California Cities.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the Vice Mayor will be attending the conference, to which Vice Mayor Vella responded in the affirmative.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Ayes; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
None.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(22- ) Chase Martin, Alameda, discussed weekly beach cleanups; urged Council to approve a tree protection ordinance as part of the Urban Forest Plan and to direct staff to consider an improved tree protection ordinance.
(22- ) Zac Bowling, Alameda, encouraged the community to avoid parking within bike lanes in Alameda.
(22- ) Josh Altieri, Alameda Housing Authority (AHA), provided an update on AHA activities.
(22- ) Patricia Lamborn, Alameda, expressed support for the City moving the tree protection ordinance into the Urban Forest Plan.
(22- ) Tod Hickman, Building 43 Winery, discussed a road closure at Alameda Point impacting his business and causing traffic confusion.
(22- ) Linda Carloni, Golden Gate Audubon, expressed support for the protections of existing trees on private land being prioritized in the Urban Forest Plan.
CONSENT CALENDAR
The Darktrace agreement and the design concept for Mecartney Road/Island Drive were withdrawn.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer requested the teleconference findings [paragraph no. 22- ] and Alameda Police Management Association MOU [paragraph no. 22- ] be removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]
(*22- ) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings Held on June 7, 2022. Approved.
(*22- ) Ratified bills in the amount of $10,151,347.48.
(*22- ) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim City Manager to Execute a Second Three-Year Consolidated Agreement with Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc. (Esri) for Enterprise Geographic Information System (GIS) Software License Maintenance and Support, with Pricing Increase from $50,000 per Year to $55,000 per Year in an Amount Not to Exceed $165,000, for a Total Six-Year Compensation Not to Exceed $315,000. Accepted.
(22- ) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim City Manager to Purchase Darktrace Enterprise Immune System for a 3-Year Amount Not to Exceed $292,248 to be Paid Annually at $97,416. Not heard.
(*22- ) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim City Manager to Execute a Third Amendment to the Agreement with CDM Smith to Increase Compensation by $230,000, Including Contingencies, for a Total Aggregate Compensation Not to Exceed $1,360,633, to Complete the Plans and to Provide Construction Support for the Clement Avenue Safety Improvement Project. Accepted.
(22- ) Recommendation to Approve Design Concept for Mecartney Road/Island Drive Roundabout Improvement. Not heard.
(22- ) Recommendation to Approve Findings to Allow City Meetings to be Conducted via Teleconference.
The City Clerk gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired which cities have gone back to either a hybrid or in-person meeting structure; expressed support for an update on when the Council Chambers Zoom hybrid upgrade will be completed.
The City Clerk responded more cities have gone back to remote and teleconference meeting structures; stated both Berkeley and Albany have gone back to remote meetings; Piedmont decides how each meeting will be conducted; more cities in the County are conducting remote meetings versus in-person; the Chambers hybrid project is scheduled to begin in August, pending receipt of equipment.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether more cities are moving back to remote meetings due to rising COVID-19 rates.
The City Clerk responded in the affirmative; stated that when she spoke to City of Berkeley staff, only two members of the public attended in-person when the hybrid structure was available; noted Berkeley has an active public; it is surprising to have such a small number of the public participate in person.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Berkeley is getting better attendance with remote meetings, to which the City Clerk responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.
(*22- ) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim City Manager to Execute a One-Year Agreement with Bureau Veritas for an Americans with Disabilities Act Self-Assessment and Transition Plan for a Not to Exceed Amount of $401,500. Accepted.
(22- ) Resolution No. 15926, “Approving a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Between the Alameda Police Management Association (APMA) and the City of Alameda for a Forty-Two Month Term Commencing December 19, 2021 and Ending June 30, 2025.” Adopted.
The Human Resources Director gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated it is important to share the information publically with a presentation from staff; requested staff to share financial impacts.
The Human Resources Director stated the contract’s base salary increases are close to $700,000; the additional items provided bring the amount to $733,000; the ongoing costs are built into the salary base at about $287,000 going forward.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of the staff recommendation [including adoption of the resolution].
Councilmember Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.
(*22- ) Resolution No. 15927, “Calling for a General Municipal Election to be Consolidated with the Statewide General Election to be Held in the City of Alameda on Tuesday, November 8, 2022 for the Election of Certain Officers, and Requesting the Alameda County Board of Supervisors to Permit the Registrar of Voters to Render Specified Services to the City Relating to the Conduct of Said Election Pursuant to Section 10403 of the California Elections Code.” Adopted.
(*22- ) Ordinance No. 3324 “Amending Alameda Municipal Code Section 30-10 (Cannabis) to Add the North Park Street Maritime Manufacturing District (MM-NP) as a Location Where Cannabis Industry (Manufacturing) is Conditionally Permitted, as Recommended by the Planning Board.” Finally passed.
CONTINUED AGENDA ITEMS
None.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(22- ) Resolution No. 15928 “Reappointing Adrienne Alexander as a Member of the Recreation and Parks Commission.” Adopted; and
(22- A) Resolution No. 15929 “Reappointing Alice Nguyen as a Member of the Recreation and Parks Commission.” Adopted; and
(22- B) Resolution No. 15930 “Reappointing Eric Robbins as a Member of the Recreation and Parks Commission.” Adopted; and
(22- C) Resolution No. 15931 “Reappointing Alysha Natchtigall as a Member of the Transportation Commission.” Adopted; and
(22- D) Resolution No. 15932 “Reappointing Tina Yuen as a Member of the Transportation Commission.” Adopted; and
(22- E) Resolution No. 15933 “Appointing Geoffrey Johnson as a Member of the Transportation Commission.” Adopted; and
(22- F) Resolution No. 15934 “Appointing Saravana Suthanthira as a Member of the Transportation Commission.” Adopted
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the appointments [including adoption of the resolutions].
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.
The City Clerk administered the Oath of Office to Ms. Alexander, Mr. Johnson and Ms. Suthanthira.
Ms. Suthanthira and Mr. Johnson made brief comments.
(22- ) Recommendation to Approve a Term Sheet for Development of the West Midway Project; Direct Staff to Negotiate a Disposition and Development Agreement with Brookfield Homes and Catellus for Construction of the West Midway Project at Alameda Point; and Authorize the Interim City Manager to Execute the Fourth Amendment to the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement to Extend the Term.
The Community Development Director gave a Power Point presentation.
Expressed support for the expansion of housing opportunities across the spectrum of needs at Alameda Point; stated the existing structures have served their purpose and the newly planned community provides a new level of dignity to those needing support: Anne McKereghan, Alameda League of Women Voters.
Stated the matter is important for the City; Brookfield and Catellus are the perfect team to execute on West Midway; discussed Catellus’s development activity in the City for over 20 years; stated the team is the most knowledgeable to navigate the numerous project complexities: Sean Whiskeman, Catellus.
Stated the project has not always been easy, yet all partners are a pleasure to work with; challenges have been met head-on in a positive manner; Brookfield is looking forward to kicking off the project; expressed support for the project coming closer to fruition: Josh Roden, Brookfield.
Expressed support for the West Midway project; stated the project promotes the use of sustainable transportation; urged Council support staff’s recommendation: Lauran Gularte, Water Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA).
Stated the project dedicates 309 units for low and very low income residents, which is unheard of; the developers are the best in class; discussed demographic information: Matt Regan, Bay Area Council.
Expressed support for the West Midway project; stated the housing stock is desperately needed; the project enables the Rebuilding the Existing Housing at Alameda Point (RESHAP) investment in supportive housing which will build capacity for generations; urged Council approve the term sheet: Louis Liss, Eden Housing.
Expressed support for the development project at West Midway; stated the project is amazing; he supports staff’s recommendation for the term sheet; the project is big and includes much needed affordable by design workforce housing; the project includes transit improvements: Zac Bowling, East Bay YIBMY.
Discussed MidPen partnering with Alameda Point Collaborative, Building Futures and Operation Dignity to rebuild existing housing at Alameda Point; stated new infrastructure and site preparation is needed to realize the goal; discussed a phasing plan, which keeps existing residents in their homes until new housing is built: Abby Potluri, MidPen Housing.
Urged Council to approve the West Midway term sheet with Brookfield Residential and Catellus; stated the project will allow the City to reach its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) numbers and continue momentum at Alameda Point; the developers are well-qualified and capitalized: Karen Bey, Alameda.
Expressed support for the project; stated the project will help the City with its RHNA numbers and will emphasize affordable and work force housing; urged approval of the term sheet: Madlen Saddik, Alameda Chamber of Commerce.
Discussed plans for the new housing campus buildings; stated the proposed dates are exciting; urged Council approve the term sheet: Liz Varela, Building Futures.
Expressed support for the term sheet; stated the journey has been circuitous; she is thrilled to see the proposed dates; she supports the ability for people to remain in housing with one transition: Marguerite Bachand, Operation Dignity.
Stated that she is excited to see the advancement of the project; urged Council approve the term sheet as-presented; stated updating the infrastructure at Alameda Point is critical: Pamela Jordon, Alameda Point Collaborative.
Stated the project is beautiful, great work; the project helps Alameda build more inclusive and affordable space; urged Council to approve the term sheet: Melodye Montgomery, Alameda.
Expressed support for the project; stated the project is coming to fruition through a tremendous collaborative effort; the program is wonderful and has many advantages: William Pai, Alameda.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she loves everything about the project and is happy to build new homes and infrastructure for groups, organizations and non-profits; expressed support for meeting reasonable and valid expectations; stated that she cannot agree to all of the proposed extensions; the State is in the midst of a housing crisis due to low housing production and homeless populations; expressed concern about the amendments to the Exclusive Negotiation Agreement (ENA) in 2021 pushing out the term sheet completion time to January 2022 with an extension option of April 2022; stated there are two additional three month extension options; if Council approves the Fourth Amendment, negotiating the Development and Disposition Agreement (DDA) could be pushed out to the end of 2023; the milestone schedule includes Council approval of the term sheet and DDA by December 20, 2022; the City needs housing and she does not want to continue putting the matter off; the developers have the wherewithal to accelerate necessary matters without requesting extensions; delays in approval will impact the milestone dates; approval of the DDA in December 2022 is concerning due to the upcoming general election; important dates and actions will be taken by the newly seated Council; expressed support for different dates being provided; stated that she has a hard time supporting the extension and the City Manager having authority to grant two additional three-month extensions; she supports the project and is aware of how badly the housing is needed; she would like to do everything possible to move the project forward without delays.
Councilmember Daysog stated the project has an incredible mix of housing for people who are financially vulnerable and also who are affluent; he hopes the Council supports the project; details surrounding timelines can be squared away; he is supportive of both the project and the proposed timelines provided in the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she has had concerns about the extensions; however, she has been satisfied with staff’s responses about timelines; requested clarification from staff as to why the proposed extensions are being included.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for further clarification being provided; stated that she could support the matter with assurances that all term sheet milestone deadlines will be met and consequences for not meeting said deadlines.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she understands that projects come back to Council with extenuating circumstances; her inquiry is about the current staff proposal.
The Community Development Director stated a delay did occur as the project was revamped; MidPen, Catellus and Brookfield were part of the planning process when staff realized there would be material advantages to all parties involved from changing the RESHAP location; the developers were willing to look into the change and realized the change created a better project; the change did create delay; however, positive offsets occurred as well.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated there have been unfortunate delays in permitting; she wants to support the project; the public supports the project; the matter might return in the future and Council could be asked to reconsider different project aspects; the developer has incentives to perform and wants to build the project; expressed concern about costs increasing over time; expressed support for the City providing assistance moving the project along; stated that she looks for affordable housing projects that are balanced with market rate; expressed support for market rate units being for sale versus for rent and for the breakdown of housing units being provided; inquired whether staff anticipates the market rate housing will be for sale or for rent.
The Community Development Director responded staff currently anticipates the bungalows to be for sale; stated some of the conditions will be dictated by the market at the time; there will be 43 units of workforce housing for sale, which will not be deed restricted.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support; stated that she appreciates having housing for sale; expressed concern about apartments being built which are expensive to qualify for and not rent control; stated that she supports people being able to purchase; she plans to support the project as-is.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether there is a Project Labor Agreement (PLA) for the project.
The Community Development Director responded a PLA is in the works; stated negotiations are proceeding; developers are available to respond; developers have been having frequent conversations with labor trades and are hopeful about reaching a mutually acceptable agreement; the PLA will be part of the DDA.
Vice Mayor Vella stated the current matter before Council is to provide authority for staff to negotiate; Council is not currently approving the DDA.
The Community Development Director stated staff will return to Council with the DDA once negotiated.
Vice Mayor Vella stated that she understands the concerns raised by Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft; expressed support for making clear that there is a need to not have extensions; stated that she is concerned about the timeline having the potential for a new or split Council vote; noted other projects have been affected by new Council’s taking office, which could cause delays; inquired whether the Council approval dates for the DDA can be reviewed and pushed up in order to not require a new Council vote; stated there are typically a number of pressing items brought to Council in the new year; she would like to ensure clear direction is provided related to the project timeline; expressed concern about further project delays; stated construction costs are increasing; all parties understand the increases cause a need to start the project; she does not want to be in a position where Council is granting another extension early next year; she would like to focus on the order of projects at Alameda Point; delays can cause a domino effect on projects nearby.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether developers would like to provide input related to concerns raised over delays.
Sean Whiskeman, Catellus, stated there is no interest in further project delays; the team has been working hard with City staff on complicated matters; delays have been an unfortunate part of the process while working with many parties; the extensions are a backstop for any delays; the project is a priority for the developers.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she has faith in the developers; inquired whether it is possible to move up the approval of the first reading for the DDA.
Mr. Whiskeman responded that he has no issue in moving up the deadline; stated the project development plan needs to be approved by the Planning Board prior to Council approval; the timeline includes a work session with the Planning Board; if the developers are able to make the hearings in time, the deadline can be moved up.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she anticipates staff will work to accelerate the timing as needed; it will be significant to have the DDA first and second reading occur with the same Councilmembers; inquired whether the project timeline can be guaranteed.
The Community Development Director responded all parties will be working towards the milestone schedule dates; stated the schedules are not presented lightly; to the extent all parties can stay on track with the DDA, the proposed dates should be met; however, unexpected items may arise.
Mr. Whiskeman stated there are many parties involved with the project; everyone is focused on the priority goals.
Councilmember Knox White seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Knox White stated there is a clear understanding that Council is not approving any of the attachments included in the staff report; Council is only approving the term sheet; none of the proposed drawings have been approved by other bodies; he continues to have concerns about how the project is not universally designed, is income segregated, and is not mixed-use; he hopes as the project goes forward to the Planning Board, there will be opportunities for the design and planning team to really try and address some of the concerns; there is good work included in the term sheet; he supports the idea of having the matter move up to the first meeting in December; expressed concern about having new Councilmembers adequately caught up on this important project at their first meeting.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would like to clarify that the motion is to approve the term sheet for the development of the West Midway project, direct staff to negotiate the DDA with Brookfield and Catellus for construction, and authorize the Interim City Manager to execute the fourth amendment to the ENA to extend the term; the motion is to approve all three.
Councilmember Knox White stated that he merely wanted to clarify that the other attachments are not being approved; he agrees that the motion to approve includes the items listed by Councilmember Herrera Spencer.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the motion can be bifurcated; stated that she is concerned about two additional extensions; the housing crisis is real.
Vice Mayor Vella stated that she would like to clarify that the direction being provided to staff includes moving the vote date up to December in order to ensure that the current Councilmembers vote on the matter.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated staff understands the direction being provided; she is unsure whether staff is able to move up the date; she does not have a problem with the matter being brought back sooner; most Councilmembers would support hearing the matter in December; she understands that all parties are trying to move the project along as quickly as possible; inquired whether staff is comfortable guaranteeing the dates.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like input from the Interim City Manager and City Attorney on accelerating the deadline by one meeting to ensure the same Council can vote on the matter.
The Interim City Manager stated the developers and staff have a goal to complete the DDA as soon as possible; the matter is a priority and staff will regularly update Council on the progress; he imagines the matter will return to Council based on priority in order to meet the deadline; staff does have competing demands; however, the matter has been deemed a priority.
The City Attorney concurred with the Interim City Manager; stated the matter is an important priority for the Council and staff will work as fast as possible.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated no one is guaranteeing the date; her motion stands on the goodwill of all parties trying to complete the goal by the deadline.
Vice Mayor Vella stated that she is not requesting a guarantee; she is providing staff with a prioritization; expressed support for the DDA matter returning with a negotiated PLA without delay.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would look with disfavor on the exercise of utilizing two more extensions; the project needs to move forward.
Councilmember Knox White stated that he would like to provide direction that in the event of another extension, the Interim City Manager should communicate to Council and provide an opportunity to discuss negotiations in closed session.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed concern over closed session discussions; stated that she would defer to the City Attorney on the matter.
The City Attorney stated Council may, generally, provide direction; the City Manager will provide communication to the Council in the proper form.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the PLA is one of the steps but is not a requirement for approval; noted that her motion remains to only approve the staff recommendation; requested clarification that staff will continue to work with the developer and unions to allow the timeline to stay on track.
The Community Development Director stated staff anticipates running in a parallel path on both the PLA and DDA; the two can be negotiated concurrently.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.
***
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft called a recess at 8:56 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:13 p.m.
***
(22- ) Resolution No. 15935, “Calling for the Holding of a Consolidated Municipal Election in the City of Alameda on Tuesday, November 8, 2022 Submitting a Proposed Charter Amendment to Revise the Salary of Mayor and City Councilmembers, Establishing the Policies and Procedures for Such an Election, Requesting that the County of Alameda Conduct Such an Election and Authorizing City Councilmembers to File Written Arguments For or Against the Measure.” Adopted.
Special Council gave a Power Point presentation.
In response to Vice Mayor Vella’s inquiry, Special Counsel stated should the voters approved the measure in November, Council could set the salary any time thereafter; the salary would not go into effect until January 2025 at the earliest.
Vice Mayor Vella stated Council would vote to approve the amount of the salary; however, the salary would not become operative until January 2025.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired about the word count for the question.
The City Clerk responded the question is well under the requirement and is 57 words.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired the last time the voters voted on the current pay, to which Special Counsel responded 1970 for Mayor and 1977 for Council pay.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer requested clarification about the process to determine the dollar amount.
Special Counsel responded Council would have discretion to set the salary for Mayor and Council in any denomination up to the maximum amount; stated depending on when Council votes on the matter, and any changes to the formula, the increase would likely occur when Council approves the decision; Council can determine both Councilmember and Mayor salary to go into effect January 2025.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the matter can be approved by an affirmative vote of three Councilmembers, to which Special Counsel responded in the affirmative.
Stated the matter had been part of the racial justice committee’s recommendation and is a way of opening the role of Councilmember or Mayor to a wider population; questioned how the amount can be set to anticipate inflation for the year 2025; expressed concern about the salary being too low: Marilyn Rothman, Alameda.
Stated Councilmembers are underpaid; discussed people choosing not run for office due to the volunteer nature of the job; stated the Charter cements a small amount for Council pay; it is unfortunate that Alameda does not get equitable representation on Council; Alameda does not have short meetings; the Council’s work rivals larger cities; urged Council to include information on the history of Council pay increases: Zac Bowling, Alameda.
Stated that it is incredible that the salary has not been looked at for 45 years; increasing the pay will yield a larger variety of members; expressed support for the increase in salary and the possibility for more individuals being able to serve: Melodye Montgomery, Alameda.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the increase is the right thing to do based on the reasons provided under public comment; not everyone can afford to perform the job of Councilmember; expressed concern over succession planning; stated that she would like to see the Councilmember position field open up to more people; discussed her appointment process to City Boards and Commissions; expressed support for expansive diversity serving across the City; stated serving on a Board or Commission is a wonderful stepping stone to running for elected office; noted volunteering on a Board or Commission is a big commitment; expressed support for the matter.
Vice Mayor Vella stated the minimum wage in 1970 helps to put the amount in perspective; noted the amount equates closer to the minimum wage at the time; the cost of living has increased substantially; Alameda prides itself on being a family community and being on Council is not a volunteer job; the position costs money and time away from family; Council meeting preparation is additional time spent; expressed support for a Council that is involved; stated that she supports the matter; it has taken a couple of years to get this far; putting out the start date will create difficulties in recruiting people for Council; diverse members are difficult to find; the change is a long time coming.
Councilmember Knox White stated that he is open to having the increase begin as soon as passed by the voters; noted the matter has been a long time in the works; expressed support for the matter; stated that the matter had been part of his election information when he previously ran for office; in discussing the matter with over 1,000 people, only one thought that Council was not severely under-paid for the amount of time spent; he believes the community will step up and acknowledge that Council should be paid a higher amount; expressed concern about increasing the pay further than proposed in order to maintain Council not working full-time; stated the role of Council is to provide policy; full-time Councilmembers leads to a different form of government; the proposed threshold is as high as possible without the potential for full-time work expectation.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer requested the ballot question be displayed; stated the question is not clear that Council is asking for an increase; noted the question only states that Council pay will be revised; expressed support for adding the terms “to increase” or “to raise” as well as the dollar amount; stated that she would like the question to be very clear; expressed support for adding historic information to the question; stated that she would like to hear from other Councilmembers related to revising the question for clarity.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there will be timing issues due to the Council break in August.
The City Clerk responded Council would need to schedule a special meeting in order for the matter to come back.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether Council is voting to approve the proposed question, to which the City Clerk responded in the affirmative.
Special Counsel stated a concern Council might have related to placing the dollar amount within the ballot question is that the amount indicated might not be the actual amount to be in effect when the voters approve the matter; the amount could change between now and November, and can likely change to be higher post-election.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council can reference an increase from the current amount to an approximate range.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for the use of the term “approximate.”
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the current amount of Council pay should also be referenced since most people do not know the small amount.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer responded in the affirmative; stated the amount should be referenced as annual; noted the language should read “to increase” or “to raise.”
Vice Mayor Vella stated the wording works; noted the Mayor and Councilmembers are paid different amounts; she is only comfortable changing the wording from “revised” to “increased” if the current amount is explained; the context matters; a lot can be addressed in the argument; expressed concern about wordsmithing; stated providing specifics can be difficult; the amount could change; expressed support for being able to adjust for inflation; stated that she would like to address issues in the argument.
Councilmember Knox White stated that he agrees with the concern about placing an exact amount in the question; expressed support for including the term “increase in salary;” questioned whether the question can read: “Shall the Measure amending the City Charter to allow the City Council to increase the salaries for the City Council $1,200 per year and Mayor $3,600 per year for the first time since the 1970’s by capping the salaries…” which includes the increase, informs who receives which amount and how long it has been since the last increase; stated the proposed language is clear; Council can address other specifics in the ballot arguments.
The City Clerk stated the full text of the Measure shows the current Charter language that is being stricken; the ballot will include the full text of the Charter Amendment, which will be included in the sample ballot; all information is included in the sample ballot.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like the proposed text to be displayed.
Councilmember Daysog stated that serving on the Charter Reform Committee was a privilege; between 2018 and May 2020, the Committee reported on various items for reform; Council pay rate had been placed in a delayed category; in June 2020, a decision was made to delay the Council pay raise; the information gathered did not lead to specific recommendations to rectify Council pay; expressed concern about it being a high inflationary period, which could soon be followed by a hard recession; stated now is not the time to be discussing Council pay raises; if Council pursues the matter, the process of Charter reform should have legitimacy; the topic of Council pay raises needs to have input on the correct formula and be comparable to similar sized cities in Alameda County; expressed support for further input from the community; stated it is not wise to be pursuing a pay raise; he would like to continue the discussion and involve the community; expressed support for forming a committee; stated placing the matter on the November 2022 ballot is not a wise decision.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the argument cuts both ways; there is an inflationary period and the cost of goods and fuel have increased, which means that people are feeling the impacts; Council is representative of the community; the hardships of financial limitations are not desired; the topic has been discussed and recommended by the community under the police reform and racial equity subcommittees; the concerns raised are valid; however, the argument cuts both ways.
The City Clerk displayed the ballot question language.
Special Council stated the language has been revised with the idea of annual salaries in parenthesis; capping the annual salary amount as a not to exceed amount is consistent with the language in the third line.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired the new word count, to which the City Clerk responded the count is still under the limit.
Vice Mayor Vella stated that she is fine with the proposed changes to the question; she is amenable to having the pay increase begin sooner; the increase could happen in the new fiscal year to align with the budget discussions.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted the matter will still go through the voters.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired where the 30% comes from and why the amount is 30%; stated bigger cities are closer to 30%; however, most cities are between 18% and 20%; expressed support for an 18% to 20% range, which is more reflective of the majority of cities in the area with a similar population.
Councilmember Knox White stated Council will be the one to set the salary; the 30% allows for wiggle room in the decision and allows the voters some understanding of the cap amount; 30% seems to be about right due to the Councilmember working roughly 20 hours per week; the percentage is a meaningful salary; capping the amount against average income makes sense.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether only one member of the subcommittee agreed to the 30% rate increase.
Councilmember Daysog stated the formula was put together by Councilmember Knox White; noted that he gathered data with regard to pay raise amounts for Councilmembers of cities similar in size; stated there had been no consensus to what the formula would be; the Council pay is low as validated by the data; however, the formula and process was not fleshed out; expressed support for more work and input being provided from residents; stated it is not the right time to consider the topic given inflation and the coming recession.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like the population information for Alameda County provided.
Special Counsel stated Alameda has a population of 80,000, Union City has a population of 75,000, San Leandro has 90,000, Pleasanton has 80,000, Livermore has 92,000, and Dublin has 64,000; the cities are roughly comparable to Alameda’s population.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would be supportive of an increase amount range between 18% and 20% as opposed to 30%; the amount would automatically increase over time; 30% seems to be high; expressed support for reducing the percentage.
Vice Mayor Vella stated that she thinks Council is getting ahead of itself; the goal is to have a Charter which allows for Councils to make decisions based off of different circumstances being faced; the list of cities is a little misleading; many cities are not full service cities; some cities do not have similar sized redevelopment projects, former Navy bases or municipal power companies; there are differences between the types of decisions and services that the City of Alameda offers versus the other cities listed; the differences are significant and should be taken into account; Council will make a decision which weighs all factors in order to set the pay; the process will be open to the public for feedback and comment; the 30% amount allows for discretion and determinations to be made; data points and other considerations will be taken into account when the salary is set.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the percentage can be less than the 30%; Council needs to set the wording and have a subcommittee to work on the ballot argument; inquired the time frame for direct arguments.
The City Clerk responded the subcommittee will work on the direct arguments which are due Monday, July 25th; if there is an argument against, the subcommittee will have until August 3rd to write a rebuttal.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the subcommittee needs to be designated.
The City Clerk responded in the affirmative; stated Council can decide on the subcommittee and has leeway to decide who signs the arguments.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Councilmember Herrera Spencer and Vice Mayor Vella would be willing to work together on a subcommittee to come up with a valid argument and, if needed, a rebuttal.
The City Attorney stated Council could appoint its members to sign the arguments both for and against; Council has wide latitude to decide who will author the argument in favor and who will author the argument against.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer responded that she is not sure that she can support the currently proposed ballot question as-written; stated that she has concerns about the proposed language; she would like the dollar amount included at the end of the proposed language; she would propose 20% of the salary, which is in line with other cities of relative size; the salary amount will likely be closer to $18,000 per year.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Vice Mayor made a good point that Alameda has a lot more happening than other communities, such as development of the former Naval Air Station and housing; inquired whether an amount not to exceed 25% would be acceptable; expressed concern over creating impediments to those running for office.
Vice Mayor Vella responded the percentage amount is still a cap; stated the Council can always enact a smaller amount; a Councilmember can propose 18% and Council will set the amount; expressed concern for acting prematurely to set the amount; stated capping the percentage at 30% does not mean that Council must support at that amount; Council will discuss the matter, complete with public input and comparisons, and making a determination about the amount; the current discussion is seeing whether Council can get the authority to set the amount; expressed concern about a potential future time where other cites increase salaries and Alameda having to do another Charter amendment.
Councilmember Knox White expressed support for Vice Mayor Vella’s comments; stated the matter is about flexibility, not setting the actual salary; the salary is going to change and fluctuate over the years; expressed concern over a Charter amendment being performed each time there is an adjustment to salaries, which resulted in it being a $50 per meeting salary for 50 years; expressed support for paying people for time worked; the proposed salary will be roughly $30,000.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Councilmember Knox White would work with Vice Mayor Vella on a subcommittee to write the arguments in favor.
Councilmember Knox White and Vice Mayor Vella responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she has been persuaded by the arguments provided by her colleagues; expressed support for Councilmember Knox White and Vice Mayor Vella writing the argument for and the rebuttal to the argument against.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer noted that she previously inquired whether the dollar amount can be added to the question.
Councilmember Knox White inquired whether Councilmember Herrera Spencer will support the ballot question if the dollar amount is added.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer responded that she would prefer a lower percentage; stated if the term “at least” is not be included, that she will not be supportive.
Councilmember Knox White inquired whether Councilmember Herrera Spencer would support the language if it reads: “up to about 30%;” expressed concern about changing the language without getting support.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would prefer reducing the percentage; if the percentage remains at 30%, the limit should be articulated.
Councilmember Knox White expressed support for Councilmember Herrera Spencer crafting a motion which includes the desired language.
In response to Councilmember Herrera Spencer’s inquiry regarding arguments, the City Clerk stated the subcommittee will be named in the resolution.
The City Attorney stated when Council adopts the resolution, the Council will appoint its members to write the arguments for and potentially against.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the named subcommittee agreed to write the argument and rebuttal; the argument is the best place to include amounts.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated it is important to articulate the current and proposed pay.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council needs to vote on the wording of the ballot question.
The City Clerk stated the question is included in the resolution.
The City Attorney stated the motion needs to include the ballot question and those writing the arguments for and against; the actions can be contained in one motion because all actions are included in the resolution.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired where the approximate dollar amount should best be placed.
The City Attorney responded Council may decide where to place the amount; inquired whether the current word count allows for three or four words; to which the City Clerk responded four words remain.
Councilmember Knox White expressed support for adding “30% of the salary” and “up to currently $25,000;” adding “per year” will exceed the word count limit.
Vice Mayor Vella expressed concern over defeating the purpose of having a 30% cap; stated the amount is now being capped at the $25,000 amount; noted the cap will not be able to be exceeded in the future due to the named dollar amount; inquired whether the listing the dollar amount will create an issue for the cap.
The City Attorney responded Council can increase the amount; stated the language should be as exact as possible; the amount should either be $25,977 or $26,000 instead of $25,000.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she can support the language.
In response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft’s inquiry, Councilmember Daysog responded that he would be willing to work on the opposition.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that it would not be appropriate for her to serve on the subcommittee writing the opposing argument.
The City Clerk stated Councilmember Daysog can be a subcommittee of one; noted Councilmembers’ arguments are given priority in the Elections Code.
The City Attorney stated other members of the public could also submit arguments against.
Councilmember Knox White expressed support for himself and Councilmember Herrera Spencer writing the argument in favor and for Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft and Vice Mayor Vella writing the rebuttal.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she is supportive of the proposal from Councilmember Knox White.
The City Clerk stated there is a form the authors will sign to release and allow other people to sign and author the rebuttal.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the subcommittee of Councilmembers Knox White and Herrera Spencer will write the arguments in favor, with Vice Mayor Vella and herself writing the rebuttal; Councilmember Daysog will author the argument against and the rebuttal.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the proposed language being shown on the screen for ballot question, to appoint a subcommittee of Councilmember Herrera Spencer and himself to write the argument in favor, a subcommittee of Councilmember Daysog to write the argument against [including adoption of related resolution].
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated several people have raised the issue of effective date; inquired whether the effective date could be modified by Council, to which Special Counsel responded in the affirmative; stated the language currently reads an effective date of January 2025.
Councilmember Knox White stated that he would amend his motion to change the effective year to 2023.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she understands a stipulation for the change in Council pay not being effective for currently seated members; inquired where the stipulation comes from.
Special Counsel responded the language is included in the City Charter; stated the Charter language is being changed to remove the restriction.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the question would be different.
Special Counsel responded in the negative; stated the ballot question does not indicate when the new salaries would be in effect; the information is contained in the Charter section being amended; the proposed Charter amendment indicates January 2025.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated changing the date has not been discussed and should be included in the question.
Special Counsel stated the ballot question is running out of available words; noted the date does not have to be included in the ballot question; there is a presumption that the voters will read the text of the Charter Amendment Measure, which will indicate the effective date.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the information can be included in the ballot argument.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired how many words are added by inserting “effective January 1, 2023.”
The City Clerk responded two words; stated the word cap has been met and any addition would exceed.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would prefer striking two words in order to add the effective date to the ballot question.
***
(22- ) Councilmember Daysog moved approval of each Councilmember having 3 minutes to speak.
Councilmember Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.
***
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the title is included in the word count, to which the City Clerk responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft proposed the title read: “Proposed City Charter Amendment Ballot Measure.”
Councilmember Herrera Spencer proposed: “Shall the City Charter be amended to allow City Council to…” with the effective date of January 2023 being added at the end.
Councilmember Knox White stated “be adopted” should be deleted; the previous language mentioned amending and a yes or no question is not being asked; the effective date can be added at the end; July 2023 should be added to indicate the fiscal year.
Vice Mayor Vella stated that she is proposing the effective date of July 2023 for the actual wage increase to be effective and part of the budget discussions.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the date needs to be specific indicating July 1, 2023.
The Interim City Manager stated the language assumes July 1, 2023; utilizing the term “July 2023” should be fine.
The City Attorney concurred with the Interim City Manager; stated the corresponding change needs to be made in the Charter text.
Councilmember Knox White amended his motion to include the date of July 2023.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Knox White stated the May 5, 2020 staff report recommended the 30% amount; the subcommittee had a difference of opinion on a number of items; however, the Council pay matter was presented as a full committee recommendation with full concurrence.
Councilmember Daysog stated his no vote indicates he would still author the argument against; his understanding is that he did not sign off on the 30% amount; information from other similarly sized cities would have yielded roughly $14,000; more community buy-in on the methodology for salary adjustments is needed; it is a time of incredible amounts of inflation; many do not have ability to raise salaries similarly to the proposal for Council; expressed concern about a potential, upcoming recession; stated now is not the time to pursue a change in Councilmember salary.
***
(22- ) Vice Mayor Vella moved approval of hearing the remaining two agenda items with stopping at 12:00 a.m.
Councilmember Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.
***
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she supports the matter since Council pay is low in respect to other cities of similar populations; action needs to be taken; she would prefer a lower percentage; discussed the budget.
Vice Mayor Vella stated Council is not voting on the salaries; time would be given to allow substantial public comment and input; the matter allows future Councils to change salaries; expressed that she would support increasing the cap.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.
(22- ) Adoption of Ordinance Enacting an Increase in the City’s Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) from Ten Percent (10%) to Fourteen Percent (14%), Subject to a Vote of the Electorate at the November 8, 2022 Election; and
(22- A) Resolution No. 15936, “Calling an Election in the City of Alameda to be Consolidated with the City’s Next General Municipal Election on November 8, 2022, and Submitting to the Electors A Ballot Measure, “City of Alameda Transient Occupancy Regional Parity Measure,” Seeking Amendment to the City’s Transient Occupancy Tax from Ten Percent (10%) to Fourteen Percent (14%) by Amending the Alameda Municipal Code Chapter 3-61.3 (Tax Imposed), Establishing the Policies and Procedures for Such an Election, Requesting that the County of Alameda Conduct Such an Election and Authorizing City Councilmembers to File Written Arguments For or Against the Measure.” Adopted.
Councilmember Knox White recused himself and left the meeting.
Special Council gave a Power Point presentation.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether staff has a chart showing TOT in other cities, to which Special Counsel responded in the affirmative; outlined TOT in the displayed chart.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the chart was not attached to the staff report; the information should be part of the Council discussion.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether staff considered implementing a TOT that could vary anywhere between 10% and 14% versus setting the TOT at a rigid 14% and what needs to be done to implement a variable TOT.
Special Counsel responded if the voters set the cap at 14%, Council could have discretion to set the TOT amount lower in any given year; stated the change can occur on an annual basis; as long as the amount does not exceed the cap approved by the voters, the amount can be raised without having going back to the voters; a formula could be developed for incremental increases; the TOT cannot be tied to a Consumer Price Index (CPI) percentage; however, it can be tied to a fixed percentage.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the ballot statement would have to specifically refer to the rates Council might implement in the future or whether the amount can be set at 14% with Council discretion to lower the rate.
Special Counsel responded either approach can be taken; stated the ordinance to be adopted by Council would have to include the language, which probably would not be in the ballot question.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired the amount of reduction from previous years.
The Finance Director responded that she would obtain the information during public comment.
Stated the hospitality industry has been devastated by COVID-19; the Bay Area has been one of the slowest areas to rebound; discussed hotels running on bare minimums; stated it will take years for the industry to rebound; Alameda’s access issues likely cause reason for a lower TOT; this is the wrong time to hit the hospitality industry with a 40% tax increase: William Pai, Alameda.
Stated hotel taxes are a great mechanism to fill the General Fund; it makes sense to pass a 14% cap; things can be done to stimulate businesses during the pandemic; many hotels are on Bay Farm and cater to the Oakland Airport; the TOT is competing with Oakland hotels: Zac Bowling, Alameda.
The Finance Director stated Fiscal Year 2018-2019 was a peak; the City brought in about $2.29 million in TOT; she does not yet have June’s numbers to round out the last fiscal year; however, the current amount is $2.25 million; the City is collecting AirBNB which are doing great; TOT is not only assessed on hotels but also AirBNBs; discussed Oakland’s fees.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired the Fiscal Year 2019-20 amount.
The Finance Director responded the amount went down to $1.95 million.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated there has been a reduction; hotels have less income, which means the City receives less income; discussed TOT rates in surrounding cities; stated that she would rather continue to support the hospitality and AirBNB industry; it is the wrong time to increase the TOT; expressed concern about revenue not being back to a pre-pandemic amount; stated the hospitality industry still has to make up for the past years; there is fluidity in the industry; she will not be supporting the matter.
Vice Mayor Vella stated the numbers show amounts have basically recovered from the drop during the pandemic; the industry average in Alameda has done well over six years; the City needs to ensure it is leveraging all assets, not just hotels; short-term rental units have been bringing in substantial revenue; Alameda hotels are not full service; she supports moving forward with the TOT; the matter has been delayed; expressed concern over potential changes and finding the correct time to get a measure on the ballot; stated that she is open to discussing a gradual rate increase or lowering the rate under 14%; it would be foolish not to move forward; both Oakland and San Leandro have higher TOT rates than Alameda.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for receiving an average of all the cities in the County; stated Alameda should look at the competition; other cities are getting 14% TOT; the matter polls very well with residents and is low hanging fruit, which should be picked; the travel industry is picking up again; airports have full flights with fewer services; some offer less contact; people should still be mindful of COVID-19; however, there is no reason Alameda should have a TOT 4% less than neighboring cities; an increase in TOT would benefit residents by paying into the General Fund; expressed support for the matter.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he supports the staff recommendation; expressed support for discussing a flexible TOT rate; stated a 12% rate would help during a recession; a lower amount does not provide Alameda with any competitive advantage; money is being left on the table; typical travelers do not necessarily look at the TOT rate; Alameda has amenities to offer and should be rewarded; the matter is straightforward; he can live with a rigid 14% rate; however, a calibrated approach to rates should be discussed.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired how the calibrated approach would be administered; expressed concern over an overly bureaucratic process.
Councilmember Daysog responded that he does not know how the approach would be administered; stated that he would defer to staff.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the hotel operators are not paying the TOT rate, visitors pay; concurred that many people do not think about the TOT rate when booking a place to stay; the City’s General Fund needs to be kept as robust as possible; expressed concern over underselling Alameda in comparison to neighboring cities that share proximity to the Oakland Airport.
Councilmember Daysog stated the discussion is sufficient; expressed support for the 14% TOT rate.
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation; stated that he is willing to draft the ballot argument in favor.
The City Clerk stated Council may designate up to two Councilmembers to draft the argument in favor and the argument against the measure.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Vice Mayor Vella would be willing to work on drafting the argument in favor and any rebuttal with Councilmember Daysog, to which Vice Mayor Vella responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Councilmember Herrera Spencer would like to work on the argument against and any rebuttal, to which Councilmember Herrera Spencer responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion with the argument authors, which carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 1. [Absent: Councilmember Knox White - 1.]
(22-__) Introduction of Ordinance Adopting a Military Equipment Use Policy for the Alameda Police Department. Introduced.
The Police Captain gave a Power Point presentation.
Expressed concern over equipment; stated that he objects to Police having military equipment; expressed support for Police primarily being Peace Officers; stated that he is shocked by the amount of required weapons: Roger Slattery, Alameda.
Expressed support for slowing the process; expressed concern about the level of civic engagement; stated that she hopes for a real civic engagement effort, including clear descriptions of equipment: Jennifer Rakowski, Alameda.
Stated that she does not want military equipment used against citizens; questioned whether the equipment, its use, and whether it is needed has been discussed: Melodye Montgomery, Alameda.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved introduction of the ordinance.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Knox White expressed appreciation that the language meets Council’s notification requirements.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the matter relates to State legislation; everything is a matter of public record and accessible on the City website.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
(22- ) The Interim City Manager stated July is a busy month for both Council and staff; expressed support for City staff’s efforts.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
(22-___) Consider Directing Staff to Reform the Fee Towing Companies Require Alameda Residents to Pay to Retrieve Towed Vehicles. (Councilmember Daysog) Not heard.
(22- ) Consider Directing Staff to Address Massive Corporations Purchasing Housing. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(22- ) Councilmember Herrera Spencer reminded people about the upcoming July 12th Council meeting; stated that she appreciates the effort being put into the Fourth of July parade and the 5k; discussed upcoming 5ks.
(22- ) Councilmember Daysog discussed judging the Alameda sand castle contest.
(22- ) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft discussed a Change of Command Ceremony at the United States Coast Guard, and supporting a State-wide rent control ordinance for houseboat and floating homes legislation in Sacramento; stated that she attended a naturalization ceremony aboard the USS Hornet; announced the Fourth of July parade race; discussed the tragic mass shooting in Highland Illinois.
(22- ) Councilmember Daysog discussed his attendance at the first gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and questioning teen even held on Webster Street.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 11:53 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
****************************************************************************************************
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- -JULY 12, 2022- -5:00 P.M.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 5:05 p.m.
Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Knox White, Vella and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note: Councilmember Daysog arrived at 5:06 p.m. and Vice Mayor Vella arrived at 5:15 p.m. The meeting was held via Zoom.]
Absent: None.
The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(22-__) Conference with Labor Negotiators (Government Code Section: 54957.6); City Negotiators: Nancy Bronstein, Human Resources Director; Nico Procos, General Manager, Alameda Municipal Power; Jessica Romeo, Human Resources Manager; and Steve Woo, Senior Human Resources Analyst; Employee Organizations: Alameda City Employees Association (ACEA); Management and Confidential Employees Association (MCEA); Electric Utility Professionals Association (EUPA); International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW); Alameda Police Officers Non-Sworn (PANS); Alameda Municipal Power Unrepresented Employees (AMPU); Alameda Police Management Association (APMA); Under Negotiation: Salaries, Employee Benefits and Terms of Employment
(22- ) Conference with Legal Counsel - Potential Litigation Initiation of Litigation Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9, Subsection (d)(4); Number of Cases: Undetermined (As Plaintiff - City Initiating Legal Action); Potential Defendants: Lessees of Historic Residential Units at Alameda Point Regarding Lead-Based Paint Remediation. Not heard.
(22-__) Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8); Property: Alameda Theatre, Located at 2317 Central Avenue, Alameda, CA; City Negotiators: Dirk Brazil, Interim City Manager, Lisa Maxwell, Community Development Director, and Nanette Mocanu, Assistant Community Development Director; Negotiating Parties: City of Alameda and Alameda Entertainment Associates, L.P.; Under Negotiation: Price and Terms.
Following the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and the City Clerk announced that regarding Labor, staff provided information and Council provided direction by the following roll call votes: Vote 1: Councilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 3, Noes: 2 and Vote 2: Councilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Ayes: 4, Noes: 1; and regarding Real Property, staff provided information with no vote taken.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 6:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.
****************************************************************************************************
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - JULY 12, 2022- -7:00 P.M.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 7:21 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Knox White, Vella, and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note: The meeting was conducted via Zoom.]
Absent: None.
AGENDA CHANGES
(22- ) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would call her nominations [paragraph no. 22- ] next.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(22- ) Mayor’s Nominations for Appointment to the Civil Service Board, Commission on Persons with Disabilities, Golf Commission, Historical Advisory Board, Housing Authority Board of Commissioners, Library Board and Public Utilities Board.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft nominated Diane Lang, Tim Erwin and Jordan Frank for appointment to the Civil Service Board.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
None.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(22- ) Jim Strehlow, Alameda, stated the intersection of Sherman Street and Clement Avenue is one of the poorest new designs he has ever seen; discussed the intersection and urged it be corrected.
(22- ) Jay Garfinkle, Alameda, discussed planning projects that have degraded the quality of life and put residents’ safety at risk, including parklets; stated Park and Webster Streets are totally congested; the fumes of cars and trucks idling are causing greenhouse gases; emergency vehicles are impeded, putting lives at risk.
(22- ) Jason Peavich, Alameda, stated the Sherman Street project is not finished; discussed the project; stated the matter will be handled.
(22- ) Brian Kennedy, Alameda, discussed the killing of Kate Stanley; expressed concern about Sanctuary Cities.
(22- ) Zac Bowling, Alameda, discussed the Sherman Street project; expressed support for Planning staff.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Expressed support for the Alameda/Oakland pedestrian bridge [paragraph no. 22- ]; urged the project be completed as quickly as possible: Zac Bowling, Alameda.
Expressed concern about the pedestrian bridge, including the cost: Jim Strehlow, Alameda.
Expressed concern about continuing to conduct meetings using Zoom [paragraph no. 22- ]; urged Council not to approve the item: Tod Hickman.
Expressed concern about the cost of the pedestrian bridge: Jay Garfinkle, Alameda.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested the Bicycle-Pedestrian bridge [paragraph no. 22- ] be removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.
Councilmembers Daysog and Herrera Spencer recorded no votes on the teleconference findings and the resolution continuing the emergency declaration [paragraph no. 22- ].
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]
(*22- ) Ratified bills in the amount of $1,028,477.62.
(22- ) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim City Manager to Execute Two Contracts to Complete the Project Initiation Document (PID) for the Alameda-Oakland Bicycle-Pedestrian Bridge: (1) to HNTB Consulting for PID Phase Services in an Amount Not to Exceed $1,350,000, and (2) to Arup for Project Oversight and On-Call Engineering Support to City Staff in an Amount Not to Exceed $200,000.
The Senior Transportation Coordinator and Planning, Building and Transportation Director gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft outlined her lobbying efforts for Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC) in Washington D.C. in May; stated projects like this are very much favored because of the equity and environmental components; discussed reducing greenhouse gas emissions, pedestrians using the Tube and funding; stated that she is really excited; outlined discussions with the Coast Guard.
Councilmember Daysog expressed concern about the price tag of up to $200 million, which is perhaps bound to go even higher; stated that he is not sure the project is a wise way to spend taxpayer dollars; he does not believe 5,000 to 6,000 pedestrians and bicyclists will use the bridge every day; the numbers do not seem realistic; although everyone is excited, he is looking through a different lens and hard pressed to support the project.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated what excites her is the opportunity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions coming from automobiles idling in the Tube; the project will benefit residents, especially in West Oakland in Chinatown.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the vote is challenging; she disagrees with the numbers of 5,000 to 6,000; inquired about the projection.
The Senior Transportation Coordinator responded the projection is for 2030 and is based on lots of modeling used to calculate car trips and Bay Area traffic assumptions; stated a certain percentage of people would use the bridge instead of something else.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether anyone has current counts for bicyclists and pedestrians traveling from the main Island to Oakland on the different bridges.
The Senior Transportation Coordinator responded the last count was in 2016; six years ago people walked or biked through the Posey Tube, which is pretty horrendous, an average of nine bicyclists per hour and two pedestrians per hour; the amount would be much higher.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired how many walk or bike over the Park Street Bridge, to which the Senior Transportation Coordinator responded that she does not have the numbers at her fingertips right now.
In response to Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquiry regarding bikes on buses, the Senior Transportation Coordinator stated the amount was eight per hour.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether there has been any consideration of people moving out of California since they are able to work remotely.
The Senior Transportation Coordinator responded the model is based on assumptions in the travel demand model developed by the region pre-pandemic.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether there has been no correction and review since the pandemic, to which the Senior Transportation Coordinator responded the consultant will go back and update the numbers during this phase; stated the scenario of the Oakland A's stadium being approved will also be reviewed.
In response to Councilmember Herrera Spencer’s inquiry about where the money is coming from, the Senior Transportation Coordinator stated the funding is coming at Council’s request; funding had been allocated for the Oakland Alameda access project; the funding source is ACTC sales tax funds.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated the funding is regional transportation money allocated by ACTC to regional transportation projects in different cities.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether other projects in the City would be eligible and will not receive money now.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded part of the money was originally allocated to the Broadway Jackson project, which is about $150 million just to move existing freeway ramps; stated 800 feet is the distance from the Alameda shoreline to the Oakland shoreline; regional demand models consider that West Alameda is so close to Oakland and there is no way for bicycles and pedestrians to get between the two cities; the region asking the City to lead the next phase of the feasibility study is not surprising.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the bridge will accommodate motorized bicycles and scooters used by disabled persons, to which the Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded in the affirmative.
In response to Councilmember Herrera Spencer’s inquiries regarding vehicles and emergencies, the Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated the bridge is expected to accommodate emergency vehicles and will be used in emergency response in the event of a major earthquake; in an emergency, the bridge could be used for supplies and emergency vehicles, but not cars.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated City money is not being used, only regional money; inquired whether the effort will take a year and a half.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded it is an 18 month effort; stated four to five different locations for the bridge will be reviewed; noted regional organizations helped pick the consultants, which are the best consultants available.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she plans to support this step; it is important to figure out options; driving through the Tube is very hard; she is fine with looking at the Oakland stadium, but the bigger issue is the impact of people working remotely.
Councilmember Knox White stated the Transportation Choices Plan (TCP) found nearly 80% of people who travel to the inner East Bay do so by car; the biggest opportunity to help people make shifts and reduce the impact of increased traffic in the region is travel to downtown Oakland; the City of Oakland is slowly replacing all parking lots with housing; anybody commuting to downtown Oakland is going to find it harder and harder to find a place to park; Alameda being an Island with an existential climate crisis means that the City needs to start looking at how to change the way business is done, rather than trying to recreate things done for years; the bridge is a big step forward; the price tag is large; if the bridge is found to be feasible, the price tag does not have to be justified by the number of people crossing the bridge; the idea that 5,000 people are going to cross the estuary on a given week day is probably realistic and conservative at this point in time, especially with the traffic growth happening throughout the region.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated the price tag is at the heart of the issue; discussed funding the bridge versus something more feasible, like a water taxi; stated a water taxi could be just as effective in terms of moving people; cautioned Alameda will have to guard against being the parking lot for Oakland A's stadium.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether golf carts would be allowed, to which the Senior Transportation Coordinator responded it depends on the structure and how much weight can be supported; supporting more weight makes the project more expensive and less feasible.
Vice Mayor Vella stated the bridge is a great regional opportunity; she looks forward to moving forward.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated staff has been doing a lot of legwork; discussed meetings with Oakland City staff and Councilmembers and the Executive Director of the Port of Oakland; requested staff to provide information about the world class consultants.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director discussed the two consultant firms.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated water taxis operate Monday through Friday during business hours; a bridge allows people to cross 24 hours a day seven days a week.
The Planning, Building and Transportation Director discussed public input opportunities.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.
(*22- ) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim City Manager to Negotiate and Execute an Agreement for $1,800,000 in American Rescue Plan Act Funds with Building Futures with Women and Children to Replace the Deck and Three Portables at the Midway Shelter of Alameda. Accepted.
(*22- ) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim City Manager to Execute a $273,885 Agreement with The Village of Love Foundation to Operate for Six Months through December 31, 2022, with Funding from Homeless Housing Assistance and Prevention Program and General Fund, the Day Center Extended Hours Program, the Day Center Overnight Program and the Safe Parking Program; and Recommendation to Authorize the Interim City Manager to Execute a $783,050 Agreement with The Village of Love Foundation to Operate for Twelve Months from July 1, 2022 to June 30, 2023, with Funding from General Fund and Permanent Local Housing Allocation, the Day Center Program and the Safe Parking Extended Hours Program and to Operate for Six Months from January 1, 2023 through June 30, 2023, with Funding from General Fund and Permanent Local Housing Allocation, the Day Center Extended Hour Program, the Day Center Overnight Program and Safe Parking Program. Accepted.
(22- ) Recommendation to Approve Findings to Allow City Meetings to be Conducted via Teleconference.
Since Councilmembers Daysog and Herrera Spencer recorded a no vote, the motion carried by the following vote: Councilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.
(*22- ) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim City Manager to Purchase Darktrace Enterprise Immune System for a 3-Year Amount Not to Exceed $291,000 to be Paid Annually at $97,000. Accepted.
(*22- ) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim City Manager to Execute a Three-Year Agreement with Precision Emprise, LLC, dba Precision Concrete Cutting, for Sidewalk Trip Hazard Removal in an Amount Not to Exceed $975,000. Accepted.
(*22- ) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim City Manager to Execute an Agreement with McGuire and Hester for the 2022 Pavement Management Project, Phase 41, No. P.W. 05-22-16, in an Amount Not to Exceed $4,974,938, Including Contingency. Accepted.
(*22- ) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim City Manager to Execute a Five-Year Agreement with Earth Island Institute dba Kids for the Bay for Educational Services in Grade Schools within the City of Alameda for an Amount Not to Exceed $156,073. Accepted.
(*22- ) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim City Manager to Execute Three, Five-Year Agreements in an Amount Not to Exceed $750,000 Each to 4LEAF, Inc., CSG Consultants, Inc., and Ghirardelli Associates, Inc., for On-Call Construction Management and Inspection Services. Accepted.
(*22- ) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim City Manager to Execute Six, Five-Year Agreements in an Amount Not to Exceed $750,000 Each to Buehler Engineering, Inc., COWI North America, Inc., Forell | Elsesser Engineers, JMEC Engineering, Inc., Wood Rodgers, Inc., and ZFA Structural Engineers, for On-Call Structural Engineering Services. Accepted.
(*22- ) Resolution No. 15937, “Approving a Workforce Change in the Public Works Department to Upgrade an Executive Assistant to an Administrative Services Coordinator.” Adopted.
(*22- ) Resolution No. 15938, “Amending the Fiscal Year 2022-23 Budget to Increase General Fund Fire Department - Prevention Division (10032220) Revenue and Expenditures by $38,000 and to Increase Planning, Building & Transportation - Building Division Budget (20962720) Revenue and Expenditures in the Amount of $17,000.” Adopted; and
(*22- A) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim City Manager to Negotiate and Execute a First Amendment to the Agreement with Accela, Inc. to Increase Compensation by $286,990, for a Total Aggregate Compensation Not to Exceed $370,054, to Continue Providing Subscription Services for Accela Automation Land Management and Enhanced Reporting Database. Accepted.
(*22- ) Resolution No. 15939, “Approving a Parcel Map for Tract 8468 - A Parcel Map to Subdivide One Lot into Three Live/Work Condominiums at 2350 Saratoga Street.” Adopted.
(22- ) Resolution No. 15940, “Continuing the Declaration of the Existence of a Local Emergency in Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic, Consistent with Government Code Section 8630(c).” Adopted.
Since Councilmembers Daysog and Herrera Spencer recorded a no vote, the motion carried by the following vote: Councilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.
CONTINUED AGENDA ITEMS
None.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(22- ) Resolution No. 15941, “Reappointing Asheshh Saheba as a member of the Planning Board.” Adopted; and
(22- A) Resolution No. 15942, “Appointing Diana Ariza as a member of the Planning Board.” Adopted; and
(22- B) Resolution No. 15943, “Reappointing Samantha Green as a member of the Social Services Human Relations Board.” Adopted; and
(22- C) Resolution No. 15944, “Reappointing Scott Means as a member of the Social Services Human Relations Board.” Adopted; and
(22- D) Resolution No. 15945, “Appointing Michelle Buchholz as a member of the Social Services Human Relations Board.” Adopted; and
(22- E) Resolution No. 15946, “Appointing Bernard Wolf as a member of the Social Services Human Relations Board.” Adopted.
Councilmember Knox White moved adoption of the resolutions.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.
The City Clerk administered the Oath of Office to Mr. Saheba, Ms. Ariza and Mr. Wolf.
Ms. Ariza and Mr. Wolf made brief comments.
(22- ) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Article XV (Rent Control, Limitations on Evictions and Relocation Payments to Certain Displaced Tenants) to Adopt and Incorporate Provisions Concerning Capital Improvement Plans (CIP) and Maritime Residential Tenancies for Rental Units in the City of Alameda. Not introduced.
Special Council gave a Power Point presentation.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she wants to clarify the definition of live aboard.
Special Counsel stated the boat would continuously be at the marina for nine months or longer, similar to recreational vehicles; discussed mobile home residency law.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired how many marinas have floating homes in the City, to which Special Counsel responded staff is aware of only one marina with floating homes.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired how many marinas have live aboards, to which Special Counsel responded his understanding is that all the marinas in Alameda have live aboards.
Stated water is free; when a boat sits on the water, there is nothing to maintain; discussed investing in properties: Jason Peavich, Alameda.
Discussed rental properties on Shoreline Drive; stated there have been increases to renters every year and drastic increases for new tenants moving in; increases were not used for CIPs because owners used the increases to offset unoccupied units; discussed passing throughs, the decrease in renters and amortization: Efrem Williams, Alameda.
Discussed Ordinance Nos. 3317 and 3321 not having anything to do with live aboards; expressed concern about staff extending the floating home provision to live aboards at recreational marinas based on the vague, undefined phrase of other maritime residential tendencies; discussed recreational marinas: KC Taylor, Alameda.
Expressed concern about Ordinance No. 3317 applying to live aboards being a challenge for recreational marinas; stated the marinas might potentially stop operating because of the unnecessary, additional burden; discussed the unlawful detainer process and slip fees being lowered last year: Sandra Coong, Alameda.
Stated that she has worked at Marina Village since 1988 and has co-managed the recreational marina since 2006; the marina has been extremely diligent in following maritime law, which uses license agreements, not leases; urged marina residential tenancies be removed from the ordinance: Kathy Luck, Marina Village Yacht Harbor.
Stated that she works at Marina Village; one of her responsibilities is to make sure the boating community is safe and happy; she reached out to every single live aboard at Marina Village and did not hear that live aboard fees are an issue; no one has expressed support for the ordinance, which would change the great relationships of the community of boaters; owners would have to raise rates and cut back on discretionary improvements; if they do not like where they are, boaters can simply move; the Bay Area has high vacancies compared to other areas: Candice Boaz, Marina Village Yacht Harbor.
Stated that he opposes expanding rent control to live aboards and recreational marinas; Ordinance Nos. 3317 and 3321 were intended to address floating homes only; discussed Barnhill Marina; stated there are numerous and important practical differences between recreational marinas and permanent residential structures or floating homes: Jonathan (JT).
Urged Council to strike the phrase maritime residential tendencies, references to boats and vessels as rental units or live aboards as tenants in Ordinance No. 3317; stated the ordinance will do significant harm to the marine community: Kris Leverich.
Stated that he was involved with management of one of the smallest marinas; urged Council to remove any reference to maritime residential tenants and live aboard boats; stated maritime laws govern marinas; discussed safety and crimes: Steven Kibler, Alameda.
Stated the ordinance should not apply to live aboards and recreational marinas; 501(C)(7) organization’s sole purpose is social gatherings of members; the relationship does not constitute a landlord-tenant relationship; members of the organizations must approve all fees; all proceeds from the organizations are used for the benefit of the organization, not for individual people or profits; urged Council to exclude 501(C)(7) organizations: Benjamin Yamanaka, Oakland Yacht Club.
Stated that she supports the revised CIP, which is a good compromise for building maintenance; landlords have not been able to increase rents for the last two years and expenses have increased; outlined increased expenses; stated landlords have to be able to recoup expenses at some point; urged Council to approve the CIP: Karen Miller, Alameda.
Stated in 2015 and 2016 when renters came to the City Council to complain about escalating rents, some Councilmembers asked renters for data and would not rely on anecdotes; renters got data and the City commissioned studies; the situation is reversed; questioned where is the small landlord data; stated a means test is not being required for landlords to pass on 100% of renovation expenses to tenants in addition to rent increases; large landlords will receive the same benefit as small landlords; discussed Blackstone Properties; stated investments are receiving more respect than basic human needs: Toni Grimm, Alameda.
Urge Council to allow the City's marinas to remain autonomous and manage affairs and tenant relationships unencumbered by regulatory burdens; discussed living on a live aboard; stated in the intensely competitive industry, marinas have to respond to market pressures and make adjustments based on real world factors; discussed security issues: Beverly Wagstaff, Alameda.
Expressed concern about the lack of transparency; stated amending a rent control ordinance to include live aboards appears questionable; discussed marinas, harbors and maritime culture; urged Council to pause, have conversations with core businesses and strike maritime residential tendencies and live aboards: Linda Kibler, Alameda.
Stated the CIP pass through concept does not sit well with him; a lot of Alameda’s rental stock is old and aging and likely could use capital improvements, but many rental properties have been owned for decades and have relatively low property taxes; profit margins increase exponentially faster than taxes and fixed fees, which could be invested in capital improvements; tenants would be paying to improve an owner’s investment: Zac Bowling, Alameda.
Stated capital improvement projects would be a huge increase for a landlord's bottom line and a devastation for renters who already pay the landlord's mortgages; stated the CIP is unfair and unjust to Alameda citizens and would burden renters; discussed rent, salaries and expenses; stated Alameda has an increased homelessness population and the CIP would increase homelessness; urged Council not to adopt the ordinance: Camille Christian, Alameda.
Stated that she is taken aback by Ordinance No. 3317, which will cause many people to lose their homes and safe marina communities and displace people on fixed incomes; true mariners are a special breed who create community, look after fellow mariners and neighbors and keep waterways and marinas safe; discussed the Marina Village Yacht Harbor: Denise Jones, Alameda.
Stated that she has had a live aboard in Marina Village Yacht Harbor for the last 13 years; questioned the rush to push through the ordinance and why effort was not made to reach out to the marina live aboard community; stated that she is not aware of any issues with marinas that would require rent control actions: Heidi Stagg, Alameda.
Outlined data on renter’s household expenses versus income; suggested a lower cumulative cap; stated an 8% increase is a significant jump that will likely push many families out of their homes and the City and will increase the number of people who end up experiencing homelessness; urged Council to consider revising the proposal to lower the cumulative cap to 5%; stated the program requires tenants to pay 100% of the capital improvement costs; other cities only require tenants to pay a portion; outlined regulations in other cities; expressed support for adding a hardship exemption for lower income tenants: Kimberly Tyda.
Stated the he has been priced out of Alameda; he had a house, then an apartment and is now a business owner on a live aboard in Marina Village; applying the ordinance to live aboards will force him out of the State; urged Council to rethink the matter: Scot Sertic, Alameda.
Stated that he lives on a live aboards at Maria Village Yacht Harbor; urged Council to confirm Ordinance No. 3317 does not apply to boats with live aboard privileges in recreational marinas, which are unlike floating home that cannot easily move; stated plenty of slips are available in nearby marinas; discussed the Marina Village Yacht Harbor community: Sean Munding, Alameda.
Expressed concern about the growing disconnect between those who are housing secure and those who are not; stated the change benefits landlords to a great degree; there is no discrepancy between very large, very profitable landlord and small landlords; the City is passing on 100% of capital improvements and the financing with no real benefit to the tenant; half of the 10 cities listed allow less than 100% and three in the Bay Area only allow 50%; noted Oakland recently lowered its annual increase to 60% of the Consumer Price Index (CPI): Catherine Pauling, Alameda.
Stated including vessels as part of the rent control program may be good intentioned, but causes serious problem for marinas; the City is going to get entangled with maritime law and is headed towards significant litigation; urged Council to amend the ordinance by removing maritime residential tenancies; stated marinas do not make much profit; the ordinance will have severe consequences: Brock de Lappe, Alameda.
Stated his company has managed Marina Village Yacht Harbor since 2006; he opposes the ordinance including live aboard boats and other maritime residential tenancies; no other city in the country has rent control on live aboards and recreational marinas; expressed concern about the lack of public discussions, research and understanding; discussed maritime law and marinas, including vacancy rates: Steve Meckfessel, Alameda.
Stated that he has lived at Marina Village Yacht Harbor for over a decade; the Marina is incredibly well kept and safe; the ordinance will damage the boating community and endanger the safety and security of tenants; marinas should not be encumbered with additional, needless regulations that will hinder quickly and effectively preventing environmental damage; discussed boaters sleeping on their vessels; urged Council to reconsider: Eduardo Lujan, Alameda.
Outlined his marine industry experience; stated the efforts to bootstrap the ordinance onto recreational vessels is ill conceived and will cause a quagmire of problems; the ordinance was done to deal with a very specific problem and is being broadened into something else; urged Council to reconsider: Sean Svendsen.
Discussed her experience being homeless and the need for housing for workers at grocery stores and gas stations; expressed opposition to 100% of renovations being paid by tenants: Monika, Alameda.
Stated that he is a live aboard resident at Barnhill Marina; stated Barnhill Marina is a residential, not recreational, marina and should be considered separately: Brian Linke, Alameda.
***
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft called a recess at 9:36 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:55 p.m.
***
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired the difference between recreational versus residential marinas.
Special Counsel responded Bay Conversation and Development Commission (BCDC) regulations provide that there can be no more than 10% live aboards at a particular marina; discussed marinas in Alameda.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would like to figure out a way to limit or not cover the maritime definition of live aboard.
Special Counsel stated Council has discretion; outlined options.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed concern about the City respecting maritime law.
Special Counsel stated Council has the authority over rents and just cause evictions; a live aboard long residency would be nine months, similar to recreational vehicles.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated Barnhill Marina would have to keep track of live aboards; inquired about recreational marinas.
Special Counsel stated just cause provisions of the rent control ordinance would apply to marina operators with live aboards.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the ordinance would apply to a live aboard tenant at Barnhill Marina who takes out their boat every weekend.
Special Counsel responded consideration is going to have to be given to how the nine month rule is interpreted and the length of time somebody is gone; stated staff could come up with a regulation with said details.
In response to Councilmember Herrera Spencer’s inquiry, Special Counsel stated taking a boat out occasionally, such as to and from work or for the weekend, would not abrogate the nine month rule; he is not sure if the bright line would be seven or 30 days; staff would come up with a regulation; further stated it would be the same as a recreational vehicle owner is treated under mobile home residency law; provided an example.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she is leaning towards not including live aboards at all; stated it is vague and she does not know how it would be applied.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee at a hearing in supportive a bill to amend the Statewide rent control ordinance to include floating homes and houseboats; recreational marina association representative spoke at the hearing and recreational marinas were exempted from the Statewide rent control ordinance; the representatives were fine with including houseboats and floating homes, which are not easily mobile and have very few spaces where they can go; the City’s Assembly representative was willing to remove recreational marinas from the Statewide rent control law; questioned why regulations are being done in Alameda because she does not see the same urgency as the Barnhill Marina residents.
Special Counsel stated Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft’s recollection is correct about the State legislation; recreational marina representatives were concerned that the State legislation was going to be framed broadly to include them; the language was changed to make it apply only to floating home marinas and floating homes, not live aboards; if Council does not want to apply the ordinance to anything other than a floating home, direction can be given to staff to make said small changes to the ordinance for Council to adopt at a second reading.
Councilmember Daysog stated the City responded to a unique emergency situation at Barnhill Marina; discussed reviewing whether the ordinance applies to live aboard boats.
Councilmember Knox White stated people living on boats long-term are residents and should be provided similar protections to the greatest extent possible; expressed support for staff continuing with the interpretation and returning to Council to discuss live aboards; stated that he does not want to get in the way of recreational boaters, but people living in a home in a marina for 13 years feels like a resident, not a recreational sailor; expressed support for more conversation with marina owners and maintaining the current ordinance for now.
Vice Mayor Vella stated her approach is similar to Councilmember Knox White; some of the speaker’s scenarios about nuisance or problem situations would not have just cause provisions come into play; somebody threatening violence or that sort of thing could be removed; she worries about creating a second tier; inquired whether floating homes and floating home marinas could both be protected.
Special Counsel responded if the ordinance is applicable to floating home marinas, any boat or vessel in the marina, whether it is a floating home or live aboard, would be protected.
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether floating homes could also be protected, regardless of location.
Special Counsel responded in the affirmative; stated floating homes could be included no matter the location; floating home marinas would include both floating homes and live aboards.
Vice Mayor Vella stated some of the issues raised are red herrings in some ways and can be addressed through regulations; there are ways to craft regulations to deal with situations and track the amount of time people leave.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she did not hear any live aboard residents say they need protection; Special Counsel can craft a regulation to protect live aboards at Barnhill Marina; the matter could be revisited in the future if needed.
Vice Mayor Vella stated live aboard residents might assume the protections apply to them; more discussion is needed; her preference would be to have a discussion about the needs of the community balanced with providing protections.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft concurred about the need for more communication.
Councilmember Daysog stated the course is to move forward with the staff recommendation; the ordinance should first apply to floating home marinas to address the pressing issue of Barnhill Marina; the second step is laying the foundation for continued dialogue with the community regarding live aboards; both Councilmember Knox White and Vice Mayor Vella are correct; some live aboard residents might need some kind of protection.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would like to have a vote regarding the live aboard issue separate from CIP; further stated that she does not support applying the rent ordinance to live aboards, other than at Barnhill Marina; multiple reasons have been provided to indicate why provisions should not apply to recreational marinas; she would prefer to have discussions and bring the matter back at some later time.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of having live aboards continue to apply to only floating homes and live aboards, which are being called floating homes, at Barnhill Marina and not have any reference to live aboards at non-floating home marinas [including introduction of the ordinance].
Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether the motion excludes floating homes that are outside of floating home marinas.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer responded that she does not believe there are any floating homes at any other marina; stated Council does not need to create a solution when there is not a problem.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would not be able to support the motion because floating homes are a unique situation; she does not see the harm of including floating homes just in case they are located elsewhere; she would like some revision about how the City further the communicates about issues raised by Councilmember Knox White.
Councilmember Daysog requested a friendly amendment to the motion to include floating homes outside of floating home marinas.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she thinks there are not any.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which failed by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: No; Vella: No; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: No. Ayes: 2. Noes: 3.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he would make a new motion.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested the motion include the need for direction for further communication.
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of applying changes to the rent ordinance to floating homes and live aboards in floating home marinas and floating homes outside of floating home marinas [including introduction of the ordinance] and giving direction to communicate with marina operators with live aboards.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether the motion is for both floating homes and live aboards, essentially all residents, in floating home marinas.
Councilmember Daysog responded in the affirmative; stated the motion includes floating home marinas.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the motion includes any floating homes that might not be in a floating home marina, to which Councilmember Daysog responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the rent notices sent to all the marinas about registering rentals would be invalidated and new ones would be sent if appropriate, to which Special Counsel responded the rent program would send out revised letters to marinas covered by the ordinance and other marinas would be advised that the ordinance does not apply to them; staff would open a dialogue with the operators consistent with the motion.
Councilmember Knox White stated that he would not be supporting the motion; he thinks removing marinas and coming back causes more confusion.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Councilmember Knox White could provide more specificity about the desired communication.
Councilmember Knox White stated that he would like to keep the rules as currently existing in place, while engaging in the conversation with marina owners; removing all the restrictions and coming back at some point in the future with new restrictions is more problematic; he would prefer to wait on enforcement and have a conversation about tweaks.
The City Attorney inquired whether the suggestion is not to take enforcement action, such as against an unlawful eviction.
Councilmember Knox White responded possibly; stated after conversations, if rules remain in place, such matters could be addressed.
Vice Mayor Vella stated lack of enforcement would only be for recreational marinas, not floating home marinas; expressed concern about timing.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether someone from the program could provide a time estimate for having the dialogue and returning to Council.
The Rent Program Director stated a year would be an acceptable period of time.
Councilmember Daysog stated not including live aboards outside of floating home marinas is a lot cleaner; based upon the dialogue, the City can refine the best way to protect the residents; the Council heard credible evidence from recreational marina operators and live aboard residents within recreational marinas that including them in the ordinance might not be in the City’s best interest; the discussion the motion requires can address the matter; his opinion is going with his motion is cleaner.
Vice Mayor Vella expressed support for including a timeline for the conversation, so the matter does not linger; questioned whether people on live aboards might have a different opinion if marina owners or operators come in and change things; stated the City not having protections is rolling the dice; inquired whether Councilmember Daysog would consider adding a timeline.
***
(22- ) Vice Mayor Vella moved approval of hearing the balance of regular agenda up until 12:30 a.m.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.
***
***
(22- ) Vice Mayor Vella moved approval of setting the clock to give all Councilmembers 5 minutes to speak.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.
***
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether Council would be directing staff to come back with clear language to protect live aboards outside of floating home marinas and in recreational marinas; stated the idea is that the discussion would give time for live aboard operators and live aboard residents in recreational marinas to give further input, but regulations would not be included in the current ordinance; the discussion would be within one year, or earlier, if possible.
Vice Mayor Vella responded in the affirmative; stated that she is trying to put forward an alternative.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested Councilmember Daysog restate the motion and address if he would accept the friendly amendment.
Councilmember Daysog stated the motion’s first element is that the ordinance would apply to floating home marinas and floating home boats and live aboards in floating home marinas; the second element is it would apply to floating homes outside of floating home marinas; the third element is directing staff to come back after communications or outreach with interested stakeholders; staff would come back with language protecting live aboards outside of floating home marinas within 12 months.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether Councilmember Daysog is amenable to voiding the current notices sent to all of the marinas.
Special Counsel stated a revised letter will be sent out to the marina operators if the vote is approved; the revised letter will indicate that registration is not required unless a marina has floating homes and that the rent program wants to open a dialogue with the operators about live aboards.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she does not believe it is appropriate to apply rent control to live aboards outside floating home marinas; nobody on a live aboard outside of floating home marinas expressed any concern; however, she heard many legitimate reasons why it is completely inappropriate to apply rent control to live aboards.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated residents of Barnhill Marina did not think they had a problem until they did when the marina changed hands; until the City stepped in, the owners were able to make unlimited rent increases; live aboard marinas have been able to provide housing; affordable housing needs to be provided; protecting vulnerable residents is important; further dialogue is a good thing; inquired whether the motion includes Councilmember Knox White’s suggestion to keep the ordinance in place, just not enforced.
Councilmember Daysog responded there is a difference; stated Councilmember Knox White’s proposal is to adopt the language in the ordinance and delay enforcement for nine months versus the third element of the motion which is to have a dialogue over a span of 12 months, focusing on how to protect live aboards outside of floating home marinas.
In response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft’s inquiry, Vice Mayor Vella stated that she is trying to present an alternative; if the City would not be enforcing the ordinance, she supports having the conversations and doing outreach to come up with a recommendation in 12 months; there would not be much operational difference.
In response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft’s inquiry about the direction, the City Attorney stated staff is happy to implement Council’s direction.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: No; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2.
In response to Vice Mayor Vella’s inquiry regarding other cities and comprehensive ceilings, the Rent Program Director stated 8.8% is the highest increase in Oakland with everything included.
Special Counsel stated Alameda would have a combination of the Annual General Adjustment (AGA), including banking, plus the pass through could not exceed 8% of the maximum allowable rent.
The City Attorney stated Los Angeles is somewhere between 3 to 8%, plus an additional 1% for various utility services, which would likely end up being slightly higher than the staff recommendation for Alameda.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired when staff would be able to revise the chart; stated the chart shows Alameda amounts from 2016, but does not include the staff proposal; discussed the number of units; stated large properties are being treated the same as a smaller mom and pop landlord; inquired why the City would give 100% reimbursement to a company like Blackstone and if that is actually the staff recommendation.
Special Counsel responded the amount is 100%; stated some cities base the amount on the number of units, such as Mountain View.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she is not interested in reimbursing Blackstone 100% and is not sure about 100% of the expenses being passed on to the tenant even with smaller property owners; having the chart include the proposal versus what the City currently has would be helpful.
Councilmember Knox White stated changes would need to be made for him to support the CIP; the way the language is written about the 8% total pass through would allow a savvy landlord to bank and take up the full 5% of a pass through; language should be written to require the use of the AGA before the pass through or at least not allow banking in years where the percent is hit to prevent compounding further forward; he received a lot of emails from people requesting pass through not be implemented, but it already exists; things like painting, a new roof or stairs are routine maintenance; pass through should be allowed for projects that are necessary due to fire, flood, earthquake or natural disaster if the landlord does not receive reimbursement from insurance; a landlord should not collect rent for 30 years, and then decide a new roof is needed and ask tenants to pay for it; being a landlord is a business; as a part of any business, money has to be saved, put aside or borrowed to deal with large capital improvements; he would want to carve out Items 1, 4, 9 and 10 on the list of capital improvements unless something happened; Item 7 language should be changed to new improvements and upgrades that meet or exceed accessibility standards; there should be a different definition of hardship; HUD defines reasonable rent between 30 and 40%; hardship should be 40%; he does not understand passing though interest and would like any mention of interest rates removed.
***
(22- ) Councilmember Daysog moved approval of all Councilmembers having 3 more minutes to speak.
Councilmember Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.
***
Vice Mayor Vella questioned whether landlords who have owned a rental property for 30 years versus people who have just purchased a rental property should be subject to the same terms; stated that she is supportive of removing interest and differentiating landlords with five units versus more than five units; she also has a concern about making the program so burdensome and cumbersome that the City will be spending a lot of time doing reviews; discussed an example of lead paint and lead hazards.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she did not hear Councilmember Knox White make a distinction about the number of units or when a landlord purchased the property.
Councilmember Knox White expressed support for looking at both sides; stated tenants could have a hardship, not be able to pay CIP and should be protected; owners need a reasonable rate of return; a new landlord might have a tenant drastically under market and end up with a surprise project; staff should work on said cases, which are probably few and far between.
Vice Mayor Vella outlined her concerns about assumptions being made about landlords; stated that she previously requested the number of Ellis Act evictions that have happened in the last few years; being too stringent might prevent people from making improvements.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would categorize the removal of lead based paint as different from repainting since it relates to Health and Safety.
Councilmember Daysog stated a range of issues are being raised tonight, which focuses the discussion; he would like to get input from stakeholders, including small mom and pop landlords, tenants and other landlords; different things have been raised; staff should go back and work with stakeholders to get input.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated outreach efforts have been done.
Councilmember Daysog stated Councilmembers Knox White and Herrera Spencer have raised points; more input is needed on said issues.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated it takes effort to bring something back again and again; Council should fashion a motion to move forward; safeguards are in place for hardship cases; there are also provisions for landlords to have a reasonable rate of return.
Special Counsel stated staff reached out to both tenants and landlord groups; revisions suggested by Council tonight were not discussed.
Councilmember Knox White stated that he is not saying anything different than things he has said at past meetings, which is not reflected in the staff report; he supports moving forward with the first reading; items missed can be addressed at the second reading and sent back at that point; there have been four or five Council meetings; it is time to move forward.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Councilmember Knox White would make a motion to approve the first reading of the ordinance with his suggested amendments.
Councilmember Knox White responded in the affirmative; stated the motion would include Vice Mayor Vella’s point about including lead paint abatement among the Health and Safety list of fire, flood, earthquake or natural disaster.
In response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft’s request to restate the issues raised by Councilmember Knox White for the motion, the City Clerk stated the total pass through would be 8%; if the full 5% is taken for the AGA, the pass cannot be banked; painting, new roof or routine maintenance would not be included; Items 1, 4, 9 and 10 would be carved out; Item 7 would be changed to new accessibility improvements; hardships would be set at 40%; the interest rate would be removed; lead paint would be added under the Health and Safety section with all of the natural disasters.
In response to Councilmember Daysog’s inquiry, Special Council outlined the 40% hardship threshold.
Councilmember Knox White proposed changed were displayed and reviewed.
Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the item with the displayed changes.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft second the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated the changes are substantive and should be discussed.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the proposed changes are so substantive that it no longer qualifies as a first reading.
Special Counsel responded that he does not think another first reading is required; stated there is an opportunity to discuss the changes with stakeholders before the second reading.
Vice Mayor Vella stated that she cannot support the motion as proposed; she does not agree with removing the items from the list of capital improvements; the items were discussed extensively and are Health and Safety issues; she thinks differentiating between the number of units is important, similar to Mountain View; the City should offer protection from large scale investors.
***
(22- ) Councilmember Daysog moved approval of adding 2 minutes for all Councilmembers.
Councilmember Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.
***
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft outlined Mountain View regulations.
Vice Mayor Vella stated landlords with 20 or more units would not need 100% cost recovery.
In response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft’s inquiry regarding administering the ordinance, Vice Mayor Vella stated Mountain View’s regulation is based off of the number of units on the parcel; the level of reimbursement that can be amortized over time differs for one to five units, six to 20 units and 21 or more units; a large corporate landlord with billions of dollars in profit could replace a roof or paint a building and have 100% cost recovery amortized by tenants.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Mountain View’s rent provisions were adopted by Charter amendment and there have not been any applications for capital improvements under either of the two methods since March, 2021.
Vice Mayor Vella stated that she is not proposing the entire Mountain View regulation; she would like Council to consider creating a tiered system; it does not need to be the same as Mountain View; there is a difference between a property that has more than 20 units versus less than 20 units; the amount of recovery is different for large scale properties.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted there are more units to spread cost across; the modification to the hardship definition would protect renters who are burdened; inquired whether the Interim City Manager has any thoughts.
The Interim City Manager stated everyone is having trouble landing on a solution; he supports coming up with something now, rather than waiting until September; he defers to the attorneys regarding the language.
The City Attorney stated it sounds like Council wants staff to do more work; adding a tiered structure would prevent a first reading tonight; the earlier proposals could be done as a first reading; if Council wants a tiered structure to return, the matter could come back within eight months.
In response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft’s inquiry, the Rent Program Director stated a two tiered system and disallowing banking in certain situations would require additional staff time and monitoring, which could result in increased program fees.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired what happens if Council cannot reach a majority vote.
The City Attorney responded if Council is not able to reach the majority vote, staff would take all the comments received tonight, go back to the community to have some more discussions and probably bring the matter back to Council next year; stated there is currently a CIP program in place; staff would be happy to take direction and come back in 2023.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated additional protection would be given up.
The City Attorney stated given that there have been almost no CIP applications submitted and there is a declaration of emergency in place, staff can come back.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated whenever staff comes back, it should be two separate items.
The City Attorney stated staff is happy to bring two separate staff reports on the same night.
Vice Mayor Vella stated that she would support Councilmember Knox White’s motion if he agreed not to remove the sections she mentioned.
Councilmember Knox White stated that he would not support allowing 100% of the pass through for everything on the current list; he would support 25% pass through or something similar.
Special Counsel stated reduction to anything less than 100%, would need to return because it is a fairly substantive change.
In response to Councilmember Knox White’s inquiry why the items can be removed, but the percent cannot be decreased, Special Counsel stated the expectations from the landlord's point of view was that they would be able to recover 100%.
***
(22- ) Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of giving the Vice Mayor 2 more minutes.
Councilmember Knox White seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the motion could be amended to set everybody's clock to two minutes, to which Councilmembers Herrera Spencer and Knox White responded in the affirmative.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.
***
Vice Mayor Vella expressed concern about determining which repairs relate to habitability; stated the system should not be so cumbersome that upgrades are not made; Alameda has a lot of old houses that need upgrades; staff spent a long time to prevent increased bureaucracy and costs and to find a usable program.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like to see that hardship definition change; Council’s direction is for staff to come back with suggestions heard tonight after meeting with stakeholders; inquired when staff would return.
The City Attorney responded staff heard the various comments and will come back in 2023.
(22- ) Public Hearing to Consider Resolution No. 15947, “Amending Master Fee Resolution No. 12191 to Add and Revise Fees.” Adopted.
The Finance Director gave a brief presentation.
In response to Councilmember Herrera Spencer’s inquiry about having a red line, the Finance Director stated historically, staff has not brought a red line; she plans to bring one next time.
Vice Mayor Vella moved approval [adoption of the resolution].
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.
(22- ) Recommendation to Provide Direction to Staff on Responses Received to the Request for Proposals for Leasing Building 11 Located at 1190 West Tower Avenue and Building 19 Located at 2175 Monarch Street, and Direction to Staff to Negotiate Leases with Prospective Tenants.
***
(22- ) The City Clerk stated the four companies would like three minutes to give presentations, which requires a vote.
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of giving each company 3 minutes.
Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.
***
***
(22- ) Vice Mayor Vella moved approval of reducing the amount of time for public comment to 90 seconds.
Councilmember Knox White second the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.
***
The Community Development Director gave a presentation and showed a map.
Dani Gomes, Astra, gave a Power Point presentation.
Elizabeth Goodine, Pyka, gave a brief presentation and showed a video.
Maxwell Brodie, Rain Industries, gave a Power Point presentation.
Richard Jenkins, Saildrone, gave a Power Point presentation.
Played a recording of Chief Cox, an Alameda resident and Firefighter, supporting Rain Industries: Daniel Wholey, Rain Industries.
Stated Building 19 should go to another alcohol producer; discussed decreased activity on Spirits Alley and past promises made to business on Spirits Alley: Tod Hickman.
Expressed concern about the lease approach; discussed selling assets, building infrastructure and getting properties on the tax rolls; stated landlords need to understand tenants and be responsive to their issues: Joe Ernst, SRM Partners.
***
(22- ) Councilmember Knox White moved approval of extending the meeting past 12:30 a.m. to hear the speakers and allow Council to provide direction to staff.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she will not be supporting the motion; the issue is very important; expressed concern about cutting off everyone.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1.
***
Played a recording of Christine Yu, Alameda resident, supporting Rain Industries: Katie Ralston.
Expressed support for Rain Industries; discussed wildfires; urged Council to vote for Rain Industries: Torben Ostergaard, Spinnaker Insurance Company.
Discussed the control tower, the wildfire crisis and Rain Industries: Ephriam Nowak, Rain Industries.
Expressed support for Rain Industries; discussed her husband’s commute and Building 19: Heidi Padgett, Alameda.
Expressed support for Rain Industries leasing Building 19; discussed the need for the technology, surviving a wildfire, the City helping innovative companies and climate change: Gabriella Nowak, Alameda.
Outlined DBL Partners’ investments, including Rain Industries; urged Council to support Rain Industries: Nancy Pfund, DBL Partners.
Discussed the City’s responsibility is to improve and replace the infrastructure at Alameda Point: Madlen Saddik, Chamber of Commerce.
Discussed the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program and vehicle trips of new businesses: Jim Strehlow, Alameda.
Vice Mayor Vella stated a posting was done in accordance with the State Lands Act; Saildrone has been a fantastic tenant at Alameda Point; she would like the City to continue to work with Saildrone; there are other buildings and possibilities at Alameda Point; she hopes some of the potential tenants might look at other opportunities; she supports the staff recommendation relative to Saildrone.
Councilmember Knox White stated that he is interested in giving direction to staff to come back to allow Council to have a conversation about sale versus leasing; the plan for the former Base has always been to build out the infrastructure in order to get the land off the City’s rolls, get it into private ownership and on the tax rolls; he has questions about guiding principles; Council should give clear direction, rather than limping from building to building; the City has an embarrassment of riches in terms of the folks interested in the buildings; when the matter comes back, a second item should be what to do with these two buildings and whether staff recommends Saildrone; the City can only pick two business, but should have a clear runway to support the other businesses as well; the choice will be hard.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she is very interested in having a bigger discussion about sale versus lease and promises made to Spirits Alley; if a decision is made to do leases, it is important to look how the unique buildings support the business; she is not sure that she would ever go with leasing, but, if done, she would support Rain because of the uniqueness; in regards to Building 11, she has concerns about Astra; Astra’s stock has dropped; people need to pay attention to the value of the company; if Building 11 is leased, she would be more interested in looking at Pyka because of her concerns about Astra; she also likes the idea of Alameda being a place with innovative companies; there is plenty more space for office buildings, rather than giving up some of these buildings and not supporting extremely innovative startups.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he looks forward to talking further with staff about the different choices before Council; if the applicants want to submit information, he looks forward to receiving that as well.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would have liked a more robust staff report; she thinks the City needs to have a conversation and a Council policy about leasing versus sale; she is very supportive of two companies; Saildrone has been in the City for 10 years and has been not only an excellent tenant, but also really innovative; it is hard to favor one company over another, but she is looking for people who are doing really innovative things and are making a difference on the planet; discussed Saildrone; stated that she is also very excited about Rain, which is doing really transformative work that is so relevant to the State; she does not know if another building might work for Rain; she visited Rain last week and has visited all the companies, which all have unique needs; she would want to explore finding a place for Rain.
Vice Mayor Vella stated that she supports having a conversation creating some sort of Council policy regarding lease versus sale and providing more clarity about what Council is looking for relative to leasing; the City has gone down quite a far road, so she supports giving a little more clarity to staff about potential proposals.
In response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft’s inquiry, the Interim City Manager stated there have been a number of requests for information the last couple of days that staff has been talking about how to pull together, including transport of certain materials and the big policy question of sales versus lease; an economic consultant will be engaged to provide more information to Council; the matter will return in the fall; hopefully, something can be done in September.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would like to have a discussion about Spirits Alley.
The Interim City Manager questioned whether the discussion of Spirits Alley would be a separate discussion.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft indicated that she believes it would be separate.
Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed concern that a 10 year lease to a tenant not related to Spirits Alley would be a decision by default.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed concern about relying on a speaker without knowing whether there is a policy.
Councilmember Knox White stated direction should include staff addressing whether there is a Spirits Alley policy when the matter comes back; stated that he is not aware of any policies; numerous businesses in the area are not related; he is open to addressing the matter as a part of the conversation around Building 19, but does not think a whole new conversation is needed.
The Assistant Community Development Director concurred with Councilmember Knox White about buildings being occupied by non-Spirit Alley type users; stated the buildings are only available because Google chose not to move forward; a mix of spirits and office type users has been discussed; workers would potentially frequent Spirits Alley; Council has expressed that the City should not have one type of business because it would be vulnerable to market changes
Vice Mayor Vella stated that she is not aware of any policy; if one is found, it should be provided to Council; listed other businesses; stated the City has been working towards having a mix; the conversation about leasing versus renting will lend itself to the overall vision; she is impressed with both Pyka and Rain as well.
Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Interim City Manager has indicated the matter will return no later than October.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
Not heard.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
Not heard.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
None.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
Not heard.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 12:57 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.