Loading...
2021-07-06 Regular CC MinutesRegular Meeting Alameda City Council July 6, 2021 1 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY- -JULY 6, 2021- -7:00 P.M. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 8:31 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 AGENDA CHANGES (21-444) The City Clerk announced the Police policies [paragraph no 21-460] was withdrawn. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would like to move the Housing Element [paragraph no 21-457] as far up in the agenda as possible due to the appeal filing timeline; expressed concern for potential delays. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she will do her best to move the meeting along; expressed concern for matters needing to be heard fr om the previous meeting; she would like to ensure they are heard. Councilmember Knox White announced 93 participants via Zoom; stated many participants are likely present for the Housing Element matter; expressed support for moving the matter up in the agenda. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Housing Element is the first substantive matter on the Regular Agenda discussion; the preceding matters should move fairly quickly; expressed concern for the matters being pushed to another meeting date; noted the July 20th meeting has a full agenda. The City Clerk stated staff believes the Delinquent Waste [paragraph no 21-455] and Landscape and Lighting [paragraph no 21-456] matters can be combined and should not take long. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like to try to get through the matters as- agendized; noted the changes can be reconsidered should the preceding matters take longer than 15 minutes. PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS (21-445) Announcement of the Porch of July Contest Winners. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft announced the winners. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 6, 2021 2 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (21-446) Jay Garfinkle, Alameda, stated it has been three months since a death occurred in Police custody; the autopsy had been completed in early May, then passed on for peer review; any competent peer review of the autopsy findings could have been completed by this time; the City appears to be stalling; the City declared an emergency in the last year; several actions were taken under the emergency declaration; the emergency declaration has been extended; discussed parking and traffic on Webster Street and Park Street; Council must review the declaration every 60 days; discussed funding for local businesses; expressed support for a report being provided for the funding. (21-447) Aimee Barnes, Alameda, discussed a pedestrian fatality at the intersection of Walnut Street and Lincoln Avenue; stated it is frustrating to have a fatality create the traffic priority for the problematic intersection; noted a similar issue exists at the intersection of Fifth Street and Haight Avenue; she has repeatedly requested traffic calming measures at the intersection; discussed a collision occurring at the intersection; expressed concern for the intersection’s risk to children due to a near by park; the intersection is also a thoroughfare for people speeding between Lincoln Avenue and Central Avenue; expressed concern over an increase in traffic. Urged Council approve a four-way stop or other traffic calming. (21-448) Zac Bowling, Alameda, discussed the new Seaplane Lagoon ferry terminal opening from July 1st; noted ferry service has reopened across most of the island. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Herrera Spencer requested the Council meeting dates [paragraph no. 21-463] be removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested any items pulled from the Consent Calendar be heard at the end of the regular agenda. Councilmember Knox White moved approval of moving the Council meeting date resolutions to end of the regular item. Councilmember Herrera Spencer 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. Discussed the Amended Employment Agreement [paragraph no. 21-462]; stated that he understands agreements differ in the public sector from the private sector; noted section 9 appears unusual; the practice is unorthodox; expressed support for extending the privileges to all City employees; discussed selling of vacation days: Matt Reid, Alameda. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 6, 2021 3 Discussed the Amended Employment Agreement; stated that he would like the rules which have been applied to landlords to be the same as City employees : Jay Garfinkle, Alameda. The City Clerk announced the modifications to the City Attorney contract [paragraph no. 21-462]. Councilmember Herrera Spencer requested the City Attorney contract be removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Herrera Spencer 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.] (*21-449) Minutes of the Special Meeting Held on May 20, 2021, the Continued May 18, 2021 Special Meeting Held on May 25, 2021, and the Regular Meeting Held on June 1, 2021. Approved. (*21-450) Ratified bills in the amount of $4,844,766.59. (*21-451) Recommendation to Modify Eligibility Requirements for Non-Profit Organizations Applying for Alameda Strong Community Relief Fund by Including Paycheck Protection Program Recipients and Adding a Requirement Related to the Maximum Number of Employees Employed by the Non-Profit Organization. Accepted. (*21-452) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Two-Year Agreement, Substantially in the Form of the Attached Agreement, with the Option of Three One-Year Extensions for a Total Five-Year Compensation Amount Not to Exceed $420,000 and No More than $90,000 in a Single Fiscal Year with HouseKeys to Provide Inclusionary Housing Program Management and Compliance Services to the City of Alameda. Accepted. (*21-453) Resolution No. 15793, “Approving a Final Map and Authorizing Execution of a Subdivision Improvement Agreement for Tract 8591, Bay 37, as a Condition to Final Map Approval (Alameda Landing Waterfront Development).” Adopted. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS (21-454) Public Hearing to Consider Resolution No. 15794, “Amending Master Fee Resolution No. 12191 to Add and Revise Fees.” Adopted. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would like to keep in mind the options offered in the staff report; requested clarification on the options presented. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 6, 2021 4 The City Manager inquired whether the clarification needed is in relation to the Fire fees. Councilmember Herrera Spencer responded that she would like clarification on more than just the Fire fees; stated there are alternatives as to when certain fees are put into effect; expressed support for clarification provided on the Fire fees. The Finance Director stated there are no increases to the current Master Fee Schedule however, there are changes to the Schedules for fiscal year 2021 -2022; the first change are hourly rate increases for City Attorney Office staff and Police; noted Special Events have been adjusted to reflect personnel costs; the second change is associated with the Recreation and Parks Department; the third change is the Rent Stabilization Program Fee study which had been recommended on a tier fee structure; the fourth change is a Planning, Building and Transportation Department change to no longer impose a fee f or accessory dwelling units; the fifth change is for a repeal of Alameda Point Development Fees; and the sixth change are Fire Department fee increase recommendations , both full increases or half increases; noted Council may decide not to increase Fire fees due to COVID-19. The City Manager requested the original fee increase to be highlighted as well as the half increase; noted fees had been increased prior to his arrival at the City in 2019; stated the fees are based on a Fee Study and a report of costs for service; the fee increase had previously been delayed due to COVID -19; the reason for the recommendation of a half fee increase is due to the fee increase being substantial; a no fee increase due to COVID-19 would also be understandable. Councilmember Herrera Spencer requested clarification for the fees. The Finance Director stated the fees are highlighted on page 34-38 on the fee schedule; staff can either increase as-is or forego the increase and wait until the next fiscal year to implement changes. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired the impacts of each option. The Finance Director responded the Fire Department will receive less revenue for services should Council only approve the half increase; stated the department may have to reduce expenditures. The City Manager stated the General Fund currently subsidizes the costs; the proposed fees will bring the proposed amounts in line with being full recovered; full cost recovery will take longer should the half increase be approved. The Finance Director stated the increase is about 9%. Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the ambulance is included in the fee Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 6, 2021 5 schedule. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft responded the ambulance rates are noted as being established by contract with Alameda County Emergency Med ical Services (EMS); the City of Alameda follows the County’s adopted fee schedule; new rates are anticipated mid-July. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated many people have expressed concern for bills with large amounts after ambulance services have been called; she would like Council to look into the issue of ambulance fees; her preference is to postpone fee increases as much as possible; it is important to recognize that future hardships are unknown. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the ambulance rates are e stablished by a contract with Alameda County EMS; inquired whether the contract is housed with Alameda Fire Department or City of Alameda and how the rate could be changed. The City Manager responded the ambulance fee could be kept at the County rate; stated staff can bring back a review of the rates in September; the Fire fees can then be brought back along with the ambulance fees in the fall with the other rates being approved. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Councilmember Herrera Spencer is look ing for a reduction in ambulance fees. Councilmember Herrera Spencer responded in the affirmative; stated she thinks it is interesting to have the victim billed for someone else calling an ambulance; expressed support for Council looking at the fees and f iguring out a way to address the cost concerns. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for the City Manager’s recommendation to have staff take a closer look at the Fire fees and return to Council in September with a proposal. Councilmember Daysog moved approval of the Master Fee Schedule, with the Fire fees to return to Council in September, including adoption of related resolution. 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. (21-455) Public Hearing to Consider Collection of Delinquent Integrated Waste Management Accounts via Property Tax Bills. The Public Works Coordinator gave a brief presentation. Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the staff recommendation. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 6, 2021 6 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. (21-456) Public Hearing to Consider Resolution No. 15795, “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. Councilmember Daysog recused himself and left the dais. The Management Analyst gave a brief presentation. Councilmember Knox White moved approval of adoption of the resolution. Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. [Absent: Councilmember Daysog – 1.] (21-457) Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of Resolution of Intent to Prepare a Housing Element Update for the Period 2023 -2031 that Maximizes the Use of City- Owned Land at Alameda Point and Encinal Terminals and Rezones Certain Sites and Districts to Permit Multifamily Housing and Residential Densities of at Least 30 Units per Acre Contrary to City Charter Article 26. Not adopted; and (21-457 A) Consider Directing Staff to File an Appeal of the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation. The Planning, Building, and Transportation Director gave a brief presentation. Councilmember Knox White inquired whether there is a policy for adopting the plan to use Multi-Family (MF) overlay zoning or whether the use is enforced by statement. The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded staff understands that the MF overlay must be used in order to comply with state law; stated staff would like to know whether Council would not like to pursue the strategy of using MF overlay, as used in the past two Housing Elements; staff cannot wait to adjust the strategy; staff would like to ensure Council understands and agrees that staff should pursue the same approach as the previous two cycles. Councilmember Knox White stated that he is not sure he sees the breakdown provided by staff in the resolution provided by Councilmember Herrera Spencer. Councilmember Daysog stated the City already has an MF overlay; the approach is not new in terms of meeting State obligations; inquired whether the City is contemplating a new zoning code or category; he understands some sites which are currently zoned C2PD might be labeled as a new zoning category. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 6, 2021 7 The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded the same strategy used two years ago to meet the regional housing need will need to be applied to additional sites; the zoning code will not be new, however, new zoning will be added to sites in Alameda; the zoning can be changed to multi-family overlay as an adjustment to C2, and both are simple to achieve in removing the multi -family prohibition and allowing at least 30 units per acre; Council may amend the zoning or provide a multi-family overlay; the effect and result will be the same. Stated that she supports the staff recommendation; urged Council to prepare a resolution of intent to begin the Housing Element process consistent with the language listed in the staff report; expressed support for the Housing Element process in Alameda over the last two cycles; urged Council continue to submit conforming Housing Elements; she would like Council to do everything required in order to submit a Housing Element consistent with State law including using the multi-family overlay and perform zoning changes where necessary; discussed Article 26 being in conflict with State Housing Element law; urged Council to not appeal the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) designation for Alameda: Sophia DeWitt, Alameda Resident and East Bay Housing Organization (EBHO). Discussed Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) requirements concerning the side inventory; stated some of the areas are high resources; lawyers and past Councilmembers have stated Article 26 is in conflict with State law; he is favor of declaring such conflict in the resolution; California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has not responded to the City’s request for comments made by Paul McDougall; it is unique to see such huge MF overlays; questioned the reason not to up-zone underlying zoning and codes instead of having large MF overlays; expressed concern for issues with the resulting wording; discussed the proposed resolution from Councilmember Herrera Spencer; he does not think the proposal will meet AFFH rules; urged Council review a presentation from Paul McDougall; RHNA appeals are often a waste of time and staff resources : Zac Bowling, Alameda. Expressed support for Alameda making a good faith effort to meet the RHNA numbers; stated much work is still needed; urged Council to focus City staff time on the work at hand and not to waste resources on appealing the City’s RHNA numbers to Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG); there is only one way to reduce Alameda’s RHNA numbers in forcing the allocation onto other Bay Area cities; the Housing Opportunities Site Draft is fascinating to read; noted R1 zoning is not mentioned in the Opportunity Site list; urged the City to think of ways to allow all zones contribute to different housing sizes over time: Drew Dara-Abrams, Alameda. Stated the Housing Element for Alameda should be compliant with State law; the Housing Element should be aligned with values, equity and justice in the statement “everybody belongs here;” the City will not know what has been lost in the consequence of redlining due to certain housing types being explicitly disallowed; there have been Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 6, 2021 8 consequences for families as well as the vibrancy of the community; discussed neighbors that have moved away due to displacement; the City has a responsibility to the past to build a better community and ensuring residential zoning results in 5,300 units between 2023 and 2031; urged Council adopt the staff r esolution: Gaylon Parsons, Alameda. Expressed support for the City staff resolution; stated it is important that affordable and multi-family housing is dispersed around the City and not pressed onto the base; AFFH ensures the benefits and opportunities of having neighbors of different class statuses and ages; urged Council consider the future when investing in creating the needed community: Grover Wehman-Brown, Alameda. Discussed a letter submitted; expressed support for filing the appealfor the Planning Board recommendation to delete the Article 26 clause; stated alternative language should be included should Council wish to leave the clause,; he would like input from the City Attorney as to the necessity of including a statement; State law only partially preempts Article 26; the overall strategy presented in the staff report is good; expressed support for further promotion of Alameda Point and Encinal Terminal sites, including a request from the Navy to remove the cap on Alameda Point : Christopher Buckley, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society. Urged Council to direct staff to develop a comprehensive game plan to successfully renegotiate Alameda Point’s residential cap with the United States Navy; stated there is agreement in adopting a Housing Element which maximizes the use of City owned land at Alameda Point; the space is a tool for meeting the RHNA number; it is clear that the City cannot maximize the use of City owned land at Alameda Point without lifting unreasonable and outdated caps on housing units; the effort must begin now and be on a parallel track with preparing the Housing Element; expressed support for adding language to the resolution which acknowledges the City taking action to renegotiate obsolete caps; urged Council consider each city having an obligation to address the housing crisis: Donna Fletcher, Alameda. Expressed support for filing an appeal; stated the State hands out numbers expecting cities to appeal; the process is a negotiation and it is time for the City to take the nex t step; expressed support for the Navy lifting caps at Alameda Point; stated the projections for growth in California should consider sustained growth over the next 20 to 30 years by demanding zoning laws be dropped to support multi -family housing; discussed slowed growth due to the economy: Matt Reid, Alameda. Expressed support for appealing the RHNA allocation numbers; urged the City pursue the matter further; stated the issue is simple and Alameda is limited in geography; the City is primarily an island with a peninsula; there are not enough bridges or tunnels to accommodate the proposed growth of thousands of units; urged Council have Alameda join other cities in petitioning a reduction in [RHNA] numbers; discussed a study from the Embarcadero Institute: Carmen Reid, Alameda. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 6, 2021 9 Discussed California’s water shortage; questioned how to solve the water problem for the entire state; whether California has enough resources for everyone to live in the state; urged Council file for the appeal; stated California cannot accommodate everyone: Rosalinda Fortuna, Alameda. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Council should first have a discussion and vote on whether or not to file an appeal of the RHNA allocation. The City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated staff recommends discussing the appeal first due to time sensitivity. Councilmember Daysog expressed support for Council discussion time set for fifteen minutes; stated there are three to four incredible and meaty topics which could each be agenda items of their own; each topic should have an in-depth analysis; nine minutes is not enough speaking time. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is willing to see how far Council can get on the first discussion topic; she is willing to consider a motion to extend time when the need arises; Councilmember Herrera Spencer’s resolution is titled: “Resolution of Intent to Appeal…;” questioned whether a motion is desired. Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of filing an appeal of the prescribed RHNA numbers. Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember Knox White inquired whether the appeal will provide direction to staff as to what is being appealed and how. Councilmember Herrera Spencer responded page two of the resolut ion lists reasons related to land mass size. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the previously approved projects resulting in construction of approximately 1,522 housing units should suffice as the RHNA allocation. Councilmember Herrera Spencer responded in the negative; stated the language had been pulled from the original resolution; she kept as much of the original resolution, as - supported and added new language. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Councilmember Herrera Spencer is proposing any RHNA allocation for Alameda. Councilmember Herrera Spencer responded in the negative; stated she does not have a specific number; she can support a discussion of a number to set; she does not know whether Council proposes a number of its own or whether th e RHNA allocation is simply Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 6, 2021 10 to be appealed. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated a grounds for the appeal is typically provided; requested clarification for the process. The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated a stronger appeal provides a recommended number; there is a very low chance of success in the appeal; staff is looking for direction toward [appeal] arguments to make and the particular allocation number desired; staff has a couple days to put together the appeal on behalf of Council. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether an alternative RHNA number around 3,300 exists to which the Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded in the negative. Councilmember Knox White stated that he plans to support the appeal; he does not plan to support the resolution as-written; requested a friendly amendment to the motion in listing the following three reasons for the basis of the appeal: 1) 60% of voters recently voted to uphold the adopted Charter provision which prohibits multi-family housing from being built making the RHNA allocation thwarting the will of the Alameda voters, 2) Alameda’s uniqueness as an island of the San Francisco Bay is subject to sea-level and emerging groundwater issues, liquefaction and loss of access to the mainland should an earthquake destroy bridges and [access] tube, and 3) the City’s transportation and infrastructure constraints; the City is an island with limited ingress, egress and water supply transported by pipelines on the mainland; unlike many East Bay cities, Alameda lacks direct access to Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) within its borders; the reasons mirror the comments received from the community in requests for an appeal. Councilmember Herrera Spencer accepted the friendly amendment; stated she is ha ppy to include the reasons listed; questioned whether the reasons listed include the significant geological seismic issues; the language listed in her resolution is broader and includes more points and reasons; she is happy to provide a number for the allocation. Councilmember Knox White stated that he is ok with the methodology; the City’s uniqueness should call for a proposed adjustment. Councilmember Daysog expressed support for items 2 and 3 raised by Councilmember Knox White; stated item 1 is more nuanced in understanding the obligation for multi- family housing; the City has been meeting the obligation through the housing overlay and density bonuses with the context of Measure A. Vice Mayor Vella stated that she will not be supporting the motion t o appeal; she appreciates the position from other Councilmembers in upholding the will of the people and voters; there have been a number of subsequent presentations from regional bodies and other groups about addressing the heart of issues raised; support for the appeal is apparent; expressed concern for the lack of success in the appeal process; Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 6, 2021 11 staff time will be spent on the matter; she does not like taking frivolous actions however, she understands the need for clarity. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she does not support an appeal; she appreciates the uniqueness of the City being an island , however, the “uniqueness club” is not an exclusive one, and there are cities up and down the state arguing a different uniqueness; the reason HCD has rules put forth is due to cities not meeting obligations to provide housing; the housing crisis continues to worsen; outlined housing project delays and expenses; she would prefer Council look for solutions; HCD will not let the housing allocations slide; HCD will take the unused portion of housing allocation and place it upon another city; allocation appeals can be made from other cities onto Alameda and can cause a slippery slope; the grounds for an appeal are not strong; outlined previous arguments presented by other cities; she is surprised and disappointed in the majority support for filing an appeal. Councilmember Herrera Spencer questioned whether Councilmember Knox White included portions of the City being infilled by the San Francisco Bay and are more vulnerable to seismic events and liquefaction. Councilmember Daysog stated the appeal will be strengthened with a number included for the allocation; the last few allocations have been set at roughly 1,730 units; the new allocation is set at roughly 5,300; expressed support for splitting the difference and setting the units at 2,650 which is substantially above previous the 1,733 allocation; expressed support for the allocation appeal request being set at 2,650. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the remaini ng units will be sent to a named- specific city. Councilmember Daysog responded the remaining units are not his responsibility; stated the state will be responsible for finding where the remaining units will go; his responsibility is to specify a number of units which Alameda can bear; proposed a friendly amendment to the motion of setting the allocation appeal at 2,650 units. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested the motion be re-stated. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that her understanding is a motion to approve filing an appeal, including the grounds proposed by Councilmember Knox White. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested the motion be clarified for the record. Councilmember Knox White stated the three grounds for the appeal are as follows: 1) 60% of voters recently upheld the voter adopted Charter provision that prohibits multifamily housing from being built. Meeting our RHNA allocation means thwarting the will of Alameda voters; 2) Alameda’s uniqueness as an island in San Francisco bay, subject to sea level-rise and emergent groundwater, liquefaction and loss of access to Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 6, 2021 12 the mainland in an earthquake should destroy Alameda’s bridges and tubes; and 3) Transportation & Infrastructure: Alameda is an island with limited ingress and egress and water supply transported from pipelines on the mainland. Unlike many East Bay cities, Alameda lacks direct access to BART within their borders. Councilmember Daysog stated that his friendly amendment to ground 1 is to place a comma at the end while adding: “… recognizing that the City of Alameda has adopted the Density Bonus law and the multi-family housing overlay to meet State law regarding multi-family housing and RHNA obligations.” Councilmember Knox White stated Density Bonus should be omitted as it is not allo wed to be used in the RHNA determinations; mentioning the matter in the appeal will only confuse things and appear like the City does not know what it is doing. Councilmember Daysog stated Density Bonus law is at the heart of modifying Measure A; the Density Bonus has two components, one of which is regulatory and allows a project to be free from Measure A, and the second is a quantitative formula; the Density Bonus allows projects to be free from Measure A . Councilmember Knox White stated Council adopted a multi-family overlay to get around the State regulations; the Density Bonus law allows the City to go above the multi -family overlay; RHNA and Housing Element law do not allow the City to use the Density Bonus to achieve RHNA numbers; the letter appealing the allocation is not going to look sincere or authoritative when including things which show that the law is not understood. Councilmember Daysog stated every time a project proponent wants to build multi - family housing project, a Density Bonus trigger must first be pulled; the part of the Density Bonus trigger being pulled speaks to getting relief from the regulatory local regimes which constrict affordable housing; the second part consists of a mathematical formula which can increase the number of units; the Density Bonus law is a critical part of the City meeting the affordable housing obligations; outlined the staff report calculation of Density Bonus law; meeting affordable housing numbers is needed at 36 units per acre; the units are already calculated. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council has a couple of choices to make; Council can include everything included in the matter, or vote on an appeal which includes a reference to Density Bonus law and multi-family overlay or vote on an appeal which does not include either; Council may also choose to include the proposed unit amount. Councilmember Daysog stated it is important for Council to adopt a number to include in the appeal; the number should be 2,650; expressed support for adding the language: “…, recognizing that the City has employed the State Density Bonus law into its own local ordinances as well as created a multi-family overlay, in an effort to build multi- family housing;” the language strips reference to the RHNA aspect. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 6, 2021 13 Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would like to pivot to the Planning, Building and Transportation Director and see if sense can be made of the Council direction provided. The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated clarity to the City-wide prohibition related to Measure Z is to be provided in acknowledging that the City does allow multi-family housing through the overlay and Density Bonus; staff will need to not use the clarity as an argument as to why the appeal for 2,650 units will be al lowed; noted State law states Density Bonus cannot be counted on for RHNA numbers; stated a developer may take advantage of the Density Bonus however, the Density Bonus cannot be counted on; staff can write the appeal to include the clear distinction. Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether staff feels as though sufficient direction has been provided from Council, to which the Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded in the affirmative. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there is agreement in including the 2,650 unit allocation in the appeal. Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for the number. Councilmember Knox White stated that he prefers no number be included however, he will support the 2,650 units being included. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether staff has input on the proposed units. The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated staff will include the units as requested and will explain the determination as recommended by Councilmember Daysog. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the changes are acceptable to Councilmember Daysog as the seconder of the motion, to which Councilmember Daysog responded in the affirmative. On the call for the questions, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: No; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: No. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2. The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated there are three different resolutions on the table and all three have common denominators in supporting a Housing Element which is in compliance with State law, using multi -family housing as necessary to meet the RHNA, and maximizing the use of City land; the resolutions differ in how each characterizes between Measure A and the Charter; noted the Planning Board has stripped the language; questioned whether City Council would like to strip the language of the resolution as well; the staff resolution can be adopted should Council Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 6, 2021 14 not wish to strip the language,; a partially stripped resolution has been proposed by Christopher Buckley; noted Councilmember Herrera Spencer’s resolution adds emphasis on the need to renegotiate the Navy housing cap in an attempt to eliminate the cap; stated the staff report outlines the current Navy housing cap allowance of 1,200 units; renegotiating the cap will be an attempt to get the maximum amount of units possible at Alameda Point; a variety of constraints exist at Alameda Point which will have to be worked through; removing the housing cap is a good idea from staff’s perspective; there are fair housing aspects of State Housing law; placing all units at Alameda Point is not a strategy; Alameda Point does have a lot of vacant land which is underutilized; Alameda Point allows for 25% affordable housing and has a strong case for maximizing the space; staff is looking for direction and confirmation of how Council would like to lead the Housing Element process. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she agrees with removing the Navy housing ca p; it does not make sense to pay a premium for adding more housing at Alameda Point however, the approach may not be the wisest; signaling the Navy by including language in the resolution may not be wise; noted there are Congress members and lobbyists that can help to ensure the negotiations are as successful and effective as possible; questioned whether the same goal can be accomplished by providing clear direction to staff to begin exploring a pursuit of lifting the Navy housing cap; stated there is likel y a lot of political support for the matter. The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated staff can accomplish the task either way; Council may provide direction to staff; a successful and quick negation is desired. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she has included language in the proposed resolution related to the Navy cap; the $100,000 per unit cost creates difficulty in building affordable housing; the goal is to build affordable, workforce housing; increasing the developer costs means increasing the cost to the consumer; she included the language in order to keep supported language contained in one document; expressed support for striking the Navy cap language in her resolution; she would like an understanding of the document; t he cap should be changed in order to meet the RHNA allocation should a reduction not be granted by HCD. Councilmember Daysog stated there are three items: commitment to Housing Element compliance, adopting multi-family zoning and the use of vacant City-owned land; the issue of commitment to Housing Element compliance and adopting multi-family zoning are matters in and of themselves; the General Plan is not being addressed in the matter of Land Use; an element being designated in the General Plan is called Community Mixed-Use; the Community Mixed-Use land use will have 30 to 65 units per acre; it is possible for Council to not change the zoning; there are inconsistencies between the densities expressed in the General Plan and the zoning; the General Plan la nd use category takes precedence; the areas are subject to Density Bonuses, and every housing project will be subject to the Density Bonus; the discussion is richer than a simple vote of the matter and a detailed discussion is needed. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 6, 2021 15 The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated the March draft of the General Plan put recommendations forward for land use classifications; one is the shopping center land use classification referenced by Councilmember Daysog; the draft identified the types of densities and zoning necessary to get to 5,300 units; the Planning Board and a number of speakers on the draft spoke out in opposition of the plan; the speakers supported a general approach to the plan, and a decision of the necessary zoning and densities of the various land use classification areas; the decisions can be made when the Housing Element is created; staff released proposed revisions to the draft General Plan and brought the land use classifications more into sync with current conditions; staff has eliminated the language which had been recommended to the Planning Board while using the Floor Area Ration (FAR) from the existing zoning of shopping centers; staff will be providing a recommendation to Council for approval; changes can be made to the General Plan recommendation prior to being adopted in the fall; the Planning Board will be recommending the Housing Element to Council the following fall, with the necessary zoning to meet the RHNA allocation; staff has created a sequence of steps which allows Council to make decisions in a logical way. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Councilmember Daysog is recommending that the second item does not commit to adopting a Housing Element which is in compliance with State law; stated there will be dire consequences for the City as a result. Councilmember Daysog responded the issue is so complex and convoluted; there are other outstanding issues such as categories and densities to come up with in the General Plan land use section and the rules which developers can rely on to build at densities sought; the level of discussion is not currently before Council; Council should be discussing the Housing Element compliance and adopting multi -family zoning separately as a standalone discussion. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated there is a deadline for filing the RHNA appeal; the other related matters can allow for more time; questioned whether the undiscussed matters can occur at a later date. The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated staff will be p roceeding at the assumption of needing multi-family overlays as previously needed; staff is not asking Council to commit to locations or number of units; staff needs direction on definitive matters; the overall concept will return to Council in the future; staff will be bringing multi-family overlay to Council in order to adopt the Housing Element; there will be no scenario in which multi-family overlay is not adopted; staff will need one year to work through the details of the Housing Element in order to provide Council with a recommendation. Councilmember Knox White expressed concern for the staff recommendation being wishy-washy, and the recommendation from Councilmember Herrera Spencer is less clear; stated Council should not be spending time on multi -family overlays should there be no support from Council; questioned whether Council can provide staff direction; Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 6, 2021 16 expressed concern for members thinking the multi-family overlay is something specific with a set number; stated presentations have indicated the multi-family overlay can have a number of different unit sizes; he does not want staff to spin their wheels returning to Council with an unwanted recommendation; expressed support for policy direction being provided at the current and next Council meeting. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated those not supportive of the multi-family overlay zoning are for single-family residential and suburban sprawl which does not seem to be environmentally advantageous for a City concerned with sea -level rise and rising groundwater. Councilmember Daysog expressed support for multi-family overlay as currently used; stated the amount of density can never be more than 30 units per acre without factoring in Density Bonus, or 36 units per acre with Density Bonus; noted multi -family overlay does not currently allow anything bigger than the stated units; 30 units per acre is sufficient in meeting State law. The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated in order to get to 5,300 units and meet the criteria outlined by Councilmember Daysog, staff will then need to spread the multi-family overlay over much larger areas of the City; there is a benefit in being flexible with the matter; noted the multi-family overlay will need to increase above 30 units per acre should the City have 5,300 unit allocation; setting a cap of 30 units per acre now sets an unintended consequence of applying the overlay to larger areas through the City; recommended Council remain flexible on the matter and let the planning process play out; stated having 30 units per acre is viable however, the citizens may want to concentrate the units in specific locations. *** (21-458) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Councilmember Daysog is out of speaking time; questioned whether Councilmembers should be set back at nin e minutes of speaking time; noted those that have held time will not receive an increase, the time set will be at nine minutes. Councilmember Knox White moved approval of adding five minutes of speaking time to all Councilmembers. 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. *** Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft questioned whether Council wants to commit t o adopting a Housing Element in compliance with State law with the understanding that the matter will return for fine tuning at a later date. Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired the potential density for multi -family overlay should the units surpass 30 per acre. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 6, 2021 17 The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded the City needs to remain flexible; outlined a two story building having 80 units per acre with small workforce units; the units are small and affordable; noted 80 units per acre at a larger site, such as South Shore, is not necessary; 30 units at South Shore will be plenty; outlined support for projects from West Alameda Business Association; stated the unit fluctuation is a good discussion to have while planning; the appropriate num ber of units for Webster Street might not be appropriate for the South Shore area or Alameda Point; Council should let the community decide how many units to get out of the allocation at each project site location; noted massing diagrams will be provided in order to identify the density needed. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she shares the belief of units needing to be affordable by design which are smaller and command a lower price; a range of units are needed; expressed support for smaller units. Councilmember Daysog stated Council should lead by the type of community which fits in the built environment; Alameda has a homogenizing built environment; outlined Shoreline Avenue’s design; stated a uniform density exists throughout Alameda; 30 units per acre is not an arbitrary number, the number is required and eligible by State law; it is wrong to allocate 5,300 units and a regime should not be set in place which accommodates 5,300 units; the regime should accommodate 2,650 units and he suspects the current 30 units per acre will work; should Council lean on the side of being flexible, the City will be accommodating 5,300 units; expressed concern for being flexible. The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated it is premature to decide the densities; the City does not yet know the RHNA allocation due to the appeal and should not be deciding the density until the allocation is known; a year-long planning process is needed in order to make some of the recommended decisions; the one thing drivin g the issue is staff cannot afford to have disagreements at the end of the Housing Element process; should the State deadline be missed, penalties are immediately paid; Council must be convinced over the coming year that the City has a good plan to accommo date the RHNA allocation; Council is currently going beyond where is needed; a Housing Element will be adopted; judgement should be reserved for where and how high the densities should be until the numbers can be presented; should Council wish to set an absolute cap and constrain the process over the coming year, staff will work with the will of Council however, the action is not recommended. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she cannot imagine Council will vote to adopt a Housing Element which does not comply with State law; the penalties are steep for non- compliance. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she does not know the density of The Willows housing; expressed support for comparative density being shared as the process moves along; stated that she does agree with Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft’s comments Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 6, 2021 18 in providing housing units which are affordable by design; expressed concern for the price of housing at Alameda Point; she does not think the pricing supports the majority of Alamedans; many people cannot write a check for one million dollars; most of the housing at Alameda Point is worth over one million dollars; Council needs to come up with a way to build housing so people can buy property and not have to pay rent for life; the problem is serious; questioned how small a unit has to be in order to bring the price point lower; outlined the pricing for smaller homes; there is a problem with smaller units having a high price tag; the City must work with a developer that can build housing to buy for a price which is significantly under one million dollars; the City is performing gentrification; outlined turn of the century housing prices; stated that she is a long -term renter in Alameda and she cannot pay one million dollars for a home; she is interested in looking at different densities; the densities must be reflected in the price point to purchase; expressed support for being flexible; stated that she would like to strike the reference to Encinal Terminals from the document; she has yet to put her name on t he project and she might not do so; she is still negotiating the project and including Encinal Terminals is not appropriate; a plan has been approved without the swap; outlined project viability and costs per unit; she does not know how much revenue develo pers actually make on projects; a plan has been approved for Encinal Terminals, should the developer want a swap, negotiations will need to occur; any reference to Encinal Terminals in the resolution document alludes to an already Council-approved project swap. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated there is a difference between properties which require four - affirmative Council votes and properties which require three -affirmative Council votes to approve; should the City be told by the State to build housing units at either 2,650 or 5,300, the units must be placed somewhere; the City will look elsewhere if it is not able to use the Encinal Terminals site,; the question to Council is whether or not to approve vacant City-owned land. Councilmember Knox White stated that he has not heard a broad commitment for what a multi-family overlay will look like; he understands flexibility is needed; expressed concern for moving forward with a flexible multi-family overlay; he wants to be clear in his agreement with housing comments provided by Councilmember Herrera Spencer however, the housing policies being pushed including the approval to file an appeal, are the reason why housing costs are so high; the Housing Authority is spending one million dollars per unit to build housing units; 200-square foot homes can be built in Alameda however, they will not sell for $400,000; smaller units will still be extremely expensive; new houses are never cheap; Alameda is not building new houses so the costs cannot filter down the housing costs as traditionally done; the City will continue to ensure the high cost of housing should units not be built; he is lucky to own his home in Alameda and could not afford to live in Alameda in today’s rates; his goal is to try to stop the problem occurring to allow others the privilege of living in Alameda; he would like to know there is more; the voters have clearly stated the want for housing to be limited to the greatest extent possible in Alameda; voters want Council to honor the Charter; noted that he is in a difficult place should he vote to violate the Charter and ignore the community which voted; he will be honoring the voters which may cause the City to be Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 6, 2021 19 non-compliant; it is ok for the City to end up in Court; a long-term answer to the question will result; the multi-family overlay is not a magic concept to duck State allocations; staff came up with the multi-family overlay in order to sell and ignore the Charter based on State laws and calculations; the concept had been pitched to Council and was n ot fought by Councilmembers; Measure A is illegal and the multi-family overlay is a way for the City to pretend the matter is being addressed; now the City must address the matter in having a multi-family overlay which is placed at well over 30 units per a cre; the housing units will need to be everywhere; he does not feel comfortable being one of the Council votes to ignore the will of the voters; expressed support for Council votes being flexible and an understanding that the multi-family overlay will be more than 30 units per acre in some places; for encouraging staff to work on the matter; expressed concern for what will occur in six months’ time; expressed concern for proposed units on Park Street being small and over 30 units per project and non -compliant; stated that he is ok with being non-compliant should it mean the ability to be ethically aligned with the previous question posed at the election; he will not be part of a majority which rams through multi-family overlays; the full Council needs to be the adult in the room. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the discussion can be tabled for the time being due to there being no majority vote on anything. Vice Mayor Vella stated Councilmembers are City fiduciaries; one of the biggest problems with the State of California is the previous allowing of zoning via the ballot box; the result is the current housing conundrum being faced; the majority of people that turned out to vote cast the winning ballots; the resulting decisions have shown the City of Alameda does not want to comply with regulations and will limit the ability to have local control and project-by-project decision making; Council and many jurisdictions have allowed for limiting local control through different measures; Alameda is not unique in the issues being faced; outlined uniqueness arguments from cities across the state; stated many different jurisdictions have exclusionary zoning provisions or limits on amounts of density and construction types; expressed concern for Council having conflicting obligations; she would like to hear the options for Council; noted the resolution is before Council for consideration however, a decision does not have to be made at the current meeting; it is important to have a discussion about available options; she does not want to cause or push a lawsuit to be filed against the City one way or another; the elephant in the room must be addressed; expressed concern for the legacy of zoning by the ballot box which has caused current limitations. *** (21-459) Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated a vote is needed to consider new items after 11 p.m. Councilmember Knox White moved approval of hearing all of the remaining agenda items that can be heard before midnight. 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 Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 6, 2021 20 Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 4. Noes: 1. *** Vice Mayor Vella stated that she would like to hear from the City Attorney on the fiduciary obligations for Council; she agrees that an attempt at unanimity relative to the multi-family overlay is needed; expressed support for City staff providing possible approaches to the matter. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for staff providing implications of ha ving a Housing Element which is not in compliance with State law. The City Attorney stated there is no pressing deadline due to the approval of appealing the allocation; the Housing Element does not need to be certified until the end of next year; Council has time and the matter will return with updates; one option for Council is to continue the matter and allow the Planning, Building and Transportation Director to bring back new information based on the appeal process; the new information can inform the Council discussion; recommended allowing the Planning, Building and Transportation Director to perform work with the community; Council may also take a number of other actions including making commitments about allowing multi -family overlays, prioritizing City-owned land or Council may decide not to take action; staff recommends any Council direction for litigation be brought forth in Closed Session; Council has a wide range of options with a lot of time. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired when Council can anti cipate an update on the appeal process. The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded that an update on the appeal should be available by the end of the calendar year; an e -mail follow up to Council with a more definitive date will be sent in the coming days. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft outlined the timeline for the anticipated appeals schedule ; noted the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) will adopt the final RHNA plan in December. The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated staff will approach the work as a series of steps which will play out over the next nine months; staff understands roughly 1,500 units have already been approved in projects; outlined Encinal Terminals project timeline; staff plans to be back to Council in the near future for Encinal Terminals discussion and evaluation; should Council vote to approve the project, 589 units will be added to the 1,500 already approved units; staff plans to come before Council in September for a project at Alameda Point to gain a better understanding of the allowable units for the space; by the end of the year, staff will know how many units to anticipate between Encinal Terminals, Alameda Point and others; staff will know the final RHNA allocation by the end of the year an d will be able to determine the gap to fill with the multi-family overlay; staff will then be able to get into specifics with Council; noted updates on locations for multi-family overlays and densities will be provided; updates on overlays and density will be difficult to provide until the final RHNA allocation Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 6, 2021 21 is provided; staff anticipates a series of meetings with Council over the following nine months; the process allows staff to keep moving and informing Council; emphasized the need for smoothness at the end of the process. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Measure Z ballot measure elections results have been a resounding no; the campaign was not well-run and educating voters was not adequately performed; expressed support for an informative public proce ss; Council decided late in the game to place the measure on the ballot; answers to public questions were not given enough of a chance; the City fell short in communicating and now has a second chance at bringing the public along; Council cannot pretend as though there is no housing crisis; Council must solve housing problems realistically; expressed support for Council providing clear direction on what to include in the returning report; questioned the matters which Council would like addressed. Councilmember Daysog stated that he will need to know the final RHNA allocation before he signs off on the Housing Element and multi-family zoning strategies; he will need to determine whether or not the allocation is fair to the island; the public and Council will need a thorough analysis regarding densities of new General Plan land use categories and the relationship to multi-family overlays; he will find it difficult to support any kind of Housing Element or zoning overlay change should there be no reduction in the RHNA allocation; the City is unique and is one of two California islands; the City cannot support any allocation near the 5,300 units; he will put out more of his thoughts between now and the returning report. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Councilmember Daysog prefers the matter not return to Council until after the November or December determination of the RHNA allocation, to which Councilmember Daysog responded in the affirmative. Vice Mayor Vella stated it makes sense to wait until the fin al RHNA allocation is provided; there are a number of questions that will need to be answered by Council; the anticipated response will not be in agreement to the appeal, and larger Council decisions will need to be made; a decision will need to be made fo r multi-family overlays and densities; other cities are grappling with similar matters; noted the City of Berkeley is also looking at exclusionary housing provisions and the resulting impacts; a robust conversation with the public needs to occur; the matter can be confusing and the density should be visualized; there are many high opportunity neighborhoods in Alameda; expressed support for the decision of the Housing Element being centered on Council priorities which address housing needs and equity; she will approach discussions on the topic from the lens of equity; expressed support for a Housing Element which is compliant. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification on the repercussions of a non -compliant Housing Element. The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated should the City miss the deadline for submitting a compliant Housing Element, the City will automatically and Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 6, 2021 22 immediately be cut-off from a range of State funding sources; the funding applies to transportation, open space, affordable housing and homeless project money; the City relies on all the related funding which could be cut-off. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired the due date, to which the Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded January 2023. The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated that he would like to come back to Council in the fall with projects related to the Housing Element; the projects may be voted up or down; staff will be clear and inform Council of the projects in relation to the Housing Element; the General Plan will be coming to Council in the fall; noted the General Plan is designed to support a Housing Element however, the General Plan does not predetermine the RHNA allocation; stated the General Plan represents the coming 20 years; noted three Housing Elements will occur in the General Plan time frame; the General Plan will allow decisions for multi -family overlay and densities; by the end of the fall, staff will find out the RHNA allocation; he will continue to work with the Planning Board and the community on the multi-family overlays and will return to Council for a study session style update report on the final RHNA allocation plans; the report will come to Council between January and February providing time to continue working; Council may provide feedback and fine tuning on the plan but will not need to make a final determination. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for workshops taking place in different parts of the City with access for all and for conducting walking tours; noted the matter will return in the future. (21-460) Recommendation to Authorize the Chief of Police to Update the Existing Alameda Police Department Policy Manual to be Current with Existing Best Practices and Statutory Requirements. Not heard. (21-461) Introduction of Ordinance Approving a Third Amendment to the Greenway Golf Lease Agreement for Operation of the Corica Park Golf Complex. Introduced; and (21-461 A) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute the Third Amendment to the Jim’s on the Course Concession Agreement for Food and Beverage Services at the Corica Park Golf Complex. The Recreation and Parks Director gave a brief presentation. Councilmember Daysog expressed concern for the reference to open-ended restaurants; stated Council should consider language which places parameters ensuring Council will always have the final say on restaurant numbers; expressed support for the language to state “14. Reservation of City Rights: The additional uses potentially contemplated by this Third Amendment, including but not limited to snack shacks, take-out Food and Beverage Service facilities, new Golf Complex restaurants, and event center facilities, are each subject to future City review and approvals both in Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 6, 2021 23 its regulatory and proprietary capacities. This Third Amendment shall not be construed to limit the City’s future discretion to approve, conditionally approve, or deny such uses;” stated the language indicates Council will review items as they arise. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the language is to be included in the settlement agreement. Councilmember Daysog responded the language will be inserted as section 14. The City Attorney stated Councilmember Daysog is recommending an additional provision to the third amendment to Greenway Golf lease. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the recommended language has been discussed with Greenway Golf, to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Herrera Spencer requested clarification on the claim against the City from Greenway Golf; stated that she would like to know the monetary risk to those named in the claim. The City Attorney stated the claim in a nutshell states that Greenway Golf has alleged Jim’s on the Course has breached its obligations to build an event center, and that the City has been complicit in the breach with Greenway Golf and has incurred damages in the range of tens of millions of dollars. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the amount of the claim is tens of millions of dollars; inquired whether Jim’s on the Course has filed a claim against the City of Alameda, to which the City Attorney responded in the negative. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the response has confirmed that Greenway Golf has filed a claim for tens of millions of dollars against the City and Jims on the Course; noted Jims on the Course has not filed a claim against the City. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired the proposed location of the referenced restaurant at the golf course. The Recreation and Parks Director responded the location has yet to be determined; stated there are a number of City requirements to be worked through on Greenway Golf’s part, including Gold Commission, Planning Board and City Council. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the event center tent could be sold at a reasonable price; stated there is a rent structure which allows the $315,000 losses to be whole again; she wants to be fair however, she does not want the City to be providing financial windfall. The Recreation and Parks Director responded sale of the tent has been attempted; stated the pandemic has created additional issues; she is confident Mr. Tom Geanekos Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 6, 2021 24 will continue attempting to sell the tent; Mr. Geanekos might not be able to recoup the costs. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired what will happen should the costs be able to be recovered. The Chief Assistant City Attorney responded Council may request staff to draft a provision to stagger the rent recovery provision outlined in option B should Jims on the Course be able to sell back the event tent. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft expressed support for a provision to stagger rent recovery. Expressed support for the third amendment; stated that he is excited to continue partnering with the City to improve the golf course; city staff, Jim’s on the Course and Greenway Golf have worked hard to find a path forward that works for all parties; he and Mr. Geanekos are committed to working together in a manner which is mutually beneficial and in turn, benefits the City; having more f ood and beverage options at the course will bring more patrons thus increasing business for both Greenway Golf and Jim’s on the Course; having expanded offerings will provide an opportunity to bring in other Alameda food vendors during tournaments; the ame ndment will allow Greenway Golf to bring larger tournaments to Corica Park; outlined a ranking of 12th best course provided by Golf Magazine; discussed the annual golf tournament; stated having more choices at Corica Park will enable the annual tournament to come home to the City’s golf course; discussed letters of support; stated that he hopes the amendment will allow Greenway Golf to host bigger tournaments in the coming years; urged Council support the amendment: Umesh Patel, Greenway Golf. Discussed operations of locations; stated many first job opportunities are provided at Jim’s; the golf course has undergone many transformations since 2006 and the only stable factor has been Jim’s on the Course; prior to 2006, a food and beverage cart provided limited service to golfers only; he has since invested large sums of money to improve kitchen facilities and dining areas; the full service restaurant can serve hundreds of customers per day; the revenues paid to the City since 2006 have quadrupled to roughly $100,000 per year; Jim’s has been a stable revenue stream to the City with zero City investment; Jim’s has done everything in its power to fulfil contractual obligations to the City related to the events center; the City, Greenway Golf and Jim’s have come to an agreement to bring closure to the matter; Jim’s has agreed to relinquish a portion of the food and beverage exclusivity in exchange for contractual stability and needed rent relief; urged Council bring the chapter to a final closure, and vote for option B; discussed the event tent structure: Tom Geanekos, Jim’s on the Course. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft outlined the matter; stated the Golf Commission had unanimously supported option B. Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of accepting option B for both Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 6, 2021 25 Greenway Golf and Jim’s on the Course. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the amendment will include the language he recommended. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she is happy to accept the language as a friendly amendment. In response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft’s inquiry, the City Attorney stated Council may approve the language as part of the motion; both parties may verbally agree that the language is acceptable in order to implement. Councilmember Daysog seconded the amended motion. Under discussion, Councilmember Herrera Spencer outlined the settlement agreement; requested clarification for the vote on the settlement agreement. The City Attorney stated the report out included a 3-2 vote, with Councilmember Knox White, Vice Mayor Vella and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft voting yes, and Councilmembers Daysog and Herrera Spencer voting no. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she had been on Council in 2016 when the concession agreement had been made with Jim’s on the Course; noted there ha d been debate on providing exclusivity to Jim’s; outlined Jim’s right of first refusal; stated that she is disappointed that Greenway Golf has filed a claim against the City, naming Councilmembers as well as Jim’s on the Course; filing the claim is poor form; the land is City property, is a park and is not private property; the City needs tenants which can work together amicably; outlined the risks involved with Jim’s on the Course; stated support for the restaurant and long-term tenants are good for the City; she feels as though she does not have a choice in the matter; expressed support for an operator that is focused on golfing; stated Greenway Golf is not set up to be a restauranteur; she hopes for a golf course operator that is willing to honor working together with Jim’s on the Course; expressed support for the motion; expressed concern for Greenway Golf as an operator; stated that she will be looking at Greenway Golf closely moving forward; she has heard complaints about the golf course; it is importan t that both parties be held to honor the original agreement as much as possible; she expects the operator to be good within the community. On the call for the questions, 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. CONSENT CALENDAR (CONTINUED) (21-462) Recommendation to Approve Amended Employment Agreement for the City Attorney. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 6, 2021 26 Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated public comment has raised the issue of whether or not the contract is similar to other City staff; her understanding is that the contract is similar; requested clarification for the contract details. The Human Resources Director stated the provisions in the City Attorney’s contract allow for employees to cash out vacation, up to two weeks, after being with the City for 15 years; not all employees have the provision; the provision is negotiated; vacation accruals are different based on years of service; the accruals allo wed are higher than other City employees however, the amount is nothing higher than seen at other organizations. Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether any other City employees have the same level of vacation cash-out. The Human Resources Director responded other employees have the 80 hours of cash - out option after 15 years of service. Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of the employment agreement. 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. (21-463) Adoption of Resolution Amending Resolution Nos. 15728 and 15739 Amending the 2021 Regular City Council Meeting Dates. [Continued to 7/20 at 6:59 p.m.] The City Clerk gave a brief presentation. Councilmember Knox White stated moving the dates back would be problematic; expressed support for the September meeting dates being the 8th and the 22nd. Mayor Ezzy Aschraft requested clarification on selecting certain religious holidays to re- schedule. The City Attorney stated Council has a wide range of discretion on when to meet; should Council choose to meet, the reasons would not be due to favoring one religion over another. Councilmember Knox White stated no meetings are scheduled for December 25th which is a Christian holiday; Council can make a determination that meetings can be moved based on conflicts for a large portion of the community; expressed support for not moving the Council meeting dates back; stated that he would like the dates to be September 8th and 22nd to ensure no conflict. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 6, 2021 27 Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she has an issue with the September 22 nd meeting date; the date is posed for a League of California Cities conference in Sacramento and she plans to attend; noted September 14th is not a holiday; expressed support for the meeting dates being September 1st and 14th. Vice Mayor Vella stated that she has a work commitment on September 14th; schedules are created far in advance due to meeting dates; inquired whether there has been an instance where Christmas has landed on a scheduled Council meeting. The City Clerk responded in the negative; stated the date is a holiday where City Hall is closed and meetings would not be scheduled. Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the current September meeting dates are the 1st and the 15th. The City Clerk responded in the affirmative; stated the dates had been adopted in January; noted the proposed dates revert back to the original meeting schedule; stated a Transportation Commission meeting is scheduled for September 22nd. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that her preference is to keep the dates already voted on by Council which would be September 1st and 15th. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she has trouble selecting one religion to move Council meetings for; a survey should be provided through the Social Services Human Relations Board (SSHRB); there are many different dates which are important to different religious groups; Council should not favor one religion over another; expressed support for sticking to the regular schedule of the 1st and 3rd Tuesday of each month; SSHRB is likely the most appropriate Board for the matter. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of continuing the matter to July 20, 2021 at 6:59 p.m. 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. CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS Not heard. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA Not heard. COUNCIL REFERRALS Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 6, 2021 28 (21-464) Consider Adoption of Resolution Supporting the Goal of Reaching 100% Zero Emission Vehicle Sales in California by 2030. (Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft) Not heard. (21-465) Considering Having an Introduction and Update from the New Police Chief regarding Strategies to Address Crimes. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard. (21-466) Considering Directing Staff to Provide an Update on License Plate Readers. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard. (21-467) Consider Directing Staff to Publicly Share Information on Parking Recreational Vehicles. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard. (21-468) Consider Directing Staff to Address Representation for Below Market Rate Homeowners on Homeowner Association (HOA) Boards and with Property Management. (Councilmember Herrera Spencer) Not heard. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS Not heard. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 12:01 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.